John Barnes,
You may remember on 17 Dec 2002 1822hrs you posted:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...142#post718142
Quote
I am at the point, with three basechecks to go, that I don't give a F*** if they fire me or not.
Unquote
From your own words, as of 17 Dec 2002, you had 3 basechecks left. Even if your next basecheck was the very next day on 18 Dec, with 2 to go you would be current until mid 2004. Which is why I thought you would leave then.
Now you say that you will retire in Nov 2003. If true, it would seem that SIA has been generous in scheduling basechecks for you.
Thank you for correcting my mistake and for more information about yourself.
B Swan:
Welcome to PPRuNe; starting off your first post with a bang and much punctuation all can see. I hope you are not "tired and emotional". Allow me to respond to each point in turn.
1. OBS pilots were recruited when SQ was expanding too fast for the training department to handle. It saves the company cost as compare to employing a Sin-base expatriate.
OBS pilots as well as ANY direct entry captains are recruited simply because we cannot produce enough captains. Yes, they are cheaper than SIN-based expats, as well as senior locals (I'll come to that later).
2. OBS pilots should be well aware ( if not, they are in denial ) that they are seconded/leased/contracted workers. Meaning that they are there only when there is a demand and let off when there are surplus.
What about the direct-entry pilots on local terms (ex-MAS etc) who were hired at the time the OBS was started? Were they hired not because of "demand" (as you say) also? So if there is a surplus, should they also not be counted together with the OBS pilots? So why merely single out the OBS pilots and conveniently forget the direct-entry locals?
3. To simply state that the moment the President of ALPAS earns more than one ( most junior probably ) OBS pilot, makes the arguement of dispensing the later invalid, is trying to ' pull wool over the eyes '.
This is to drive home the point that it is not a clear cut situation of wanting to remove costly expats, more well paid than ANY local, which would then not have raised such a stink if it were so. And BTW, he does earn more than merely ONE OBS pilot.
4. The suggestion of retrenchment along the lines of salary is a ' no brainer '. Imaging how an airline would be when the senior ( bigger salary ) ones get retrench everytime there is surplus and only the less experience ( lower cost ) left to man the planes !
Please show me some airlines which have a separate payscale for "senior" line pilots, without other duties such as training or management . If SIA or ALPA-S thought it necessary to create such a category to reward them for their valuable "experience" it would have done so. Please show concrete evidence to show that such experienced pilots either boost bottom line figures or at least contribute measurably to flight safety. From SIA's viewpoint, once you are qualified for solo operations, it means you can do your job safely enough, just as the most senior line pilot is safe enough. Like I have said before in another post, pilots retire, the airline chugs on. No big deal. And BTW, I did say categorise them by appointment and then salary, ie line captains one group, instructors one group etc. In other words, by merit and then by pay. Not simply by pay alone.
5. A couple of years ago, when ALPAS was negotiating for a better CA, the OBS pilots without hesitation chose to accept the company's offer, collected the pay increase and even boast about it to the Sin-based pilots. And now, it should be ' fair and equal pain ' ???
If your OBS colleague decides for himself what he wants to accept, quickly enough, why begrudge that reality? If someone rubbed your nose in it, well, it wasn't me. What is your point? It is ALPA-S who wants them booted out, so how can that be, as you say, "fair and equal pain"?
6. SQ salary is nowhere near CX's. Compare ones of the same position, experience, seniority and such. Lets compare apples with apples. To criticise someone of ' reading without thinking ' reflects back on themselves. The fact remains that it's incorrect reporting ! What a different world it would be, if we taint the news to what we want !!! DENIAL !!!! ( If Thermal is in the hot-seat of an airliner and ' read with thinking ' his way, what would become of the policy and procedure...... especially with a company that employs so many nationalities )
Aiya, back to this issue, if you read the offending paragraph but with the HKD in place, then it make sense. As to where she got the numbers from, the basis of comparison etc why not just wait for her to issue a clarification as to what she really meant? To base an entire page of argument on speculation as to what she meant to say is a waste of my time.
And to think that anyone with basic reading and arithmetic ability could conclude that $10,000-$19,500 a month, annualised, suddenly adds up to more than $800,000 (without the HKD) is, well, insulting to that person. Don't claim that you are upset because you think that the public could be misled by such numbers. Could it be that you are upset because you are already defensive that the same people feel that you earn too much in the first place? Otherwise why get all hot and bothered about a mistake like that? It's not going to kill anyone.
It's a free market out there. If someone wants to work the same job as you for more hours and less money, then too bad if you feel threatened. It must be because you have something to lose. Are you not able to be better than them by adding more value (that SIA can acknowledge) to your work? That'd be much more constructive than wanting to sack them.