eTraing - as per most on this thread, read & completely comprehend before activating foot-in-mouth. To deny rental prices have trended nothing but up in HK over the recent history and will do so in the future is just dumb in the face of all the evidence & data. Same with you, refer to the Mark Twain Quote.
Voice - you have obviously shown your "company man" approach to this issue. You are tainted by your cadetship background as a HK National: coming from zero experience (correct me if I'm wrong) & without receiving a housing package. Hence you defend the slap-in-the-face increase & CEP in general. You use your history & background as the basis to argue. Likewise, I use mine as I have freely admitted many times.
Now, I fully admit that none of my other benefits are linked in any way to the CPI or any other COLA index or similar. But then, I don't see very many other companies, let alone airlines, actually have a pay which varies according to cost of living.
Really? That unknown company is called "CATHAY PACIFIC" and you will find it in the "Accommodation & Rental Assistance Policy" paragraph 4.4. You are playing semantics. The rent one pays is a direct impact on one's "cost of living", so call a spade a spade, and not a "digging tool" to try to smooch more company-man points.
To make assumptions based on some back-of-a-fag packet calculations using stats and figures you selectively include to make your point reeks of bloody-mindedness and over-simplicity. Of course you can have an idea of what the package is worth RIGHT NOW. I assume you would also factor in CPI in any other pay offers too, therefore reducing it's worth in the future? To not do so would surely be misleading?
a) I do not ever consider myself using the back of fags as you eloquently put. (I just thought it fun to play with semantics, as you choose to).
b) The figures I used & you ridicule are based on the exact same figures you have & also provided. The variables of time frame & percentage change in the rental market costs I also freely admitted to be a loose ball-park figure. You claim it impossible to look into the future to try to predict financial affects. That is your choice to throw your head in the sand. But to not look into financial histories and futures based on that history, the present market climate as well as a resultant future prediction is just stupid. I though more of you than to argue from such an irrational point.
c) Of course I would factor CPI into any other pay offers. I do not invest in share portfolios in Zimbabwe because of the out of control inflation. Ooops! Am I trying to mindlessly predict the future based on the very recent past, present & future? How silly of me! Am I misleading myself for using some minimal research & appreciation of the financial climate in Zimbabwe? Come on feller - get a grip and be honest with yourself.
You obviously seem to believe that CX management are great guys & wish to bank on them improving remuneration instead of actively seeking ways to drive them down. Have you read Warham's book? He could not of written what he did if they were not completely true for fear of litigation. But for incredibly hard fought efforts & threats of CC to just keep base salaries in line with CPI, you seem to think CX management will just do this out of a matter of course from time to time?? 404Titan's words should ring home - unless you also decide to ignore those facts or taint them by some other means.
denigrate CX's standards
Eh? I merely commented on CX's reduction of FFS training for (CEP) SO's that has reduced from 12 to now only 6 as I understand it. What other airlines do was never bought into comment. My point is that CX has lowered it standards in recruitment & training for nothing but GREED. So, are 12 x FFS better than 6 for training a kid with nothing but a fresh CPL? Are 12 FFS's more expensive that just 6? Again Voice, you need to get real about what your airline is doing & not seek back-slapping justification of "but at other airlines...". Saying that "at other airlines" they do this or that
does not negate the fact that CX's own standards have been reduced. Again - wake up!
And there we have it - we finally get to the core of the issue. You are personally upset that the goalposts have changed. CX has widened the net to attract more people into the industry, and you are saddened because you are no longer one of the "privileged few" (I use that term loosely, so don't go overboard in criticising me for it) who gets invited for a DESO interview.
No mate - you understate the movement of the goalposts. They have been made so wide that a blind person in a wheelchair facing the wrong direction could kick a goal and feel "entitled" to do so. And you think that makes a person "privileged"! It took experience, knowledge, study & discipline to kick the goals in the former game that was being played. Previous to this discussion, I thought more of you. I thought you could argue with substance. I over estimated you. My time in GA was nothing special but for teaching respect for the industry and fellow pilots. And I will go to town on you for the term you used. The likes of you feel that the efforts other guys went through to get where we wanted to be is worthless. You think we deemed ourselves as "the privileged few". No. We deem ourselves as EARNING the privilege to join and contribute to aviation. Nowadays those with the experience that CX used to attract rarely apply and in fact turn CX down. There is a reason for that if you would only choose to open your damn eyes. Are you trying to tell me that if pilots with the experience that used to make them competitive for a DESO job applied today that these kids with zero hours, zero credentials & zero experience could compete? There is a reason they are being interviewed. They are the result of those with experience, credentials & hours not applying or taking the job. They are the CHEAPEST OPTION, not the best candidates in the market. These kids are the product of lower standards in recruitment born by an insulting remuneration package to those who know what airline pilots are worth. They are what's left from others turning it down or not applying.
Can you seriously blame the guys going for it?
Yes. Generally speaking they detract from the industry, not contribute to it by this entry means.
If it's no longer as tiresomely difficult to get in, how, again, is that your problem?
Let me replace "tiresomely difficult" to what those of us who once sat CX on a pedestal as "privileged to be considered". My problem? With your polarised view of CX's greatness, you refuse to see a bigger picture. You don't think other airlines see CX for what it was & what they are doing now? Personally I've had many cockpit conversations as well as layover bar chats with other pilots about CX's massive backward steps. And before you try, no:- not all conversations were started by me. Some of the most outspoken have been CX crews themselves. It is the problem of all airline pilots when they see their job and career spat on by greed and ignorance from airline management as well as new joiners alike. You on the other hand prefer to sit pretty & defend it, because in your eyes YOU are better off (naively so), despite the long term airline and industry effects of this behaviour.
What you were saying, however (or at least how it seemed) was that the entry level standard of cadets has been lowered. I dispute this wholeheartedly.
You're so very wrong. The ONLY avenue for ANY applicant to CX is via the CEP. A kid with zero hours is a cadet as is an applicant with 10,000 hrs as PIC of widebody jets. So by CX's deliberate default of course the entry level standards have been lowered!! Put your money where your mouth is. Let's put the average iCadet interviewee in the 747 Classic sim and get them to perform the entire sequence on raw data, taking off from Kai Tak, tracking outbound via the backcourse, climbing/descending turns onto VOR & ADF radials & bearings, engine failures and raw data ILS to go-around, then land. If standards have not been lowered, then what's the problem? That was the minimum standards "we privileged few" had to deal with as opposed to "What do your parents think about you becoming a pilot?" Still dispute this wholeheartedly bearing in mind that ALL new joiners to CX are "cadets" now??
You seem to be both attacking those who are making the offer (CX) and those who choose to accept it.
Yes. What's your point? Greedy & immoral management as well as those condoning it by acceptance.
This is a business transaction defined by market economics.
What a defeatist load of BS. How did CX management by the likes of TT and now
JS or that chief pilot sell-out RH adapt their own salary packages by market economics? They cut new joiner remuneration & as a result receive massive bonuses. That is not market economics. That is sheer and unadulterated GREED. CX's record profits came prior to the CEP taking any form of affect to their bottom line. Again, remove your head from management's sand pit.
They make the choice they feel is right for them. It is egotistical in the extreme for you to assume that you know their needs/wants better than they do.
As the overwhelming evidence proves, nearly every CEP hopeful on this thread shows little to NO knowledge of the job they seek, nor has the minimal desire to read about it first, let alone seek first hand clarification from the source. The right choice for them is, by admittance recently, due a feeling of "entitlement" or that other paths are "too hard" despite never even trying. You personally condone this because you personally came from the CX HK National cadet scheme. I have NEVER mentioned or laid claim to know what is better for them. I KNOW what is better for the industry or what will make them better pilots, or even pilots with some iota of credibility.