sirhcttsarp
"Which is why anyway you cut it, CX is discriminating, getting away with it, and laughing to the bank."
The problem with using a word like "discriminating" is that it comes with a lot of baggage. CX is discriminating against whom; what group?
We have had the argument they discriminate against those of Chinese origin; yet we have pilots of Chinese origin on expat terms.
We have had the argument they have discriminate against those with HKIDs; yet we have pilots who joined with HKIDs who are on expat terms.
We now have an argument they are discriminating against employees who get scholarships; yet these people are generally not chinese and not HKID holders.
It would seem that anyone joining in the future as a DESO will be a CEP (irrespective of their experience level). So where does that leave the discrimination label?
Perhaps it is just market forces. They access your circumstances and pitch a contract at you. You accept it or decline it. If you accept it; deal with it.
I shall leave you with anecdote from a few years back. One of the most senior extendees was recounting to me a conversation he had just had with NR. In that conversation Nick had confirmed it was inevitable that CX would get RA65, however Nick was not going to have over 60's in HK on expat terms. Nick felt that by age 60 the company had paid for enough housing and education for that individual and if the he didn't like it, the guy had seniority to go on base. The extendee was livid; he had not lived in his "home" country for decades, his wife was settled in HK and his school age children considered HK their home. How would you label this case?
a. Blatant age discrimination;
b. Nick has a point, the company has paid enough. How many houses, wives and kids must they fund.
c. The guys home is now HK; he is no longer an expat.
Food for thought??