View Full Version : fo/fo's sacked?
Does anyone know what happened to the two senior fo's that were living together, did one get sacked or both? One male and one female?
(fairly recently)
cadence
3rd Dec 2006, 10:23
From which company?
Cpt. Underpants
3rd Dec 2006, 10:32
...and why do you want to know?
From cx.
Strange question, underpants. This is not a case of "schade freude", just heard a rumor and want to confirm it.
Alpine Pilot
4th Dec 2006, 03:35
oasis: "schadenfreude" not schade freude
enschuldigung! I stand corrected....
So this was just a rumor then?
Alpine Pilot
4th Dec 2006, 05:40
entschuldigung! very good. why do you speak german?
no I don´t think it was a rumor. with sacked I´m not sure, I think they are not sure.
BUT I heard they have to pay back the full amount of the housing assitance.
My german is terrible, I wouldn't last long at Lufthansa!
I hope the fo's can pay the difference back and keep their job.
cheers,
Oasis
Numero Crunchero
4th Dec 2006, 18:24
I cannot confirm but I have heard they have been sacked and are under appeal.
What I find annoying is that CX taxes housing allowance to stick to the strict letter of the law. This couple, and many others, have also stuck to the strict letter of the law....and they get fired!? There is consistency for you!
I hope the AOA gets involved with this to protect them....
I wonder how many others are considered "in breach" of these housing rules.
Maybe i am too... you would hope that cx gave them the benefit of the doubt and gave them a warning before the cull?
I think they were members, but not sure, AOA should be able to do something...
Yea, what consistency, but maybe they wanted to "set an example", they love to treat us like little British schoolboys.
It's a shame too that there seems to be no way find out if someone in cx is leaving or retiring anymore (I think it used to say this in the old crews news, the one you could write to cx with questions), except through the old rumour mill.
Whine whine, love it or leave it bla,bla i know.
cx sux sometimes
HotDog
4th Dec 2006, 23:47
Rorting the housing allowance is not new and has resulted in the sacking of at least one captain before.
I've just flown with friends of the sacked FO's
They were warned around a year ago through a letter to all crew from the GMA regarding this exact situation "not being acceptable and any person doing it could face the sack" ( or words to those effect ). They chose to ignore it saying "it doesn't effect us"
They lived together and had a family together.( as proved by a private investigator the company hired )
I believe the male FO rented a place which CX paid for, in which they all lived.
The female bought a place which CX paid the mortgage on, then they rented it out. tripple dipping it seems?
I feel really sorry for them being sacked, maybe a bit harsh? They could have paid the money back as in another case earlier.
But they were warned by the GMA and their friends but chose to keep there heads in the sand.
I hope they get atleast one job back on appeal.
Good luck to them
Cheers.
SOUTHPAC
5th Dec 2006, 01:26
Actually ACMS your information is completely incorrect and really you should think twice and check your facts before posting such accusations.
Obviously your F/O friend is not a friend of theirs!
I've flown with 3 guys that know both ST and JR quite well. All 3 FO's had the same story on different days. If I'm wrong ( and I hope I am ) then please point out exactly where?
They were living together and BOTH getting rent or mortgage assistance which is not allowed.
As I said I hope they both or at least one get their jobs back.
I also read the letter from the GMA quite a while ago, it seemed quite clear to me at the time.
So what's the real story then ay?
SOUTHPAC
5th Dec 2006, 01:57
I dont think its in there best interests at the moment, sorry
Fair enough.
Good luck to them.
Traffic
5th Dec 2006, 10:41
Yes Hotdog..Doug his own grave.
Five Green
5th Dec 2006, 10:45
Double dipping only because the company cannot stand a couple making out well off of housing. They are not doing anything unfair. They are both collecting what every other pilot gets. Only difference is that they live in the same house. Why should they not both be entitled to housing ? Is it not part of our COS ? Why should they be elligible for it while dating but not once married ?
An arbitrary unfair policy IMHO.
Alpine Pilot
5th Dec 2006, 11:55
thats actually a good point, five green!
hog tied
5th Dec 2006, 23:52
Double dipping only because the company cannot stand a couple making out well off of housing. They are not doing anything unfair. They are both collecting what every other pilot gets. Only difference is that they live in the same house. Why should they not both be entitled to housing ? Is it not part of our COS ? Why should they be elligible for it while dating but not once married ?
An arbitrary unfair policy IMHO.
I agree... although I believe they weren't even married...
Lets get them on the same fleet, roster them together and force them to share accommodation down route! And whilst we are at it, they could share laundry allowance as well. Could up load less bedding for the bunk too, its all win win for the company, they should be encouraging it not punishing?
Colonel W E Kurtz
6th Dec 2006, 01:24
Five Green said 'They are both collecting what every other pilot gets.'
The four hundred Locally Employed Pilots at Cathay Pacific Airways on a Hong Kong Base receive $0 Housing Allowance.
So what you said is not true.
The Locally Employed pilots do exactly the same job as the Expat Pliots, so they are working to pay the Housing Allowance of Expat Pilots.
To complain about paying tax on housing, or not being able to fiddle the system when the rules are clear is a bit rich if you ask me.:ugh:
Cpt. Underpants
6th Dec 2006, 02:01
The four hundred Locally Employed Pilots at Cathay Pacific Airways on a Hong Kong Base receive $0 Housing Allowance
Not true. On reaching CN rank, all LEP's receive a housing allowance (as senior managers in the comapany, everyone, irrespective of CoS, receives this allowance.)
Colonel W E Kurtz
6th Dec 2006, 02:05
Not true.
This is not a Housing Allowance, but a Special Allowance.
And it is only 24k, less than a year 3 S/O receives.:=
The Local Pilots don't get a housing allowance because....................................................t hey are local Pilots
I don't get a housing allowance on a base either. Nor do I get travel allowance( and a lot of HKG expats don't get that either ), 13th month, Priority 4 FOC's etc etc. Because I'm not an expat living in HKG.
Not really a hard thing to come to grips with.
The Local Captains get 24,000 month, which is extra money on top of their salary, call it what ever you like.
The Locally Employed pilots do exactly the same job as the Expat Pliots, so they are working to pay the Housing Allowance of Expat Pilots.
what????????????
Five Green
6th Dec 2006, 06:28
Col.:
You are right to be upset but do not take it out on fellow pilots. Put the blame where it belongs....on the company.
Also do not try and justify one wrong by holding up another.
FG
Numero Crunchero
6th Dec 2006, 06:50
I remember reading a newsletter Nigel put out called Remuneration and Benefits back in 2000/1. Basically there wasnt a pilot in the company that isn't hard done by. There is nothing to be gained from attacking each other.
What I find annoying about this housing issue is that they were a de facto couple..I believe they had kid/s? Yet try getting benefits for a de facto spouse with CX...CANNOT! So how is it rorting the system if two unmarried individuals live together and collect 2 lots of allowances. Maybe we should ban pilots getting involved with other pilots...or anyone else in HKG that gets any sort of housing benefit...or travel benefit...or medical benefits.
Now if they were truly renting out the 2nd place...well, that was stupid. I hope they weren't...both good people and would be a shame for them to have to leave becuase of of managements arbitrary interpretation of rules!
SOUTHPAC
6th Dec 2006, 07:24
They were definately not renting out a place that CX was funding, that has not even been suggested by management.
He was renting ( ie not making a cent ) and she had a mortgage on another place which whilst pregnant was staying with him
Question - How many of you have stayed with mates ect whilst having your new pad reno'd- thats what they were both fired for
I can see this can be a nice topic of discussion for the next flight forum.
Watch those sparks fly!!!
SOUTHPAC
6th Dec 2006, 08:36
You might also be interested to know she was fired on her FIRST day back at work after maternity leave!!!! interesting hey
Mr. Bloggs
6th Dec 2006, 09:13
managements arbitrary interpretation of rules
That is their “Right to Manage”. One day this interpretation, next day that interpretation. Just depends on how it works for them on the day.
Unfortunately, the two pilots are been made examples.
Just demonstrates that Cathay Pacific Airways preferred method of discipline is “Termination”. Termination is justified from “throwing peanuts” to “working to rule”.
Why do we have Discipline and Grievance procedure? It is rarely used. Was it used in this case?
Just a reminder, giving up a job in your home country for Cathay Pacific Airways can end at any moment.
CruisingSpeed
7th Dec 2006, 08:38
Another very nasty chapter unfortunately and tragic for the young family, I wish them all the best and hope they will be able to sort out the mess.
A nightmare for the individuals, but also very bad for the company reputation. The disgusting behaviour displayed by the managers involved is in total contradiction to the companies stated aspiration to be “the most admired airline in the world” and just serves to continually let down and disillusion its workforce, not exactly what you’d want to be exposed to for a lifelong career. Wonder if it will EVER change. :yuk:
Point above well made, that’s why Cathay pays above industry average.
(It is what you call a health, career and morale risk premium)
SOUTHPAC
7th Dec 2006, 10:37
Word around Flight Ops is a certain GM is ducking for cover over this one!!
Five Green
7th Dec 2006, 13:41
Are we really paying that much above industry standard anymore ?
FG
CruisingSpeed
7th Dec 2006, 19:17
CX salary is a good industry average, and somewhat better than what I earn now, but I guess there are other considerations not so easily quantifiable…
I now have considerably less cost than I had in Hong Kong.
I fly more, i.e. landings per DAY than the average CX pilot gets in a whole month.
I fly the airplane I actually enjoy flying on an everyday basis.
I fly daytime only on a stable roster and I am home most nights which means I feel good in my free time.
I am secure from being subjected to arbitrary bullying by my employer and I no longer have to tolerate this happening to my friends and peers.
I actually like and respect my managers, as they lead and motivate by example.
I enjoy turning up for work, being myself and having a good day with my colleagues.
I feel although my airline has its own acute problems that I am a valued part of a more holistic organisation which fosters rather than represses team spirit, a big problem for me in Hong Kong.
All non monetary rewards and perhaps non-essential to some out for a widebody job and a big paycheck, but part of my personal equation.
To the little family who will struggle this Christmas I sincerely hope that they will cope with what lies ahead and move on to a more secure future. To the managers responsible, although highly unlikely, I hope that they will be held accountable.:=
wondering
7th Dec 2006, 21:12
@CruisingSpeed,
do you mind telling for who you are flying now? Maybe PM me if you don´t feel like putting it here.
Thanks
wombatatico
8th Dec 2006, 12:59
Perhaps someone could address what is truly amazing about this situation?
Never mind if said FO’s were in the wrong, perhaps they were, perhaps they weren’t. I truly do not know.
My concern is the utter hypocrisy of Cathay management. Albeit it should come as no surprise…
My concern is this: Why is it permissible for so many “A” scale captains to appropriate their rental scheme to properties that are registered in the name of ghost companies or relatives.
It’s a wonderful ploy. They utilize the rental scheme to pay off an additional mortgage via the guise of leasing from an independent landlord. All the while the money is going into a company that they or a relative essentially owns. How that is considered unworthly of a PW tirade is beyond me? What's even more interesting: it's not uncommon knowledge (forgive my grammar, I never went to "university"). I guess it's just another inconvenient truth...
Sooooo... Why have two “B” scalers been sacked while the old salts, many of them management, slyly place the XXK a month they are not legally entitled too into their own wallets, no questions asked?
Just curious…
HotDog
8th Dec 2006, 13:17
Wombat, I'm not sure you know what you are talking about? I was A scale and bought my own property that CX paid for three times over in rent allowance. I wasn't cheating, not like some of the guys who came to a sticky end by claiming the maximum rent allowance and living rent free by shacking up with a "friend".
wombatatico
8th Dec 2006, 14:03
What I am talking about is very specific, and clearly contrary to the intent of the allowance.
I am talking about Captains who utilize the "Rental Allowance" for Captains scheme which is currently AAK for a mortgage vice utilizing the "Owner Occupier" scheme which only BBK a month. They do this by "leasing" from an entity they legidly have no connection to.
But you know what, I am going to remove myself from this conversation. The stakes are too high. It's easy to throw mud about two lowly Fo's, but an entirely different thing to question the senior folks within the company.
Good afternoon.
Five Green
9th Dec 2006, 01:58
Wombat;
As has been said before don't take this out on other pilots, be they A scale or Local or whatever.
All of the policies come from management.
As long as someone is not taking more than the allowed allowance (ie max rental or owner occupier) then in my books it is up to them how they structure their tax issues etc. It is not a case of de-frauding CX at all.
It is more a case of what is taxable and what is not. Similar to what you would try and right off in other tax rich enviroments !
Try not to get to worked up about what someone else is up to. Get worked up about your COS and your job related issues and stay involved with the process.
Cheers
SOUTHPAC
10th Dec 2006, 02:33
What a bunch of Hypocrites
Here we have the GMA and ex CP777 openly boasting about renting for the full housing allowance (68K ++) off a shelf company they own whilst at the same time the company goes and sacks two senior F/O's one who is renting and the other with a mortgage. Just unbelievable!!
When will the company get over this whole housing fiasco and just let the pilots get on with their jobs without fear and intimidation? Surely since this is paid as a cash allowance, taxed as a cash allowance it sould be just that, a CASH allowance.
To go and fire two pilots with a new born and a two year old right before christmas, both with good flying records for how they live their lives after they hang up their uniforms is just outragous.
You may try and control every facet of our professional lives but for god sake leave pilots personal lives out of it.
Fed Up
N1 Vibes
10th Dec 2006, 04:12
To go back to the main debate:
"Eligible employees who own a residential accommodation in Hong Kong for self-occupation are considered as home owner-occupiers. They are eligible for housing assistance under the specified terms and conditions.......will form part of the employees’ total taxable income."
Back in the real world the practice of purchasing a property that you don't live in, and to rent it out for personal gain might be considered 'fraudulent' under CX policy. This behaviour would perhaps be classified akin to gross misconduct, rather than - There, there, you didn't understand all the big words like "owner-occupiers", so we'll let you off. Get real! :ugh:
SOUTHPAC
10th Dec 2006, 04:17
N1 Vibes, i dont really get your gist, she NEVER rented a property out that CX was paying for, she just chose to spend most of her time with her boyfriend whilst maintain some sort of security for herself
N1 Vibes
10th Dec 2006, 04:21
I've just flown with friends of the sacked FO's
They were warned around a year ago through a letter to all crew from the GMA regarding this exact situation "not being acceptable and any person doing it could face the sack" ( or words to those effect ). They chose to ignore it saying "it doesn't effect us"
They lived together and had a family together.( as proved by a private investigator the company hired )
I believe the male FO rented a place which CX paid for, in which they all lived.
The female bought a place which CX paid the mortgage on, then they rented it out. tripple dipping it seems?
I feel really sorry for them being sacked, maybe a bit harsh? They could have paid the money back as in another case earlier.
But they were warned by the GMA and their friends but chose to keep there heads in the sand.
I hope they get atleast one job back on appeal.
Good luck to them
Cheers.
SOUTHPAC,
I guess this guy and his 3 colleagues must all be wrong. My mistake!
SOUTHPAC
10th Dec 2006, 04:28
N1 Vibes, You know what the CX rumour mill is like!!, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that she never rented her place out whilst CX was paying for it. As I mentioned earlier she was never even accused of that by management.
If she did, like you I would have no sympathy, but she didnt so lets put that rumour to rest
hog tied
10th Dec 2006, 04:49
What a bunch of Hypocrites
Here we have the GMA and ex CP777 openly boasting about renting for the full housing allowance (68K ++) off a shelf company they own whilst at the same time the company goes and sacks two senior F/O's one who is renting and the other with a mortgage. Just unbelievable!!
When will the company get over this whole housing fiasco and just let the pilots get on with their jobs without fear and intimidation? Surely since this is paid as a cash allowance, taxed as a cash allowance it sould be just that, a CASH allowance.
To go and fire two pilots with a new born and a two year old right before christmas, both with good flying records for how they live their lives after they hang up their uniforms is just outragous.
You may try and control every facet of our professional lives but for god sake leave pilots personal lives out of it.
Fed Up
Nice job, CX :ok: They will be better off ultimately. I just hope that any future prospective employers realise being sacked by CX should be a badge of honor; this place never ceases to amaze me. Bravo! What do you do for an encore... on second thought, forget I asked!
This would be almost funny if you guys weren't so pathetic.
SOUTHPAC
17th Dec 2006, 09:23
Standby--- the fire works on this one are about to go off
svengoren
17th Dec 2006, 10:54
"Worlds Most Admired Airline"
Achievements for 2006
No profit share
2 * Female pilots sacked after their second pregnancy
1 * attempted suicide after a line check with MFL
25 * US pilots resigned to go back to US carriers
A couple fired for having kids without CX approva
Another South African married couple leaving because of CX intrusion in their personal lives
Un-Lawfull dismissal declared by "the House of Lords"
And only five years ago sacked 49 guys for "no particular reason"
Whats next
"Nick Rhodes awarded nobel peace prize"???????
cpdude
17th Dec 2006, 13:46
....this just in...."Nick Rhodes awarded nobel peace prize"!:} :E
When will people learn...you are not an employee but merely a contract worker who they can terminate at anytime. They are fantastic business managers who have not a clue when it comes to people. It will catch up to them shortly!
hog tied
17th Dec 2006, 15:46
Anyone remember the scene in "Dances with Wolves" where a Col who was obviously nuts (presumably wielding power over many suboordinates, yet completely unbalanced and unchecked) sends Costner to a remote unmanned post? As Costner carries on his orders he hears the muffled shot from inside that turns out to be said Col shooting himself in the head.
That Col is not unlike many of the powers that be in CX. Don't understand the connection? Watch the movie, and then work for CX for awhile and you will.
N1 Vibes
19th Dec 2006, 04:57
Is this about the principle or the money?
If it's about the principle, then those of you here who have worked for CX for some time will realise that they are in business for profit, therefore CX won't change.
If it's about the money, then the right honourable gentleman/lady should refer to the answer given some moments ago!
If you have already written your letter of resignation in disgust at the treatment of these people we could class you as a 'giver'
If you've been working for CX for years and not made any individual moves to defend perceived injustices in a public forum then we could class you as 'taker's'?
Reflect. :rolleyes:
Five Green
19th Dec 2006, 16:58
Wa ? Ten characters worth
SOUTHPAC
13th Jan 2007, 11:16
NC:
You and I have been around a long time. You know our COS is not worth the paper it is written on. So to have it in our COS means nothing.
We are supposed to have a D&G procedure in our COS. How many times have it been followed? Does peanut throwing warrant a D&G?
Two pilots just got fired over some housing fiasco. They got one letter sayin they were fired. Then underneath the first letter were two more letters. The 2nd letter was his first appeal with the decision still to be terminated. The 3rd letter was his second appeal already written out with the same decision. They got all the letters at one time.
The Conditions of Service at Cathay Pacific is worth Sh!tt
Bloggs,
Thanks for mentioning the two pilots fired recently, its a shame we can forget it so quickly. You are right their D&G, appeal, Final appeal was an absolute joke but you heard it first here there is about to be some major headlines on this one!, Standby
Just to show you how the company is sticking to your COS Mr Rhodes proudly anounced at a C & T meeting ( I was there) two weeks before JR's final appeal that he was fired. Natural Justice I dont think so!!
Last edited by SOUTHPAC : Today at 11:57.
Mr. Bloggs
13th Jan 2007, 11:32
Mr. R, what a human. Still sleeps at night though. Does not take any responsibility in the deaths of England and Bennett (two of our 49ers).
It’s what real Swire Princes are made of. Glad to see Swire Pacific hires the best.
I am sure his family is proud. Ask him at the next command dinner.
FlexibleResponse
15th Jan 2007, 12:55
In the old days the company had a Policy called Leave Flatting.
This meant that when you were on leave or otherwise and not using your house, you rented it out and put the rent money in your pocket.
The company's Housing Section facilitated this process and not only found temporary tenants for you, they also collected the rent and gave it to you. All the time you also collected your normal CX housing allowance.
My how times have changed...
Mr. Bloggs
15th Jan 2007, 13:44
It all because some Swire Prince heard someone in a bar saying they were doing this deal.
Like I said, Swire Pacific hires the best. A real compassionate group.
SOUTHPAC
18th Jan 2007, 06:43
Yes, The same little Swine that was placed by his sidekick rhodes strategically next to JR at his command dinner to try and illicit more information.
Beware of this little prick, he's not the gentleman his old man was and lacks his intelligence so in typical swine fashion is climbing the ladder by ruthlessly screwing peoples lives
SOUTHPAC
svengoren
30th Jan 2007, 09:09
Didnt take long for the vulchar to get his reward did it, nice cushy job as aircrew recruitment manager