Flight: my references and choice of words are directly & unashamedly aimed at the likes of this kid "whatever" who asks for facts, for advice & information, who does not do any research of his own and ridicules the information he has received. It is his type who (as he says) feels "entitled" to an airline career such as CX, and that other means are just "too hard".
That's whom I refer to.
I have swapped numerous PM's with those wanting information about the CEP and from my experience & from my point of view. They have the courtesy and professionalism to have a difference of opinion and support it outside of shear selfish "I feel entitled to it" character traits. Respect is earned, not taken via a cheap & nasty means that lowers the industry they seek to be a part of. Those with the professional backbone to research the facts, listen to both sides of the argument have far more spine than the likes of "whatever" and co.
My words are also aimed at those who deny the undeniable and willfully, knowingly and happily contribute to the lowering of terms & conditions not only at CX but as such are a detriment to aviation (airlines) in general. The selectively choose one side of an arguement unable to offer one miniscule of logic reasoning or based on facts.
CX seek to save a buck at the expense of standards, training and therefore safety. That has been proven. Name another reason for reducing training systems and skill training, especially for those who need it most.
Businesses have every right to look for ways to be more productive. But they have no moral right to do so at the expense of standards that directly affect safety: such as RP's, FDTL's, training systems, recruitment, competent rest facilities, etc, etc.