View Full Version : Cathay Management Captain fails to remove gear pin!

13th Aug 2001, 21:57
49+3 Cathay pilots were sacked on July 9th. Yes, 1 was reinstated as an F.O. for two years. The others did nothing wrong and management have told them that they don't have to be given a reason for their termination of employment. Yet an upper management Captain, Lick Fly, from Brisbaine Australia, on doing a walk around, failed to notice that a gear pin was still in place on one of the landing gear. This pin prevented the particular gear from being retracted after take-off. Now, if there had been an engine failure after V1, the 777 might not have been able to achieve the climb performance required to clear obstacles on departure due to the extra drag...and this clown still has a job, yet 49+3-1 don't and they did nothing wrong. These are the kind of idiots the Cathay Pilots are working with.
Another manager defended him in saying that there was no problem with obstacle clearance from that particular airport, but what about the next time when max climb performance is required?
[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: PPRuNe Towers ]

[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]
:eek: :eek:

[ 16 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

13th Aug 2001, 22:02
Why should any airline want people with your attitude crewing their aircraft? A safety hazard for sure....and the potential for acrimony when new-hire folks show up? Where's the professionalism you union boys always go on about?

13th Aug 2001, 22:12
It was a cripple 7, not a bus.

Kaptin M
13th Aug 2001, 22:43
Come on ironbutt, that's a pretty unfair and unprofessional opinion you've posted there. Busdriver has raised a VALID question of the ethics of a management that will summarily dismiss 52 pilots with NO reason, allow one to return because he inadvertently mis-read his roster - but punish him ny downgrading him back to F/O.

Yet when one of their own is derelict in his duty - a pre-flight external check is part of a pilot's duty - the repercussions of which could be catastrophic (remember Concorde's crash, because of the inability to raise their gear?), not forgetting the compulsory return to land, which would have added tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of that flight, NO ACTION is taken.

As much as you despise them, ironbutt, this incident demonstrates the NEED for some employees to have unions which can offer support for their members from unscrupulous, vindictive employers. There is no need for the pilots of CX to consider leaving, this current CX management has just about run their course! :D

13th Aug 2001, 23:15
Thanks Kaptin M...and I stand corrected, it was a cripple 7. :eek:

13th Aug 2001, 23:38
We aren't comparing apples with apples here. Notwithstanding the 49+3-1, are we really asking for the dismissal of somebody who makes a mistake in his checks? Step forward all those that have made a mistake......hmmm looks like a straight line to me!

14th Aug 2001, 00:06
No need to convince me that hypocrisy is rife at CX, or most other airlines for that matter....on both sides of the table...

14th Aug 2001, 02:19
OK - time for a management consultant (pause whilst you all hawk, spit and swear) to add his two euro worth....

I spent years working in the wings business, (non-air crew), and now work with a multitude of organisations trying to make them work better - many of these organisations are aircraft operators/builders/maintainers.

I have recently - thanks to reasons I won't disclose here - seen aspects of CX from the inside. There is a very sad lack of team work in this organisation - one half of flight crew despises the other half, and everyone else seems to despise ALL the flight crew....

If those guys and girls don't start to accept that they are ALL part of the same organisation, with the same aims and objectives - I predict that there will be a good number of 330s, 340s, 777s and 744s going up for sale soon. You CANNOT run a successful organisation where there are such bitter divides for long.

Sort it CX - or get thee to the job centres.

TA :eek:

14th Aug 2001, 04:10
There is a problem with this story. Why should the Captain be held responsible for a gear pin? That's a ramp service or maintenance function to pull the gear pins after push back.

What's next? The Captain will be held responsible to check tire pressures?


14th Aug 2001, 06:28
Sooooh Bus25... A Cripple7 :D I can see from your profile that you fly the SCAREBUS A340. I have been told that A340 has best rate of climb in the " Aircraft equipped with 5 APU's " category ;)

If it ain't Boeing I ain't going.

Chimbu chuckles
14th Aug 2001, 06:48
You tossers! In an airline with good staff relations and mutual professional respect an honest mistake like this can be let go with a simple "you silly bugger, bet you won't do that again!".
When Management,including presumably Management Pilots(or some of them anyway) have just sacked 50+ for no good reason then this sort of stuff up takes on a whole new dimension.


Kaptin M
14th Aug 2001, 06:58
"I say sack him, sack him, and sack him again, and boil his balls in oil..." - somewhat extreme isn't it exeng. I'm sure you meant FRY! :D

14th Aug 2001, 08:21
I thought that all Captains were management?You know - privileges based on Command, etc. etc. Senior First officers are Captains in waiting and all that... :rolleyes:

Through difficulties to the cinema

14th Aug 2001, 09:06
Dear Glue Ball,

As part of our walk around, we are to check that all gear pins are removes and they should be in the cockpit. The one you're thinking of during pushback is the ground engineer's gear pin to disable nose wheel steeping for the tug. The Captain did the walk around in this instance, so he was responsible for checking that the main and nose wheel gera pins were removed and present in the cockpit. I hope this clarifies things for you. :rolleyes:

[ 14 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

[ 14 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

Tool Time
14th Aug 2001, 10:52
I still kick the tyres. (US translation - tires).

14th Aug 2001, 11:05
Um, just as an aside, you can't check tyre pressures by sight, a tyre can be 50% down on pressure and still look exactly the same as its correct pressure neighbour. Touching the tyre after taxy in may show excessive heat due to low inflation (a la Boeing manual), but on a walk round you can only check the condition of a tyre. Anyway, its nice to see the management consultants talk as much crap as they used to in CX. :D

14th Aug 2001, 11:47
Well I guess if I did the walk round and failed to spot a bloody great gear pin and flag still in - I would have little option to accept to the bollocking and my dismissal with all the aplomb I could muster. However there but for the grace of God etc...


14th Aug 2001, 12:18
The check of tyres on walkaround is for a VISUAL check of condition and tread. the only way to check for correct pressure is by tyre pressure gauges on each wheel, if fitted, or an engineer with pressure gauge.
Kicking a tyre proves nothing and is hard on your shoes but may impress passengers observing such a practice :D
Taxying first off after a cold sit overnight gives a good indication of the thickness and rigidity of a tyre as the aircraft "limps" along the taxyway.
On the other hand the pins are VISIBLE.

14th Aug 2001, 13:25
As I wasn't there I will not comment except to say that if a line pilot had made the same error would you all be baying for blood then?


I presume that you are referring to the Concorde incident when it arrived with rather less fuel than was prudent. If you are then you are being disingenuous, you well know that the management pilot concerned left the airline very shortly afterwards.

Notso Fantastic
14th Aug 2001, 13:40
Something over 20 years ago we took off from HKG at night and couldn't get one of the legs up on a Classic (BA). Not very nice going out through the gap at night, but who said the job was easy? After an hour, we gave up and landed back to find a wire coat hanger in the lock. The Ground Engineers had changed a wheel and substituted a coat hanger and forgotten to remove it. The F/E missed it 10 feet up buried under the wing in the dark. I subsequently found HE was held redponsible, and his subsequent interview involved a lot of shouting and throwing of books, and the implicit threat that that was his last life and any further incidents would involve dismissal. So it is plain to me that it shows where the responsibility lies, and on aircraft without F/Es, that responsibility must devolve to the Captain, who has shown himself to be a simpering toad who should be sacked and join his many colleagues on the unemployment line! Sadly the F/E died a few years later- RIP Brian my friend- management pilots are sent to try us!

5 APU's captain
14th Aug 2001, 14:52
The Captain has a final responsibility for the aircraft condition before and during the flight anyway.
Nothing is bad that he is flying still, just he was not so lucky that day...may be his salary should depend on his mistake(which is not a distress).

Edmund Spencer
14th Aug 2001, 16:36
My Dear Colleagues,

I am sure it has been said before but I will say it again.

How many times have you done your walk around with all manner of pins in and pannels open?

It is a fact of life that you often have to be back in your seat long before maintenance action is complete and that you have to rely on a 'verbal' from the ground engineer that all is buttoned up.

An aside to the 'eng' like 'You will make sure the pins are removed from the MLG and make sure those panels are secure, won't you' will not usually cause any offence.

If he tells you to go forth and multiply then at least he has received the message.


14th Aug 2001, 17:14
It is definately the responsability of the Flight Deck to ensure the landing gear pins have been removed. On the BAe146 the pins are stowed in a box with a window behind the left seat and it is part of the check list to ensure that the pins are there and visible. No pins no departure!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

14th Aug 2001, 17:19

When you talk of "rather less fuel than was prudent", just how much was indicated in the tanks then as the A/C was flying over Hounslow? I know the answer but I will leave it for you to educate our readers.

Yes you are correct in saying that the management pilot left the airline shortly afterwards. M. Mouse, perhaps you are in a position to know if he was sacked or not, I am not as no public statement was made by B.A. management on the matter. I am told that the gentleman concerned receives a full B.A. pension based upon his management salary. If a line pilot were to be involved in what may be perceived as an act of criminal negligence could he expect to receive the same treatment?

I'll try not to be disingenuous so I will make it clear that what we are talking about here is double standards.

I would not be baying for anybody's blood in the light of such an error, (there but for the grace of god etc) were it not that CX have sacked 52 people in an attempt to head off an industrial dispute.

CX management has not apparently acted illegally as the law stands in HKG, but they have in my opinion acted immorally. CX are partners in BA's one-world alliance, I for one feel nothing but shame to be associated with an airline that acts in such a way.

Still, what future I wonder for an airline that is managed in such an incompetent fashion?


Buster Hyman
14th Aug 2001, 17:50
So what is the average procedure for regular crew that have missed something like this? I assume from most of the posts that it's dismissal?

I think one of the major concerns here is that if CX are in a position where they are forced to utilise "under experienced(recent)" crew, then this is a serious safety issue.

Like 'em or loathe 'em, the management pilots must be under extreme pressure from above and this must reflect in their performance at some point. I know that won't elicit much sympathy, nor was it intended to, but I can't help but wonder if any regulatory bodies are monitoring what's actually going on there? :confused:

14th Aug 2001, 17:58

I do not know how much fuel was in the tanks and really it is irrelevant. The Captain concerned lost his job whether he was dismissed or resigned before being dismissed is not the point. He was management, he made an error of judgement, call it what you will, and paid the price. No double standards there that I can see.

I stand to be corrected but I don't think the manner of leaving a company alters pension entitlement. If you left as a Captain then I would not expect you to receive a pension based on a First Officers salary.

I agree with the gist of the rest of your post and agree that the CX situation is a disgrace.


Lets hope your engineers don't use their own pins then!

Tool Time
14th Aug 2001, 19:01
Back in the GOD, it turned out that after the Captain's external inspection was completed, the ground ENG decided to check the hydraulics. The hydraulic bay service door now lies at the bottom of Hawke's Bay.

14th Aug 2001, 20:55
Hey guys there is no doubt that the PIC is the one untimately responsible.Yes he should have noticed the red flag, but no way anyone should be canned for an oversite on this nature. Maybe a written reprimand in his permanent record, but a terminating offense I think not.
I really think this thread is getting off track with the comments about tire pressure , stick to the checklist you cannot go wrong.

[ 14 August 2001: Message edited by: Dragonspet ]

Tex Murphy
14th Aug 2001, 21:02
:rolleyes: We all make mistakes; sounds like the ground engineers were asleep!

14th Aug 2001, 22:36
To clarify a few things.

It is CX policy to ensure all gear pins are removed from gear legs during the walk around, unless there is a reason for them to be in there e.g. tyre change.

The only pin that should remain in is the nose wheel steering disconnect pin, which is the pin sighted after pushback.

The particular Captain, who had conducted the pre flight inspection is #2 to the Director of Flight Operations i.e. #2 on the CX pecking order of pilots. No demotion of any apparent form was bestowed upon him. The only inkling of an occurence, was a notice to crew, detailing how vigilant one should be during a pre flight, especially when its rainy, and windy, and dark, when gear pins can get wrapped around the leg. (It was daylight, dry, and the atis was something like 6 knots)

The point I believe my bus driving colleague is trying to make, is that if it had been any of us plebs who had doen this, then the punishment would have been a little more suited to the crime. In CX performing these kind of atrocities will usually get you a demotion of some kind. e.g. Training Captain demoted to Line Captain etc. Or as in the case of our recently re-instated ex-captain now f/o, a major demotion (for a genuine roster changemis read)
There should be one rule for all in this game

14th Aug 2001, 23:25

You have made your point well and I accept that the management pilot did then pay the price of his 'error of judgement'.

Sometimes the price paid is different. Look if you will please at the recent dismissal of Captain Stewart Clapson (R.I.P.) After the outcome of the industrial tribunal I believe he was to be re-instated as an F/O, which is the position he would have retired in were it not for his untimely death. Without dragging up all the old details again, I believe he was treated somewhat more harshly than the previously mentioned management Captain. These cases are rare but nevertheless significant. How do you think I would fare if one day I decided to continue a flight illegally, ignoring the advice of the rest of my crew, and place the lives of everybody on board as well as those on the ground in jeopardy? Could I expect to retire immediately on my full pension?

Having said all that I believe that BA management has a fairly good record when compared to that of some other airlines. I am pleased that you believe the CX situation is a disgrace. The current situation in CX is dire, as it is also in KAL.

Incidentally, I was under the impression that if the circumstances leading to a staff members dismissal were serious enough then that persons pension could be reduced by the amount that BA had contributed.

The very best to all of you in CX, particularly those pilots who have been dismissed.


Kaptin M
15th Aug 2001, 00:29
As exeng has alluded to, in his previous post, under NORMAL circumstances, ia NORMAL company, a dereliction of the Captain's duty - such as that of which the Captain under discussion in this thread is guilty - would be addressed in an appropriate manner. Undoubtedly it would be highlighted somehow, probably through the usual company publication wrt walkarounds, perhaps by an over emphasis on the importance of checking the location of the stowd pins, at everyone's next line check.

However, Cathay Pacific, under its current management is NOT a NORMAL company. The management are not behaving in a RATIONAL manner, and recently RETRENCHED 49 pilots because they had "lost the Company's confidence". However, it would appear quite acceptable to this same IRRATIONAL management, to maintain the employ of a management pilot who has proven that he is certainly below the standard required by ALL other operators - including those in G.A.

It smacks of self-serving authoritarianism running amok, and is a clear indicator to outside observers that the pilots' claims of a corrupt, bullying management are based on fact, and NOT perceived!

15th Aug 2001, 01:58
M.Mouse maybe I didnt make myself clear. It is the responsability of the flight deck to ensure that the pins have been extracted from the landing gear. The pins on the aircraft are only to be used on that aircraft. However it is the crews responsability to check on the walkround they have been removed and to do a physical check when returned to the flight deck. :eek: :eek: :eek:

15th Aug 2001, 02:33
jtr's post (above) is spot on. Here's a quote from today's South China Morning Post:

A Cathay Pacific manager who last week demoted a pilot for misreading his roster was recently involved in an incident over landing gear - but received only an informal verbal admonishment.

The airline yesterday confirmed that general manager, flying, Captain Rick Fry, had failed to notice before flying a plane that a pin fastening the gear in the down position had not been removed.

Even the pro-CX press in Hong Kong are calling it a double standard (the headline reads "Double standard denied over manager's flying error").

In the other Hong Kong English newspaper, the iMail, they said:

[A union spokesman said:]"Let me put it this way, it is safe, provided the engine doesn't fail, and that cannot be predicted,'' ... Mr Tyler [CX spokesmen] disagreed, saying that even if one of the engines had failed, there would still be enough thrust so that the "aircraft still could have taken off and operated satisfactorily''.

So, there you have it. Engine failure after take-off with the landing gear down is safe, according to CX, so therefore this manager pilot did nothing wrong. One wonders at the flying standards in management ranks revealed by this remark.

15th Aug 2001, 05:15
Kaptin M - you seem to have an awful lot to say over CX and you don't even work in Hong Kong. Who is feeding you your mixed bag of info?
Separate point but was the pilot in question on this thread the captain of the 777?

Tool Time
15th Aug 2001, 11:45
Must tell the flight deck to check gear pins. Save me doing it. :cool:

15th Aug 2001, 12:05
Stop Start old son.

On these new fangled wizz machines you can check the tyre pressures from the comfort of the cockpit. It is selectable on EICAS along with brake temps.

Regards pins, in the company I work for there is only one set per ship, and it is the commanders responsibility to ensure that they are safely stowed in their allotted position in the cockpit prior to start. Such is a checklist item.

"I said CHEER UP stupid"

The Guvnor
15th Aug 2001, 12:27
As I said on another thread, there's two sides to every story and I find it extremely hard to believe that David Turnbull and the rest of the CX management team would simply wake up one morning and say "right, let's fire 52 guys ... just because we can!" - especially after investing so much money in them over the years; and in particular when CX is short of crews!

People only get fired for good reasons ... so what's the CX management view with these guys?

I also find it mildly amsusing - if somewhat sad - that apparently CX crews expect to have things the way they were in the 70s and 80s. Wake up and smell the coffee, people - this is the 21st Century and if you think you've got it bad, try a stint at SQ, KE or BR!

15th Aug 2001, 12:27
The Convair 880 and 990 had an amber warning light on the flight engineer's annunciator panel, which would illuminate if any undercarriage pins were inserted. Beats me why today's hi tech aeroplanes lack this very simple alert system.

Tool Time
15th Aug 2001, 13:14
The are never two sides to every story.
When it seems there may be, you can be assured there is only one. :cool:

Kaptin M
15th Aug 2001, 13:33
jtr's post (at the top of page 3 of this thread) stating that the only inkling of this incident was a notice, posted to ALL pilots, advising them to be observant during their external checking is reminiscent of something similar that occurred in the early 1980's in Ansett. One of the then (and now) management pilots - the Assistant DC9 Fleet Captain, landed with a moderately strong tailwind, on a wet runway that had a pronounced dip in the middle (Launceston in Tasmania), hence after the initial flare it was necessary to pole forward to put the airplane onto the downhill sloping surface. Unfortunately all of the above factors combined with an extended float, which would dictate a go-round.....however, obviously posessing skills beyond those of the lesser line pilots, Deputy Dog persisted with the landing - the result was 3 out of the 4 main tyres burst under heavy braking.

And what was the result. Our aforementioned Asst Fleet Captain issued a 3 page edict, complete with diagrams, advising the various combinations and permutations of "deflated" tyres that did and did not permit taxi-ing! :rolleyes:

15th Aug 2001, 14:05
The 2nd to last item on our 727 Before Starting Engines checklist is "Gear Pins".

The correct answer is "Aboard", which is given by the Capt after he actually sees them.

Notso Fantastic
15th Aug 2001, 14:14
Guvnor Warning....Guvnor Warning! Yet another inane, anti-pilot posting from a totally non-aviation person in a Professional Pilots Forum to go along with his thousands (look at the total) postings, mainly anti pilot in some way! A very sad person who likes to tease pilots- do not respond to him!

15th Aug 2001, 14:19
Full text of the article in the South China Morning Post

Wednesday, August 15, 2001

Double standard denied over manager's flying error



A Cathay Pacific manager who last week demoted a pilot for misreading his roster was recently involved in an incident over landing gear - but received only an informal verbal admonishment.
The airline yesterday confirmed that general manager, flying, Captain Rick Fry, had failed to notice before flying a plane that a pin fastening the gear in the down position had not been removed.

Cathay's director of corporate development, Tony Tyler, confirmed the incident had been subject of a written notice to all pilots, a video and a report to the Civil Aviation Department.

In this case, a flag attached to the pin had not been visible from a distance as was normal, he said.

He added that the May flight from Penang to Kuala Lumpur had proceeded without incident, with the landing gear down all the way.

The Aircrew Officers' Association general secretary, John Findlay, said rank-and-file pilots felt they would have been sacked in the current climate for such an error, but Mr Tyler denied any double standard. The airline generally avoided using disciplinary procedures to deal with flying mistakes to encourage pilots to be open about - and learn from - them, he said.

15th Aug 2001, 14:26
Oh, dear,dear,dear Kaptin M...not nice that story about the 9 at Launy! But, you know what?... I just happen to know it's true!


Tool Time
15th Aug 2001, 17:39
Me too! :cool:

Old Scrotum
16th Aug 2001, 13:29
What is Capt Fry's new nom de plume? We have "L one Andy" for the leader of the Boeing fleets after a little debacle of knocking off the L One door on B747-200 in Taipei a few years back! Not much of a wrist slap for that one I recall either. It would be a bit "thick' if there wasn't one for this! Rememeber "Pop Up" and Roll Back" Equally remeber" Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!"

Max Angle
16th Aug 2001, 18:26
Can't be bothered to read all 4 pages of the no doubt vitriolic comments but every time I read of someone elses error I think "there but for the grace of god go I". That said management pilots do come equiped with armour plated arses. Several managers in our outfit have made blunders that would have been at the very least "left seat threatening" and sailed on regardeles. Twas ever thus I suspect.

16th Aug 2001, 18:47
Actually it was 'Airbridge Andy', and for some reason the F/E got a minor bollocking for the cock up. :rolleyes:

17th Aug 2001, 00:09
That would be an excellent way to handle mistakes, but the 52 pilots that were sacked didn't make any. Now that's a double standard. The 1 Captain that got fired for misreading his roster was reinstated but demoted to F.O. for 2 years. Capt. Lick Fly received no punishment for leaving a gear pin in. Which do you think is worse. Cathay management are a bunch of lying pr1cks!!!!

17th Aug 2001, 02:27
Exactly! Thanks for your support.

17th Aug 2001, 11:15
What is Capt Fry's new nom de plume? We have "L one Andy" for the leader of the Boeing fleets......

Don't know about his ...but the manual now has them listed as ..."Frying Pins"
:cool: null

17th Aug 2001, 13:18
Capt. Lick Fly has been reported to have done the same thing (not notice that a gear pin was still in the gear) on the Tristar (L1011) a number of years ago. How careless is this pilot and is he going to do it again when an engine fails on departure around high ground? Another management Captain pushed back with the air bridge still attached. He got promoted. The engineer got a bollocking. :mad:

[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

17th Aug 2001, 18:17
Like Kaptain M, Amos and many, many others, I can vouch for the fact that the story of the Ansett DC9 Deputy Dog blowing three tyres at Launie way back when is not duff gen.

18th Aug 2001, 14:47
"not duff gen"

very droll, Wiley.

Kaptin M
18th Aug 2001, 16:42
Yes Wiley, I was wanting to try to get that point across too :D - Duff beer is okay with Homer Simpson, but pilots recognise duff gen when they're fed it.

Now, another interesting point (getting back to the subject under review), is WHY did Cathay management maintain confidence in these 49 for an indeterminate length of time, and then SUDDENLY, on the one day - which just HAPPENED to be during an Industrial dispute - decide to terminate these guys? They certainly set a precedent, as they haven't undertaken these mass sackings before.
And it's certainly not the way ANY other aviation company - let alone an AIRLINE behaves, in respect to the performance of ANY employee. Can the traffic staff, engineering, and ticketing staff also expect to see mass sackings anytime SOON, because of managements' "loss of confidence"?
The normal and rational method has always been to weed out the "non-performers" one-by-one, following a thorough review of their previous history.
Strange, very strange!

The Guvnor
18th Aug 2001, 16:49
Kaptin M - you're absolutely right. Especially when you take into account CX's current serious shortage of crews, the dismissal of 49/52 apparently senior pilots for seemingly no reason (at least not according to the AOA) just doesn't make sense. There's obviously another side to this particular story ... and we're not getting told it!

19th Aug 2001, 00:15
The reason they sacked all those pilots was to intimidate the rest into signing the new contract. They made the contract sound better to the public, but it changes the rules regarding rostering practices and safety. They would then be allowed to change the rules, with regard to rostering practices, at any time they felt the need. The overtime that they would pay works out to be less than the cabin crew would get. People automatically think that because there is more money offered, it must be a better contract. I could make more money delivering pizzas on my days off than the overtime they are supposedly going to pay. SAFETY should be the number one priority, and these new rostering practices will greatly reduce this. :eek:

19th Aug 2001, 19:54
Quite right busdriver. The "management" are just trying to screw the aircrew around while ast the same time, trying to get the public to believe that it is the pilots at fault. :( :(

However, the root cause of all of these problems lies with everyone's mate Rod!

simon chitty
19th Aug 2001, 22:48
"Dragonspet" has summed it up.

We all make mistakes, lets learn from it and improve.

So what if a "Management Capt" left the gear pin in. The fact is the "gear pin was left in".

This has hi-lighted a potential problem which should not be allowed to occur again.

Fix the problem, make the warning flag bigger, incorporate the counting of gear pins as a 2 crew check etc.

Demoting, or axing ones job over a mistake is extreme. After all, who is perfect ?

CX management has made their share of dubious decisions, must we follow those examples ?

Kaptin M
20th Aug 2001, 01:14
No one would disagree, KC, however a GOOD Management will demonstrate FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY in their decisions.
The current CX management obviously believe that THEY are "managing" effectively, and as a show of good faith, the Cathay pilots and the rest of us now expect them to deal the same hand they dealt to the 49 pilots whom they summarily dismissed for "lack of confidence".

Captain Fry is a management pilot who has NOT upheld the highest standards expected of someone in that position, and as such it would be expected that current CX management would display the same rationale in their thinking and actions, as was meted out to the 49'ers.

simon chitty
20th Aug 2001, 11:20
After much thought, if "Captain Fry" was indeed responsible for the 49'ers fate - he should also be judged in like manner.

Thank you "Kaptin M".

[ 20 August 2001: Message edited by: Kunta Crayfish ]

25th Aug 2001, 12:29
BTTT! :D :D :D

Cat O' Nine Tails
25th Aug 2001, 12:43
I can remember an episode back in 1988 when a Bac 1-11 flew six sectors with the ILS antenna of Lamezia embedded in the fuselage.
This particular aircraft had had three cre changes and two departure checks performed before the problem was spotted, further more all three crews complained of presurrisation problems.

Also note that the antenna when in position on the ground was situated some distance from the runway end about 12 feet above the ground.

If everybody concerned was sacked there would be very little airline industry left in this country.

Comments? :eek:

25th Aug 2001, 13:50
Surely you get the point? We don't want people sacked for honest mistakes, or even dishonest ones whatever they may be. However, CX does have a procedure for disciplining errant pilots. In early July 49 pilots were dismissed for NO REASON other than the company stated reason that "WE CAN" Are we living in the 21st Century or what?

Last year if I had left a gear pin in I would expect to be counselled, disciplined financially and have a letter placed on my file. If I did the same thing today then Rick Fry (GMF) would, without doubt, have me fired. This post is about double standards, surely this is one helluva example of that.

[ 25 August 2001: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

25th Aug 2001, 19:42
Can someone at CX repeat what Capt. Fry did please? I'd like to see what they will do to you. If Capt. Fry fires you for that, you can sue them for discrimination. :p

Bob Hawke
26th Aug 2001, 05:24
Get real Smith, this is Hong Kong there're talking about.

26th Aug 2001, 07:22
Excellent chaps. I see that everybody is getting the point of this thread. Thanks for all your support. :p

26th Aug 2001, 07:35
busdriver: to someone who has been invited to a cx interview...what would your advice be? I have no experience (being in charters) with unions. I have read about the ban. Given that there arent many airline jobs in the US, I would like the chance, but do not want to step on any toes. Can you please help alleviate some confusion? Thanks very much.

26th Aug 2001, 09:15

I would recommend that you wait until the dispute is over. Chances are that you will want to take an airline job in the U.S. when one becomes available and it would be a shame if you couldn't get a job in the U.S. in the future due to being blacklisted. The aviation world is small and we have to stick together and support each other. There might be a day when you need world-wide union support for your company. Cathay Pacific is not a great airline to work for under our current unnegotiated contract. You would automatically be on it. Be patient, airlines in the U.S. will start hiring again. All the best to you. :D

31st Aug 2001, 03:12
Capt. Lick Fly has improved his observation skills. He is keenly checking and ridding the airplane of all AOA stickers. Maybe they should put AOA stickers on the gear pins. Glad to see our management have the most important issues under control.

Nasty Nasty
31st Aug 2001, 12:38
Challenger604Driver, ignore the clap trap. CX is a great airline and you can take pride in the fact that we are amongst the best.

The conditions, pay and roster are good by all/any standards. Tax rates are amongst the lowest. Try 15% for size and allowances for being married, kids etc. Hong Kong is often hard on some but Wives love the Maid's. The 49 + 3 (Minus 1!)will have to wash the dishes again. Oh Shame, may split your nails Darling.

To live in HK you must like fellow man as there are few places to hide or open spaces but that's not the fault of CX. It's a facinating place and you are right in the centre of the region. Close to everwhere.

Dont worry about the sight of crew walking the streets with their 'poffter' trolley bags. It is like watching sheep or the lemmings. Blind leading the blind.

It is a fact that Hong Kong companies almost without exception have everyone on 90 notice so the clap trap about unfair dismissal and crying pregnant wives is merely adding to the comic opera.

Another fact - Beijing is poised to take control of CX and the Pilots will not know what has hit them. In any good communist society its biggest flaw is that everything gets pulled down the lowest common denominator so conditions will be more in line with other airlines.

Beijing already holds a large chunk of the company and if the pilots play games then China Southern and Air China will start giving HKG - US/Europe traffic rights. Case of having fallen on our swords Guys.

It was never like this but the truth is the Cabin Crew hate the flight deck, the crew Control hate the flight deck and the Public hate the flight deck .... all brought on by the spolit brats who run the Union. God wont he smile.......Looks like you have blown you next job 'Capt I am too tired to fly back from Penang'. Ignore the ban. It is irrelevant, means nothing and offers no sanctuary.

G'Day mate, Come on over, the water is fine.

Boeing Boeing!
:D :) :p

31st Aug 2001, 13:03
Nasty Nasty where do you get this information? Please provide your credible sources. I doubt you can. As an Aussie or Kiwi, Cathay might sound good. No offense. The upgrade is faster from S.O. to F.O. and you can get a direct entry F.O. position if you take the freighter route. However, challenger604driver, if you can work in the U.S., dont' go to Cathay. Get your experience in the U.S. There is a slow down in the hiring of the majors at the moment, but it will pick up again. Don't burn your bridges for Cathay. If you are Captain on your Challenger, get as much PIC jet time as you can. The SIC heavy time won't be worth as much.

[ 31 August 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

1st Sep 2001, 05:02
Nasty Nasty's just anouther mangement w*nker on a pprune recruitment drive!

Still trying to tell the world it's okay to join this cr*p outfit? Still trying to recruit off the pages of pprune? Funny whats become of a company that was once the envy of the industry!

I personally know 3 guys that have turned down their offer of employment. Who in their right mind would step into this mess?

Now sir: GET BACK TO WORK! There must be someone in that stack that'll take your sh*tty offer and not care about the consequences. :rolleyes:

1st Sep 2001, 05:27
What an excellent comment from INDEEPSHT. You took the word right out of my mouth :D

[ 01 September 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

[ 02 September 2001: Message edited by: busdriver25 ]

1st Sep 2001, 09:38
Nasty Nasty

If I caught my wife loving a maid I would be a bit p*ssed off.

I think that I will have to keep her away from that island!

The Vicar
1st Sep 2001, 12:47
Don't know the Captain mentioned here but the "clever" spoonerism of his name leads me to comment on the practice of name calling which seems to be prevalent in dealing with industrial matters. I did consider putting this in the Fragrant forum but it has application in other cases.
When management calls you glorified bus drivers AND YOU RESPOND in kind they have suceeded in diverting you from the task in hand. It is a practice almost universally adopted these days and originated very many decades ago. IGNORE IT! Stick to the facts of your case.
Likewise name calling as in the above posts and others is, quite frankly, childish and plays into the hands of management. It only reduces your credibility as the mature individuals people expect to be in command and operating the airliners they travel in.

'nuff said!

Nasty Nasty
1st Sep 2001, 18:13
Well Busdriver25 (Good name - describes the level of sophistication!)... 'Craptain Demerlee' wants to be IFALPA Plesident. Said so at a bar in DB.

'Craptain Demerlee' went sick in PEN at 3am for a 6am pick up. Sat in BCL on the flight he should have flown..... Said he was too stressed worrying about the strike, sorry non-event strike.... you know where to check! Funny how stress only hits when it causes the most disruption.....hope he liked the coffee.

Guys the fact that Larry Yung is poised to do what Richard Li did at HK Telecom. Beijing wants the Brits out and we need to be sorted our first. Fact.

Look at the HK Telecom people made redundant. Not even 30 days notice so 90 is generous. This clause has been there since day one, its just that CX has grown and no one felt threatened. WE have never known cuts in pilots, unlike other carriers heralded as where we will go post CX... dont think so....

CSA & Air China itching to operate ex CLK. Fact. Stated publicly.

Direct Tawian route to mailand will kill our TPE route. Fact. True timing hard to speculate.

Air Canada about to chop crews. European carriers about to do/doing the same. Fact. There are no great jobs to go to post CX. QF/AN wont touch us. Nor will SQ. Try Qatar they plan to grow. No traffic but getting lift - 330/320. No thanks.

Come on smell the coffee. We are on a great breeze and shooting ourselves in the foot. Lets not be lead by the grieving in DB. The 48 are toast - The Union and Management have all agreed on one thing one of the 49 should go! That's a start....

Challenger 604 it is a good airline by any standards. Better than most.

Happy landings....

PS When will 'Craptain Demerlee' smile.....

:p :cool: ;) :D :)

2nd Sep 2001, 06:37
Nasty – a perfect name. Two posts containing some utter cr*p. A few thoughts about your “facts”
Management or not you are certainly out of touch with reality!
The conditions, pay and roster are good by all/any standards.
Which of the 12 different pay scales are you referring to here? How many thousands of roster changes are there each month? Name any other airline that comes even close to the CX world record in this area.
Wives love the Maid's. The 49 + 3 (Minus 1!)will have to wash the dishes again. Oh Shame, may split your nails Darling.
Real nasty piece of work aren’t you?
It is a fact that Hong Kong companies almost without exception have everyone on 90 notice so the clap trap about unfair dismissal and crying pregnant wives is merely adding to the comic opera.
So was it redundancy? If so it should have been in reverse seniority. Did any of them do anything in particular wrong to bring about their dismissal – TT the company mouth has publicly stated no! So it was industrial action by management, name any other company in Hong Kong that has terminated employees in order to intimidate the remainder. Action, which is certainly illegal in most of the developed world and definitely immoral in Hong Kong.
Another fact - Beijing is poised to take control of CX and the Pilots will not know what has hit them. In any good communist society its biggest flaw is that everything gets pulled down the lowest common denominator so conditions will be more in line with other airlines.
Where did you garner this so called “fact”?. So is your argument that the AOA is in league with Beijing to lower the CX share price and thus facilitate a cheaper take over? The share price is certainly getting very low!
Beijing already holds a large chunk of the company and if the pilots play games then China Southern and Air China will start giving HKG - US/Europe traffic rights. Case of having fallen on our swords Guys.Whose swords are you talking about? I think everybody here realises that CLK slots are going to be given away and that CX will lose out permanently if this dispute drags on. So management put away your swords and get back to the negotiating table before it is too late!
It was never like this but the truth is the Cabin Crew hate the flight deck, the crew Control hate the flight deck and the Public hate the flight deck ....
When did you carry out the survey? Please could you publish the full results in detail? I think you would be very surprised by the amount of support for the pilots from the cabin crew, particularly the more senior ones.
Guys the fact that Larry Yung is poised to do what Richard Li did at HK Telecom. Beijing wants the Brits out and we need to be sorted our first. Fact.
Another “fact”? The truth is that the Brits wanted out of HK Telecom. Cable and Wireless desperately wanted to sell HKT and had already done a deal with Singapore Tel. However, loss of face for HK Govt to have SIN in charge of HKT so PCCW came in with the support of HK Govt in order to save face. And yes-just look at what Richard Li has done for HKT! Share price down to $1.60, a shadow of it’s former self, ask the other investors what they think about that.
Look at the HK Telecom people made redundant. Not even 30 days notice so 90 is generous. This clause has been there since day one, its just that CX has grown and no one felt threatened. WE have never known cuts in pilots, unlike other carriers heralded as where we will go post CX... dont think so....
Yes REDUNDANCY at HKT. Apples with apples etc. please. And redundancy is reverse seniority. It’s in the contract, but you don’t honour those do you?
CSA & Air China itching to operate ex CLK. Fact. Stated publicly. Another “fact” from this genius! True fact is they already do operate at CLK. Both with their own flight numbers and often with CX ones when you guys decide to ground your own airline to make political points!
Direct Tawian (sic) route to mailand (sic) will kill our TPE route. Fact. True timing hard to speculate.
Not too many analysts agree with you on this “fact”. Most seem to believe that KA will be hardest hit. Of course it will affect CX so all the more reason to get a deal with your pilots so we can all pull together again.
QF/AN wont touch us. Nor will SQ.
How do you know? When did you apply?

Final point. If you are in recruiting, which seems likely given your advice to newbies to "come on over". Is it wise to also suggest redundancies are likely soon? Last in first out is in the contract!

[ 02 September 2001: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

2nd Sep 2001, 07:06
<Last in first out is the contract>

Didn't seem to help the 49+3 did it?
Looks like this will drag on for sometime, and the pilots are running out of options.

2nd Sep 2001, 09:08

Wasn't that my point? They were not made redundant, they were not guilty of any particular offence, they were arbitrarily dismissed. This was industrial terrorism designed to strike fear into every other pilot. It had exactly the opposite effect and unified the pilot force like never before. Thus taking the art of mismanagement to a level never ever seen before; not even in CX.
Looks like this will drag on for sometime, and the pilots are running out of options.
On the contrary, I believe mgt have no idea where to go next. They bet everything on a pre-emptive strike when they grounded their own airline, blamed the pilots, sacked the 49 guys and issued a new contract. Instead of capitulating more than 1300 pilots (including some non union members) sent in letters rejecting the company offer and re-stating their legal position.

S.O.G. let's pretend you are running CX, what would you do next?

[ 02 September 2001: Message edited by: Dismayed ]

2nd Sep 2001, 10:50
Nasty, grow a brain! If Capt. D. wanted to cause a disruption, I think it will be something a little larger than going sick in PEN. :rolleyes:

2nd Sep 2001, 15:00
As I understand it, the biggest problem the AOA has is to figure out how the company can withdraw from its untenable position without losing what miniscule amount of face it has left....its obviously beyond Barley and his morons. :rolleyes:

Kaptin M
2nd Sep 2001, 15:51
Stop Start, I don't see the problem of the current CX managment getting out, without loss of face (and that might not be the only thing they lose) as anyone's (problem) except theirs. They took the first aggressive steps in what they figured would be a quick coup de grace - unfortunately for them, they seriously underestimated the depth of unhappiness, the tenacity, and the focus of the united pilot group.

Management has cost The Swire Group hundreds of millions of dollars needlessly, and achieved exactly ZILCH. If they were smart, they would take stock of the damage and end this waste of money by trying to get their pilots back on side in order to allow Cathay to get back into the business in which they once had THE name - premium passenger airline travel.

3rd Sep 2001, 00:09
If they were smart (not necessarily their strong point), the CX management would have FIXED (as in permanently fixed) the roster "problem" in the first place.
Then, if the pilots were still STILL unhappy, then .......wet lease from the PRC and terminate the lot. EVERY one of them!
Come to think of it, wet lease may well be.....cheaper from the PRC, less headaches too. That way they do NOT have to put up with the...."we are the BEST" from the present lot.
Better to have handled it "better" from the start. NO doubt about it!

BUT, that was NOT done, so the best option may well be for the CX management to call......PARC Aviation.

Standing by with hard hat firmly ON!! :p

3rd Sep 2001, 01:08
411A, O paragon of airline wisdom...

Please tell me what EXACTLY your absurd, dated views of anyone but yourself's position in commercial aviation have to do with the subject line "Cathay Management captain fails to remove gear pin!"

You, sir, are an idiot and should stay away from aircraft, flying bulletin boards and airports...perhaps the geriatric community a few miles south called "Sun City" would better suit you.

3rd Sep 2001, 01:34
Actually Vonkprop, Sun City is rather further west...
The CX management missed a golden opportunity to nip this "action" in the bud by applying common sense and "fixing the roster problem" before it got out of hand.
NOW, they have a VERY big problem on their collective hands.....and the pilots STILL think THEY are the best (according to whom, I wonder?).
Surely not easy times ahead for either party!

Kaptin M
3rd Sep 2001, 01:52
411A, you are CORRECT when you say the rostering should have been fixed long ago - such an easy and inexpensive solution to what has become a costly fight for Cathay Pacific. Probably however an indication of a management that's "not going to be told what to do", and are willing to fritter away the company's bank account to prove it!

Why, 411A, do you consistently refer to PARC Avation with intimations that THEY will be called on to enter into this fracas? It is PARC's policy NOT to become involved in industrial disputes, just as I am sure it is of the other recruiting agencies.

Do you have such bitterness towards other pilots, 411A because your time is up, and you feel envious of those still flying? Perhaps you've been out of flying for too long to be aware of this "new breed" of management that appear to be able to do nothing other than create confrontations with their pilots, in the name of cost cutting, but spending tens of millions of dollars in doing it, even to the point of breaking the company. Unaacountable and irresponsible. Australia 1989, was a prime example of this.

3rd Sep 2001, 04:34
Hey there Kaptin, the Australian fiasco of 1989 was surely not the start of adversarial employer-employee relations...simply put, just plain stupid on the pilots' part, but that is another time and storey.
The CX "problem" as I see it is management hell-bent on getting their way and pilots' equally unable to agree to any agenda. What with the labor laws the way they are in HKG, suspect that it is all over for the CX pilots but the shouting. Sad but true.

3rd Sep 2001, 10:17
I think Stopstart is very close to the truth in his comment above.

The parallels to Australia 1989 are there, but of course, with differences.

The way I see it, the current management team 'tendered' for the job in the promise that they would crush the pilot group (if not in as many words) and relieve the Swire Group or the PRC (or whoever it is at the very top these days in CX) of a perceived problem with a too high wages and conditions package.

Unfortunately, the fact that (just as in Oz in 89), the victory hasn't been quite as cleancut and total as their imported 'experts' with their computer predictions may have assured them it would be - and that leaves them, the management team, between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Anything less than a TOTAL victory over the pilots will be seen as a failure to deliver on their promises, so they are now in the position where they simply have to maintain their 'hardball' attitude until they defeat the pilots by atrition - or they ae relieved from their management contracts by he men above who employed them.

Simply put, they have nothing to lose. You could draw a parallel to troops cut off and surrounded by an enemy who has told them there will be no quarter - they simply must fight to the death or until they gain total victory over he surrounding forces,(the pilots), because anything less than total victory will be corporate death for them.

It's a shame there isn't some way the AoA couldn't give them some face-saving way out of what looks to me like a total impase as long as these men remain in their current contract management positions.

Flat Side Up
3rd Sep 2001, 13:17
Perhaps both sides have seriously underestimated each other. Certainly similar to '89 in that respect. :(

3rd Sep 2001, 13:41
Well-said Wiley. At last an opinion on the subject with which I totally agree. Management certainly are between a rock and a hard place. Perhaps more so than you have alluded to. They do not have the time to wait for natural attrition to give them victory; not that this would be a likely way for that to happen. The slowdown in business may help them prolong their stand marginally, however, the Hong Kong Government is more interested in a smooth operation at CLK than a management victory. They initially backed management due the normal HKGovt/Business relationship. Now they may not be so certain they should continue with that. What they are surely doing is making plans to open the skies of Hong Kong to non-Swire interests. Once slots are allocated to other players they will be gone forever and CX will always be a shadow of what it could and should have been. The question is are the management team willing to sacrifice so much in order to pursue a very uncertain victory. If they are then the owner’s should remove them forthwith.

3rd Sep 2001, 21:53
The other input missing from 411a and the usual suspects posts is of course, due to living in B*mf*ck Idaho or wherever it is. Few if any of them see the stirling work done in the Chinese media by the ethnic Chinese element of the pilot workforce. The local (Chinese language) media is extremely well informed I assure you. No matter what comes out of the dispute for the pilots, the concensus in the locoal press is that outdated colonial management techniques (as typified by the new incumbent in BA when he worked for CX during the CA dispute, and by Abeles and his political cronies during the '89 dispute) have resulted in the Hong Kong public being held to ransom due to the continuing lack of proper 'open skies' agreements and the resulting choice of services such as those embraced by Singapore. Even Tung Chi hua hua must respond to this, and the chances of CX being the de facto flag carrier within the next 2 years is in my opinion minimal. Make no mistake, the NOBODY loves pilots anywhere in the world, but the HKG publics view is overwhelmingly one of disdain for CX management and their continuing disputes with their work force CA's HAECO, pilits et al.. :p