New Deal for New SQ Pilots

[cojones]

Just heard a wonderful piece of news from my Lyin' City mole:
SQ, in their desperation to attract new crews on the 777 and 747, are offering new hires starting salaries of USD 14,000 per month. Present incumbents will remain on their present abysmal salaries and conditions. This, apparently, is management's way of giving a good hard kick in the goolies to their long suffering crews who had the effrontery to reject a pathetic pay offer. This could get interesting. A massive Cathay type sick-out is rumored. All the airline's flights could be grounded by the end of next month. Sorry I don't have any further details, but no doubt someone from SIN may be able to elaborate.
At last, the worm will turn.

[faheel]

Bit late for April 1 I think :)

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

This is not Hong Kong. A Cathay type sick-out would see us visiting the Changi Prison doctor. SIA is majority owned by the Government and they will do whatever is necessary to ensure the continuation of their healthy dividends. You tread very carefully here, strikes are illegal, any form of industrial action is illegal, even gatherings of over, I think, 6 people are illegal without prior Government approval.

As for the USD$14,000 pay, I think the previous post clarified that. April 1st was a while ago.

[addinfurnightem]

COJONES - As you well know, you are talking absolute bullsh*t, just who's fire and for why would you be stoking up this kind of nonsense?
Are you one of the internal agitators who have been intimidating our younger lads?
Time to backoff and smell the coffee I think.

[cojones]

Addinfurnightem,
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I was just passing on some information I had received from a third party; unverified information, I must admit. I would have no desire to stir the s**t for anyone in any airline. It would be interesting if it had been true!! Maybe could have led to big pay rises all round.
And, no, I have nothing to do with SIA. I was there in the good old days (probably before your time)but am now retired.
You'll probably notice that I don't post too many topics - many, many fewer than you - so I'm not permanently full of wind and p**s!
(Not that I am suggesting that you are!)
Regards to all in SQ,

[crl]

cojones...
SIA has never LED in paying their pilots, it would really be interesting to see if it EVER happens...
Cheers,
CRL

[Carrillo]

^Hi everybody.- Until last week, I was quite interested to join SQ, but I got some doubts after reading some comments. Would like to know some more details, before participating in the interviews for A340. Is there anyone who can tell anything positive about SQ? Thanks.

[Gladiator]

Positive point? When you deadhead, the Caviar is top grade Persian. Sorry can't think of anything else considered positive.

Don't join, it is similar to a movie style Chinese ran sweat shop.

[addinfurnightem]

COJONES - I arrived in Singappore in 1968, no wind and p*ss left, how about you?

[Lee]

Carrillo,

Positive: The Singapore Girls really know how to party!

Gladiator,

Are you missing something at Alaska?

[Gladiator]

No Lee, I still party once in a while with the Singapore girls when in YVR, SFO and LAX.

However there is always JAL, CX, etc, they are pretty good party crowd also.

I must tell you though, the quality of the Singapore girl is hitting hawker center quality. Slim pickings I guess, the word has gotten around, nobody wants the job.

[crl]

Carrillo...
It all depends on whether you like Singapore or not, if you like it here; chances are you will be pretty alright in SQ. Just one thing: be able to tolerate "people" that may talk to you like you are 12 yrs old....

crl

[Lee]

Gladiator,

Yes, I agree with you, that the local Singapore Girls, some of whom are hawker centre quality, but try the Koreans and Japs, you'll see the difference. Have you got the red rating yet? Best wishes and do you polish your (SQ) trophies?

[Sick Squid]

Hmmm, do I detect perhaps a certain trend to your off-topic postings, Lee? I'm starting my stopwatch now on every new thread just waiting for the Errol Flynn of Singapore Airlines to arrive. :)

Is there something you want us all to know, maybe? Or at least think? ;)

Now, what was this one about again......?

Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator



[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 03 May 2001).]

[twitchy]

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif
Dear Carrilo,
If you are happy in your present job and wants remain happy in rest of your lif then don't ever think of making this kind of mistake like joining SQ. Yeap if you want mess up your rest of the life, your are most welcome. Here neither the money is good nor the work culture. I can't say for sure weather you will be happy here or not but i can certainly say that you will regret your decision to come here, like many others do and you will not be able to leave even if you wanted later on. Most of us here have no choice and to say are as happy as pig in sh*t.
All the very best

;)

Twitchy

[twitchy]

oops.......I meant happy in rest of your life

[Hermie]

Hey,

I think all the commotion regarding SQ is only BASED on expats. I find that the locals won't complain about SQ negative side if any !

I've got relatives in SQ and they don't complain ! I think the BEST advice, Take it or Leave it and don't go on back biting ! :mad:

If SQ really sucks, I don't think they will be rated as one of the Best Airlines in the World ! I think the people who keep on complaining about SQ are just sourgrapes !! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

This is based on my personal opinion and if you choose to bombard me, I don't give a **** ! Freedom of speech http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

BUT, do correct me if I'm wrong !!

Cheers,
Herman




------------------
Ad Astra Per Aspera

[anito4a]

Hermie,

The locals in SQ (or anywhere in Singapore, for that matter) don't complain because you have been conditioned from an early age to never question the Government line, never question authority and to never think for yourself. I'm sorry, but this is a sad fact of life in Singapore and I'm sure many Singaporeans will agree with me there.

Unfortunately, this type of mindset may have dire consequences in an aviation safety context where CRM is concerned. (This issue has been raised elsewhere on Pprune in relation to SQ 006 so I won't repeat it here.)

As for the Best Airline in the World , well, one thing I can say is that SQ probably has the best PR department in the world. Judge for yourself, dude ... you don't have to always take these kind of PR statements at face value. Listen to what other people have to say, and weigh this up with your own expereince and judge for yourself. ... Just some friendly advice to the locals who have been bombarded with Government propaganda all their lives :)

Cheers

[Carrillo]

Thanks again for the comments. If anyone needs information about my area(Germany), let me know.-

[Hermie]

Anito,

Thanx for the information. What you have said is very true ! We are taught to NEVER question the goverment on how they choose to govern this country !

Although I have chose to question the goverment and many other things, they will never entertain our comments and views over matters like this, eg: SQ Pay, Recruitment Policy and many more !

Therefore it will be useless to 'wage a war' against them as we know they will never back down UNLESS we go on STRIKE ! Look at Pilots in other countries (Delta, Northwest) they go on strike so they can be heard ! If we(All the Pilots in SQ) choose to do that, they will have no choice but to reconsider certain issues. Once again, we are told that if we go on strike we WILL get jail ! So its really up to them(SQ Pilots).

Thanx, Anito for the information. Hopefully someone out there can do something .....Thanx for your email regarding MFA too !!

Once again, Do correct me if I'm wrong !

Best Regards,
Herman




------------------
Ad Astra Per Aspera

[0.88M]

I agree with hermie.
Take it or leave it. No one is forced to remain in SQ against their will. Never did.
But still, SQ is giving away almost free 777& 340 ratings. And if lucky, you'll get a A380 rating too.
Oh almost missed out the 747-400 ratings too are available for a small fee.

[Gladiator]

"Not forced to stay at SQ against their will".

Not sure I agree with that statement. More like intimidated. For locals, blackmailed, etc. As for the contracts, 'Indentured Servitude'.

SIA's lobor pratices would not survive in a civilized developed democracy.

[Sunny]

Hermie,
Good to hear your point of view, but just because you don't see us pulling long faces and going on strike, does not mean that everything is hunky-dory in the land of OZ. The natives are getting restless and discontentment is certainly brewing. I'm glad that your relatives are happy, and so am I. But that's only because I don't have the freedom and financial means to shake off the bonds I have and move to a much better paying airline.

As for being rated one of the best airlines in the world, do not forget that this is rated based on the viewpoint of travellers. Do they include a weighting for staff satisfaction or happiness? I think not. Letting our frustration at conditions of employment be shown to our fare paying customers on board the aircraft is in my opinion not professional and would in no way benefit or relieve frustration. So we plod along, doing just what is necessary to get the job done.

Love the job,....pity about the conditions.

[The_Nomad]

To Carillo,
I have been remiss in my reading. SIA is hiring A340 Capt? Can anyone elucidate me how long this has been going on? Also hearing rumours that the last 2 A340s are now on their way to SQ instead of Boeing as was originally intended methinks.
Does this point to doubts regarding ETOPS certification for the 777 both for the SFO/Vancouver and AMS/Chicago? You guys flying the RR powered 777s at other airlines...what's wrong with them darned engines anyway? Or can someone from RR reading this be helpful?

Cheers

[Sunny]

Nomad,
Well there have been a few new faces around on the 340. But there have been no indications that there'll be a change in usage of the 777, or that the 340's gonna stay longer than planned. Pity, nice a/c to work on.

[Hermie]

Hi,

Thank you very much for your replies. Very much appreciated it and at least I have a better understading of the situation.

a) Wouldn't the condition stated by Sunny effect the Flight Crew in the long run ?

b) Wouldn't the crew be somewhat annoyed/frustrated by the whole idea of poor working conditions ?

So why isn't anyone doing something about it, the reason stated by ANITO above is very much true about locals in Singapore.

Quote:
The locals in SQ (or anywhere in Singapore, for that matter) don't complain because you have been conditioned from an early age to never question the Government line, never question authority and to never think for yourself. I'm sorry, but this is a sad fact of life in Singapore and I'm sure many Singaporeans will agree with me there.--Unquote

So if the expats do something about it, at least we are progressing into a better working enviroment. But, there will be a price to pay. Since locals dare not bring up the topic confidently then let the expats do it ? I say, Why Not ?

This is just my personal opinion and I might be wrong. My apologies if some of you can't accept my postings. It is deeply regretted.

Once again, Do correct me if I'm wrong !

Best Regards,
Herman :)



------------------
Ad Astra Per Aspera

[Gladiator]

And then the expat will find himself in a Singapore jail, or on the next plane home (SIA will keep his pay and bank guarantee).

Indentured Servitude.

[Sunny]

Hermie,
Those conditions would indeed cause frustration. It's not being shown openly, but there are signs around work of such frustration. Look around when checking in guys. A newspaper clipping about pay rises? Strikes? Petitions against the Union or Company? Flight Envelopes being left on board? However, if you choose to ignore them, or give other excuses for various occurences, then .... Ignorance is bliss.

[Sunny]

Another thing Hermie,
Sitting back and letting the expats get the job done for us is not the way to go.
They are here of their own free choice and have commitments and needs of their own. Expecting them to charge in and rescue the lot of us is not right. Our own guys are just going to have to get the job done.

[Landing Lights]

As usual there is Gladiator sitting afar snaping at the edges. The best thing is ignore him - he is short on facts so resorts to name calling (or lametable rymes) which means he has no argument and sure sign of imaturity.

The facts are we live in a changing world. It changes for Sq as much as CX, BA, UA or the rest. Fact - Conditions change. SQ are not alone and griping wont change that fact.

On balance there would not be so many of us in Asia doing what we want to do if things were as bad as the likes of Titan & Gladis would like you to think. They failed to hack it.

At least you can walk down Orchard Rd or Queens Road Central and have no fear of being raped - Gladis can't have the same piece of mind where he is. The kids will be safe unlike where Gladis is. Wont get shot by some maniac kid who was told off by Teach the day before. It all boils down to what you want and what you like.

You make value judgement based on what you see as important. Fortunately there are not too many Gladis's in the world who must find getting up in the morning a real bore... oh darling what can I bitch about today!!!!

Gladis babe wake up smell the coffeee....In the meantime stop occupying cyberspace with digijunk. FYI Yr ID is known


Happy days!

[Hermie]

Sunny,

So what can actually be done ? Basically...

I understand letting the expats get the job done for us is DEFINITELY not the way to go, if all the pilots(how many SQ Pilots are there altogether) march together as one protesting for a better working enviroment they have no choice but to reconsider, right !! SO why can't they do that ?

They can't sack ALL the pilots nor get them packing back home to their country.

No pilots = Plaes will be left untouch = no money for company !

CARPE DIEM

Once again, Do correct me if I'm wrong !

Cheers,
Herman




------------------
Ad Astra Per Aspera

[Hermie]

Hi,

I was reading this and I guess this is somewhat related to our topic of discussion.

---------------------------------------------

The States Tiger Scare

In a recent interview with The Straits Times, Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng highlighted two things that showed that the government is actually not really serious with encouraging political participation and opinions. Although the S21 campaigns are swamped with together we make a difference, jargon, Wong said that the govt. should not be enslaved by public opinion and that communists (if there are any left) are to renounce their allegience to the defund Communist Party of Malaya? What this means that the government still has the final say even how stupid they sound, like the increase in the minister¹s pay even when our CPFs rates have not been restored as the economy has not recovered yet? >

We are not supposed to talk about race, religion or politics because these will be exploited by the Communalist and Communists elements that like a tiger would tear our peaceful society apart. Therefore we have no effective unions or NGOs as the government thinks that it is not suitable for Singapore. Whose Singapore are they talking about? The people of Singapore or the Singaporeans by the state and their Government Linked Companies (GLC) who waste our money to invest in their grandiose projects and charge us for it?

As long as the government plays up this tiger scare as seen in their National Education programmes, we will only be able to discuss about choked drains and killer litter instead of the issues of racism and elitism that is oppressing our lives in this country. If the government is really serious about killing the tiger it should have a South African version of the Truth Commission where people on both sides of the apartheid struggle come forward to confess the things they have done. Yes, the communalists and communist may have carried bombs, but the way the authorities have detained and clinically abused them under the internal security Act makes them no saint either.

Until then, any one who wishes to talk about politics openly would be labelled by the state establishment as a troublemaker aiming to destroy the nation. Under such circumstances, lifestyle magazines about sex and glamour would be a safer and more distracting option.

---------------------------------------------

This is so bloddy TRUE and currently this is happening in SQ !

Once again, Do correct me if I'm wrong !

Best Regards,
Herman :)



------------------
Ad Astra Per Aspera

[combi pilot]

Hermie,

You realise the nature of Singaporeans are such that they are hesitant to go against authority at the expense of their own liberty and personal rights. In other words, how many singaporean pilots are willing to risk their career and salaries for "a wrong to be righted"?

A feature (can't exactly call it a virtue here can you?) that I find afflicts most singaporeans is this docile nature of accepting whatever cr*p is heaped in their faces, simply because most are more concerned with how the circumstances affect their material gains (both in the short and long term). I can go on about how most singaporeans think and the regimentation that has been sub (or un)consciously drummed into them but perhaps you might want to examine it closely yourself. If the majority of singaporean pilots maintain such a mindset, isn't it obvious why nothing has been done? Furthermore, strikes/ industrial actions are banned in singapore, even a group of more than 6 people in the streets may constitute an "illegal gathering". It would be a likely scene to witness 1,000 SQ pilots marching through the CBD and picketing the SQ office isn't it? :)

The fact would be that SQ realises the reluctance of singaporean pilots to deal outside their comfort zone and as such, is able to deal so high-handedly with its pilots, (barring the expat community who fortunately believe in the concept of democracy better than singaporeans do).

Put quite simply, it's not a matter of what they can do now but HOW they go about doing it. Dealing with constraints at every turn (the very landmark of a democracy!), it requires more tact than simply shouting at this point in time. Any views? ;)

[Established !]

Combi pilot
Your opioniated arrogance is just typical of your kind (you know what I mean).You, the know all judge all, fail to see that there are other opinions. (Facts speaks louder than Farts) Your behaviour belies your bad upbringing.
Champion of democracy!, principles before material gain!. My ___!
When push comes to shove, guess who'll be on the first flt out.
No prizes.
My advice to all expats, if Singapore does not agree with you, simple, piss off!
The doors' wide open.

[combi pilot]

Established,

...Speaking of shouting in my last post... :)

Opinionated arrogance? Oh dear, now look who's trying to shove his opinions onto others.

I have merely stated MY opinion of this whole issue, which is clearly what people do on a forum. I have made my deductions and come to an opinion following what I understand and have read. Need I place a disclaimer at the end of my every post saying, "this is just my opinion, so please don't punish me for thinking as so"? Nah..I didn't think so.

If you can't accept that others hold differing opinons from yourself, then go vent your frustrations elsewhere. You do seem quite uptight, maybe you need a little holiday from pprune to quit annoying everyone else with your bitter posts. We'd like some quality discussion here, so if you're not up to it..

Go fetch.

[EasyGo-Lucky?]

Established, you sound as though you are not getting enough Bran in the morning.

If you'd like the expats to leave then simple, pay off their bonds and refund their bank guarantees. Send me a cheque and I am outta this dump, that will make us both happy. Before you say why did I join then, well if I knew exactly what I was getting into I wouldn't have joined, but does anyone know ALL the facts before joining any Company, I doubt it. SIA is obviously aware that it lies at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to good employers and instead of trying to improve the situation it retains its employees by posing the constant threat of financially crippling you if you wish to leave.

So Established a cheque for SIN$192,000 please and your wish is my command.

[VH DSJ]

Established....

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Your opioniated arrogance is just typical of your kind </font>

So I guess in Singapore No Opinion, No Cry ?

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2"> Your behaviour belies your bad upbringing </font>

Reads ... in Singapore if you form your own opinion, then you have not been brought up correctly.

This is the mindset of the locals, brought about through Government conditioning. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[This message has been edited by VH DSJ (edited 12 May 2001).]

[0.88M]

Looks like "established" is not getting it at home or from his girl. Pity, such remarks are common among deficient operators.

[Gladiator]

Landing Lights, your Orchard Road is nothing but a convention for con men and hookers.

I live in the free world, you are a prisoner. I am free to speak, you live in fear. I don't have metal bars covering my windows, you do. You lock the entrance of your house with a 1/4 kilo pad lock, I often leave mine unlocked.

My children do not have to urinate in their clothing at school as is expected in the Singapore school system, your children have to avoid drinking water at school.

Don't even compare the two. Lastly don't for one second even think I ever tried to keep my ID secret.

I am proud for everyone to know who I am. I am the SIA slayer, the one that cost SIA millions and millions of dollars (744 TCC 712M).

On PPRuNe, ever since it's creation, I am the founding father of truth about Singapore, SIA, and the slave trade in the Lee-public of Lee-ingapore. I am the reason PPRuNe Far East forum says, "specially Singapore".

I am even hero to many locals that only dare communicate with me whilst outside the Lee-public.

You can run but you can't hide, we will tell the truth, we tell it as it is, information hiway is here to stay, PPRuNe is here to stay.

Pilots around the world have the right to know what they are getting into. We to your eyes are the opposition (not allowed in Singapore context). We create a reason for the potential candidate to do more research about SIA, to ask around about what SIA is really about.

This is as opposed to the illusion, glitter and the candy coating they use to cheat a potential pilot candidate into signing a contract.

SIA's aim is exploitation.

[Damsel]

Good grief Gladiator what a posting!
Such responsibility!
Yes we all know who you are sigh.

[411A]

Must have a six foot arm to pat himself on the back so much. Oh, to be so famous! WOW

[Sunny]

Well Hermie,
As for SQ not sacking all the pilots, don't hold your breath. If they could'nt give a rats ass about employee satisfaction, concern for staff etc, what would stop them from replacing the entire staff?

[thegypsy]

Easy go Lucky. Well said I too would be out of here before you could count to 3 if they release my Bond money ,pay out the CF for what that is worth!!
Established I see no open door. Those of us who joined in the last 2/3 years have been well and truly shafted. A 6% service increment is paid until I reach the top scale and is not negotiable as far as I was concerned, as in all other Airlines I have ever worked in.
If the company makes less money then that is reflected in the bonus and it should not affect anything else. I also naively assumed that as SIA took $46000 as 5 year bank guarantee for an even larger total guarantee that they in turn would pay me the market rates in return. Am I being unreasonable???

Instead SIA take the view that now they have my money they can shaft me at every opportunity which they do extremely well . So where is this OPEN DOOR???

[thegypsy]

411A You are just as famous for being a complete a$$hole in the light of your pathetic postings.

[tricepx2]

Singapore Airlines Ltd vXXXXXXXXX
HIGH COURT

HEADNOTES:
This was an appeal by the defendant company ('the company') against the district judge's decision that they were not entitled to claim liquidated damages from the plaintiff upon the termination of the plaintiff's employment with the company. The plaintiff was a pilot with the company. When he was first engaged, the plaintiff was required to undergo a course of training, prior to which he had to sign a training agreement with the company. The plaintiff's employment was governed by the terms of a collective agreement between the Airline Pilots Association Singapore ('the collective agreement'), his letter of appointment and its annexes, and the parts of the training agreement that continued to apply.

Clause 31(1) of the collective agreement provided that either party may terminate the employment on giving three months' notice or on payment of a sum equivalent to three months' salary in lieu. Clause 31(2) further provided that a pilot may be dismissed for misconduct on any of the listed grounds set out there. As for the training agreement, it required the plaintiff to complete the training course and, on completion of the course, to serve the company for a period of five years. Clause 3(g) of the training agreement, which continued to apply, provided that if the plaintiff 'is dismissed or has his services terminated for any reason whatsoever . . . during the period of five (5) years', the plaintiff would be liable to pay the company on demand as liquidated damages the amounts set out in Sch A to the training agreement. Pursuant to cl 10 of the training agreement, the plaintiff provided a bankers' guarantee in the sum of $ 60,000 to secure the performance of his obligations under the agreement. It was provided that the company was at liberty to call on the bankers' guarantee in or towards satisfaction of any liquidated damages payable under the agreement.

On or about 25 July 1997, the plaintiff made a nuisance of himself while travelling as a passenger on an SIA flight. On 4 August 1997, the defendants asked the plaintiff for a written explanation, which the plaintiff provided. On 11 August 1997, the company, with reference to cl 31(1) of the collective agreement, informed the plaintiff that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect by payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. The company also claimed liquidated damages in the sum of $ 100,000, called in the bankers' guarantee for the entire sum of $ 60,000 and charged the plaintiff the balance sum of $ 40,000. Subsequently, the plaintiff took out an originating summons seeking a declaration that, on a proper construction of the training agreement and other documents referred to above, the company was not entitled to claim liquidated damages against him or to call on the bankers' guarantee.

The district judge was of the view that there were issues of fact to be tried and ordered that the action be continued as a writ action and that pleadings be filed. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court against this finding. The appeal was allowed by the judicial commissioner, who ordered that the case should proceed on the affidavits that had been filed and not by way of a writ action. In reaching his decision, the judicial commissioner further expressed the view that cl 3(g) of the training agreement was 'not a 'fault' clause and termination may be for any reason whatsoever, ie fault or no fault, and for this reason the reasons for the termination of the plaintiff's employment [were] irrelevant'. The matter went back before the same district judge, who considered himself bound by the terms of the order of the judicial commissioner. However, the district judge construed cl 3(g) as a penalty clause because it purported to require the payment of damages in circumstances where there was no breach of contract by the plaintiff. The district judge thus found in favour of the plaintiff. The company appealed against this decision. The main substantive issue that arose on appeal was whether cl 3(g) was applicable where an employee's services were terminated under cl 31(1) of the collective agreement.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The judicial commissioner did not give the reasons for the view he took on cl 3(g) of the training agreement. As the matter before the judicial commissioner was only an appeal over procedure, it was unclear whether he intended to express a concluded view and whether the finding on the construction of cl 3(g) was a necessary part of the judicial commissioner's decision. The court therefore proceeded on the assumption that it was not constrained by anything the judicial commissioner had expressed about the said clause (see para 16 and 19)

(2) Clause 3(g) must be interpreted in such a manner so as not to give rise to an absurd result. It would be utterly absurd if the company could terminate without cause and then claim to be entitled to liquidated damages from the trainee. It could be assumed that no such absurd result was intended (see para 19).

(3) The court should try to uphold an agreement rather than to undo it. If a sensible meaning could be given to a provision so as to uphold it, the court should try to do so (see para 20).

(4) The court was of the view that the words 'terminated for any reason whatsoever' in cl 3(g) was so uncertain and ambiguous as to be incapable of being given any contractual effect. As the clause worked to the financial detriment of a contracting party, the circumstances in which it was to operate must be stated with sufficient precision. It was not good enough to leave them to conjecture. The company therefore could not rely on this part of the clause to claim damages from the other contracting party, especially where it had terminated the contract without cause (see para 21).

(5) As the company chose to terminate the plaintiff's employment under cl 31(1) of the collective agreement, the termination was thus outside the ambit of cl 3(g) of the training agreement. The company was not entitled to claim damages, liquidated or otherwise, from the plaintiff. There was no necessity to inquire what was the real, underlying reason for the termination (see para 22).

JUDGMENT:
This is an appeal by the defendants, the Singapore Airlines Ltd, against a decision of the learned district judge Mr Phang Hsiao Chung, that the company was not entitled to claim liquidated damages from the plaintiff upon a termination of the plaintiff's employment with the company.

The plaintiff, a US national, was an aeroplane pilot with the company. When he was first engaged in August 1995, however, he was not qualified to fly a Boeing 747 plane. He had to undergo a course of training. Upon the completion of his training in July 1996, he was confirmed as a B-747 captain. The plaintiff's employment was governed by the terms of a collective agreement between the Airline Pilots Association Singapore and the company and his letter of appointment and its annexes. But before he was admitted to training, he had been required to sign, and he signed, an agreement (the 'training agreement') with the company. Parts of the training agreement continued to apply to him after he completed the training. One of the provisions related to the payment of liquidated damages in the event he was dismissed or had his services terminated within a period of five years after completion of his training.

The collective agreement provide in cl 31(1) that either party may terminate the employment on giving three months' notice or on payment of a sum equivalent to three months' salary in lieu. It provides in cl 31(2) that a pilot may be dismissed for misconduct on any of a list of grounds set out there. The clause reads as follows:

31 Period of employment, suspension and dismissal --

(1)(a) A pilot's employment may, except in any case referred to in paragraph (b) of this sub-clause be terminated by either the Company or the pilot giving to the other three months' written notice or by the payment of three months' salary in lieu of such notice . . .

1(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this sub-clause shall not apply in any case of --

(i) termination of employment during initial probation; or

(ii) dismissal under the provisions of sub-clause (2) of this clause.

(2) A pilot may, at the absolute discretion of the Company, be liable to suspension from flying or ground duties with or without salary, or be dismissed by the Company in accordance with the provisions of clauses 72 and 73 in Part VII of this Agreement if he --

(a) wilfully neglects the interests of the Company or damages a Company aircraft through negligence;

(b) consumes spirituous or intoxicating liquors or takes or uses drugs to an extent considered excessive by the Company on medical advice;

(c) consumes any drinks containing alcohol within a period of ten hours prior to commencing flying duties;

(d) consumes any drinks containing alcohol at any time in a public place or consumes any drink in a bar whilst wearing Company uniform including insignia or rank markings;

(e) is guilty of --

(i) disobedience;

(ii) non-compliance with the Company's regulations; or

(iii) any conduct on or off duty which is prejudicial to the interests or good name of the Company;

(f) becomes through his own fault (which shall include refusal or failure to undergo inoculation, vaccination, or other preventive treatment advised by a registered medical practitioner nominated by the Company) --

(i) sick or disabled; or

(ii) otherwise unable to perform his duties properly or to do so without being a nuisance or menace to his colleagues or others; or

(g) as a result of neglect or omission on his part ceases for any period to hold any one of the licences or travel documents necessary to enable him to perform his duties in the rank and grade in which he is employed.

The relevant distinction to be noted for the purpose of these proceedings is that while sub-cl (1) of cl 31 provides for termination on mere notice without assigning any reason, sub-cl (2) provides for suspension or dismissal on the grounds set out in that sub-clause.

Clauses 72 and 73 of the collective agreement provide for detailed procedures for inquiry in the event that it is proposed to dismiss a pilot on any of the grounds in cl 31(2). They are quite elaborate. It is not necessary to set them out.

The training agreement, in brief, required the plaintiff to complete the training course and on completion of the course to serve the company for a period of five years. The provision of the training agreement for the payment of liquidated damages was contained in cl 3, which reads as follows:

It is further agreed and declared that if the trainee in the sole opinion of SIA:

(a) fails to obey directions given by SIA to the trainee or affecting the trainee;

(b) fails to show sufficient application to the said course of training;

(c) by his own misconduct renders himself in the opinion of SIA unsuitable to continue such course of training;

(d) shows himself unlikely to develop or attain the physical and [sol] or mental standard sufficient to enable him to complete the said course of training successfully;

(e) by his own conduct renders himself unsuitable to serve or continue to serve SIA or its SUBSIDIARY (as the case may be) in accordance with the provisions of clause 4 of this Agreement;

(f) resigns or leaves the service of SIA or its subsidiary (as the case may be) either during the course of training or during the period of five (5) years referred to in clause 4 of this Agreement; or

(g) is dismissed or has his services terminated for any reason whatsoever either during the course of training or during the period of five (5) years referred to in clause 4 of this Agreement; then and in every such case the trainee shall be liable for himself, his heirs, executors or assigns to pay SIA on demand as liquidated damages the amounts set out in Schedule A to this Agreement.

Clause 3(g) above will feature prominently in these proceedings. Note the words 'has his services terminated for any reason whatsoever.' The main substantive issue in this case is, simply, whether this clause is applicable in circumstances in which an employee's services are terminated under sub-cl (1) of cl 31 of the collective agreement, set out above.

There was set out in Sch A of the training agreement a sliding scale of the amount of liquidated damages payable under cl 3, pegged to the time when the plaintiff should cease the training or employment with the company after completion of training.

In accordance with cl 10 of the training agreement, the plaintiff provided a bankers' guarantee in the sum of $ 60,000 to secure the performance of his obligations under the agreement. It was provided that the company was at liberty to call on the bankers' guarantee in or towards satisfaction of any liquidated damages payable under the agreement.

On or about 25 July 1997, the plaintiff was travelling as a passenger on an SIA flight from Los Angeles to Singapore. It appears that he had one drink too many. It was reported that he made a nuisance of himself, making disparaging remarks about SIA, the Singapore media and the Singapore government, generally causing embarrassment to his fellow passengers, and so on. He was off-loaded at the next scheduled stop, Tokyo, and had to continue his journey on another flight the next day.

On 4 August 1997, the company asked the plaintiff in writing for an explanation, which the plaintiff provided. Then, on 11 August, the company wrote to the plaintiff referring to cl 31(1) of the collective agreement and telling him that his employment was being terminated with immediate effect by payment of three months' salary in lieu of notice. The company also claimed liquidated damages in the sum of $ 100,000 and called in the bankers' guarantee for the entire sum of $ 60,000. It charged the plaintiff the balance sum of $ 40,000. The letter in part read as follows: This is to inform you that in accordance with cl 31(1) of the Pilots' Collective Agreement, 1995, your employment is hereby terminated by payment of three months' salary in lieu of three months' notice. Your last day of service is today. In accordance with the provision of the bonding agreement signed between you and the Company, you are required to pay SIA as liquidated damages the sum of $ 100,000. As your bank guarantee of $ 60,000 will be forfeited, the liquidated damages is reduced to $ 40,000 . . .

There then followed an account of sums due to and from the company with a net amount of $ 16,889.13 shown as due to the company. The sums include the balance of $ 40,000 of the liquidated damages due to the company, and a sum of $ 31,487.94, the equivalent of three months' salary in lieu of notice, shown as due from the company.

The plaintiff consulted solicitors. They wrote to the company, protesting that the company was not entitled to charge the plaintiff with any liquidated damages as the termination was under cl 31 sub-cl (1). The company disagreed and demanded the sum of $ 16,889.13 (shown in the account above) it claimed to be due from the plaintiff.

Course of proceedings

On 30 September 1997, the plaintiff took out this originating summons seeking a declaration that, on a proper construction of the training agreement and other documents referred to above, the company was not entitled to claim liquidated damages against him or to call on the bank guarantee. The originating summons came before the learned district judge. His Honour took the view that there were issues of fact to be tried, and ordered that the action be continued as a writ action, and that pleadings be filed. The reason for the view that there were issues of fact to be tried was set out in his Honour's ground of decision. He said that cl 31 of the collective agreement served a different function from that of cl 3(g) of the training agreement. Clause 31, he said, was concerned only with the mode of termination, and not the consequences. He said that where the company was of the opinion that a pilot was guilty of misconduct, it might nevertheless choose to terminate his services under cl 31(1) of the collective agreement. This would not prejudice the company's right to recover liquidated damages under cl 3(g). However, if the company wished to recover such damages, the underlying reasons for the termination would be relevant. He then referred to the evidence of the underlying reasons, which he said was not complete. He said therefore there was a triable issue of fact, and so he ordered as he did.

From this decision, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court. Although this was essentially a procedural decision, the resolution of it involved taking a view on the ambit of cl 3(g) of the training agreement. The appeal was heard by Mr Tay Yong Kwang JC. His Honour allowed the appeal. He ordered that the case should proceed on the affidavits that had been filed and not by way of a writ action. His Honour took the view that cl 3(g) is not a 'fault' clause and termination may be for any reason whatsoever, ie fault or no fault, and for this reason the reasons for the termination of the plaintiff's employment are irrelevant.

This statement was embodied in the order that was extracted; the second part of it was added by way of a subsequent amendment agreement between the parties.

The matter then went before the learned district judge again. It is against his decision on this second round that the present appeal has been brought. I think I can summarise his Honour's decision simply as follows. His Honour considered that he was bound by the terms of the order of Tay Yong Kwang JC. He understood the order to mean that cl 3(g) would be applicable whether the cessation of employment was for cause or for no cause at all. If that is so, he says, it is tantamount to requiring the plaintiff to pay damages where there is no breach of contract. A clause that purports to require the payment of damages in circumstances where there is no breach, is clearly a penalty clause. But for the fact that he considered himself to be so bound, I am sure he would have taken a different view. He referred to his judgment in the first round. He said: In my [previous] grounds of decision . . . I reasoned that as liquidated damages are payable only upon the breach of a contract, the circumstances enumerated in cl 3 must refer to circumstances in which the plaintiff is deemed to have breached the terms of the Training Agreement. Each of cll 3(a) to 3(f) of the Training Agreement refers to a situation in which a pilot breaches the terms of the Training Agreement by his conduct. I therefore reasoned that the words 'has his services terminated for any reason whatsoever' in cl 3(g) of the Training Agreement must also refer to a situation where a pilot breached the terms of the Training Agreement by having his services terminated due to some default on his part. If the words 'has his services terminated for any reason whatsoever' are to be read literally, those words will give the defendant a licence to terminate the plaintiff's services and demand liquidated damages without any default on the part of the plaintiff. I sought to avoid this inequitable implication by restricting the ambit of those words to situations where the plaintiff breached the terms of the Training Agreement by having his services terminated due to some default on his part . . .

Proceedings before me

When the matter first came before me, I raised the question with counsel whether the real issue of construction of the clause could be properly considered if the terms of the order made by the learned judicial commissioner were taken as a definitive decision on the effect of the clause and its applicability to the case at hand. There was nothing on record to show the reasons for the learned judicial commissioner apparently taking the view he did on cl 3(g). As the matter before him was only an appeal over procedure, I was not sure whether he really intended to express a concluded view. The construction of cl 3(g) was at the heart of the substantive dispute between the parties. To say that a termination for no cause at all was within the ambit of cl 3(g) would be to go a long way towards deciding the substantive dispute. I was not sure whether the order was a necessary part of the learned judicial commissioner's decision on the purely procedural appeal before him. I therefore invited counsel to make alternative submissions, de novo as it were, on the basis that they were not constrained by any interpretation placed on the clause by the learned judicial commissioner.

Counsel for the company argues that since, as held by the learned judicial commissioner, cl 3(g) could be invoked whether the plaintiff was terminated for fault or no fault, that should conclude the matter; it would not matter whether the plaintiff was terminated under cl 31(1) or (2) of the collective agreement. Counsel submits that the learned district judge was wrong in holding that cl 3(g) was a penalty clause. He points out, among other things, that a contract must be construed against the background of the circumstances in which it was made. Here the company was to incur a substantial cost to put the plaintiff through training. It was reasonable to require the plaintiff to serve the company for a specified period after completion of the training. Counsel points to the provision for amortising the liquidated damages over five years, the damages being proportionately reduced by the length of the plaintiff's services with the company. The burden of showing that cl 3(g) is a penalty clause is on the plaintiff, and he says that it has not been shown.

Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the learned district judge was right in thinking that he was bound by the learned judicial commissioner's order. On that basis, however, he submits that the learned district judge's decision that the clause is a penalty clause is also right. Alternatively, if the terms of the order are not binding, then, he submits, firstly, that a limited meaning must be given to the clause. To give the clause a literal meaning would lead to an unintended result, so that, for instance, a pilot can be asked to pay liquidated damages even if he is retrenched on account of redundancy. It would also mean that the company could wrongfully terminate the employment of the plaintiff and yet claim damages from him. This would be to allow a party to profit from his own wrong. Referring to the ejusdem generis rule of construction, counsel submits that cl 3(g) should be restricted to the situations similar to those set out in the previous sub-clauses. Alternatively, it should be restricted to the dismissal situations provided for in cl 31(2) of the collective agreement.

My views

For the reasons I alluded to earlier, I would proceed on the assumption that I am not constrained by anything the learned judicial commissioner said about the clause. On that basis, I see the position as follows. I think, in the first place, the clause must be construed in such a way as not to give rise to an absurd result. It would be utterly absurd if the company could terminate without cause and then claim to be entitled to liquidated damages from the trainee. The redundancy example cited by plaintiff's counsel is a good one. Interpreting the clause in the broad way suggested is plainly against common sense and reason. It can be assumed that no such absurd result was intended.

The court should try to uphold an agreement rather than to undo it. If a sensible meaning could be given to a provision so as to uphold it, the court should try to do so. The learned editors of Chitty on Contracts (27th Ed) para 12-069 put the position correctly thus: If the words used in an agreement are susceptible of two meanings, one of which would validate the instrument or the particular clause in the instrument, and the other render it void, ineffective or meaningless, the former sense is to be adopted. This rule is often expressed in the phrase ut res magis valeat cum pereat. Thus, if by a particular construction the agreement would be rendered ineffectual and the apparent object of the contract would be frustrated, but another construction, though per se less appropriate looking to the words only, would produce a different effect, the latter interpretation is to be applied, if it can possibly be supported by anything in the contract.

It is suggested that in the general context of the clause as a whole, the words 'terminated for any reason whatsoever' can be given a sensible meaning if one thinks of it as referring to termination for a reason akin to dismissal or for something that connotes a degree of fault or wrongful commission or omission on the part of the trainee, rather than termination for the convenience or at the will of the company. I must say it is an attractive suggestion in that it would help to save the clause. However, although I was attracted to the idea right up to the last minute in the writing of this judgment, I think I must resist it. The suggestion itself shows how uncertain and ambiguous the phrase is. To accept the suggestion is to give validity to a contractual provision which should in all conscience be struck down as void for uncertainty. On a further reflection of the matter, I am indeed driven to the view that this part of cl 3(g) is so uncertain as to be incapable of being given any contractual effect. As the clause works to the financial detriment of a contracting party, the circumstances in which it is to operate must be stated with sufficient precision. It is not good enough to leave them to conjecture. I would for this reason hold that the company cannot rely on this part of the clause to claim damages from the other contracting party, certainly not where it has terminated the contract without cause.

This leads me to the point made by the district judge in the first round that, although the termination of the plaintiff was not expressly for any cause, the court could inquire whether it was in reality for cause. The truth of the matter is that the company acted under cl 31(1) of the collective agreement. It had a choice of proceeding under sub-cl (2) or sub-cl (1). It chose sub-cl (1). The letter of termination clearly said that the company was proceeding under that sub-clause. Sub-clause (1), as I said, gives either party the right to terminate the employment at will. Since this is the clause under which the company professed to act, the termination was clearly outside the ambit of cl 3(g). The company is clearly not entitled to claim damages, liquidated or otherwise, from the plaintiff. On the other hand, as provided in the contract, the company has to pay the pilot three months' salary. That should be the end of the matter. There is no necessity, in my view, to inquire what was the real, underlying, reason for the termination. It cannot be assumed that the package of agreements that governed the plaintiff's employment was intended to be applied in such a tortuous fashion. A simple and straightforward interpretation is more likely to be a correct one.

For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal. I do so, with costs.

[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 13 May 2001).]

[thegypsy]

Hermie. I cannot make you out. You list youself as flight deck qualified yet also a student with relatives in SQ. Let me tell you it was the locals who voted by a show of drunken hands to reject the recent CA ratification which was expected by the Alpa S to go through without any problems but because of intimidation from senior local Captains many local F/O s did not vote as they wished to or even as their proxy required them to. There will now be just as many locals grumbling as expats I can assure you.

.88M Would you not agree???

[Gladiator]

Landing lights you are obviously one of Lee Kuan Yew's children.

The facts however remain, Singapore/SIA is undesirable by any standard.

Enjoy your 20 days of work per month and I will enjoy my 18 days off per month.

[addinfurnightem]

Would the captain mentioned in the above post be, by any chance, the one that got totally piss*d between LAX and TYO, had to be off-loaded after having run back and forth between J and F class bringing his son up to F when ever he felt like it, sat next to a Singaporean in F class and then 'slagged off' SIA and Singapore to great length etc. etc. and was/is regarded by most Americans here in Singapore as a complete as*hole anyway?

[Gladiator]

Yes he is addinfur. However, since you were not there, your description of the events may or may not be accurate.

A**holes remain to be a**holes no matter where they go. If Mr. xxxxxx was the a**hole you describe (and then take the liberty to represent the rest of the Americans at SIA) he would not make it to the rank of instructor at Mandarin. He is very well liked and respected.

Lastly, it appears that Mandarin might me treating their pilots better than Sakka In Air (SIA) carrier. I do not recall seeing very many if any threads about Mandarin on PPRuNe.

Nevertheless, Mr. xxxxxxx gave SIA a big shaft job and in a Lee-public court. Several appeals were turned down.

My opinion is that the Judge actually shafted SIA and Harry at the same time. The xxxxxxx case was his last judgement before retirement (chances are he is retired in Australia).

In one paragraph the Judge called the SIA employment contract, 'tortuous'.

My dictionary describes this word as:

1. Marked by or having repeated turns and bends: twisting 2. Not straightforward: devious.

Is it not just typical? Lee Con You!

If you buy an item in Singapore, purchase a service, sign a contract, anything that involves money, there is well over 90% chance that you WILL BE CHEATED.

[This message has been edited by Gladiator (edited 14 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 14 May 2001).]

[Landing Lights]

To anyone wanting realalistic, varied and rational background on SIA need not l;ook to Gladiator. He is NOT the norm. He will be unhappy on a good day. He was also a nightmare to fly with.... not a good driver. Never made training or management so is rather bitter.

As usual, Gladis strange thought processes again .... have your 18 days off..you clearly need them as the stress is showing. Sounds like you would be happiest in Fidel's Cuba. Gladis you are and always will be on the edge / fringe - the edge of a breakdown and the lunatic fringe.

You also need to re do your Biology exam! Failed first time I suspect.

Bye 4 Now

LL

[Sick Squid]

Easy ,Tigers!

I removed the name of the individual in twicepx2's legal post as he is still working in the industry, and identifiable. Some of the comments above make a subjective statements against a named individual and events attached to that individual. Whether or not the outcome of those alleged events is public domain or not, the nature of this bulletin board and indeed this entire internet anonymous discussion medium is such that I feel I have to act to preserve some form of balance.

Therefore, I have simply removed his name, and he is now Captain XXXXXXX. Refer to him as such from now on, please. Gladiator, you should know better... is it not you who refers to his own court case as SIA vs. Gladiator?

Enough. Back to the topic.

Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator

[Patric Ho]

I have been away for a while,but noticed that Gladiator is still as unreliable as before. To me and many others here in the Far East he is still known as the piss poor operator in HKG who should be quitely sitting in the corner, reading "Handling the Big Jets" and keeping a low profile trying to learn something about his flying job. But I take it that it is too late to learn for him, so Gladiator why don't you just quit!!

[WSSS]

Patric,

It's been nine months .... and still no log book? :) ....... we're w-a-i-t-i-n-g ...

[thegypsy]

Re Gladiator. Personal abuse warranted or not is not helpful re SIA. I do not know him at all but he has at least kept SIA and their mode of operations in the forefront of Pprune so everyone knows what SIA are like and I am sure that those on the 4th Floor do not like SQ being at the constant top of the agenda on this forum and others.

[crl]

Usually I would stay out of any tread contributed by Gladiator as the "gun powder" involved in bombarding Singapore and all the "creatures" living in it is soooooooo intense.... I just gotta put in my opinion on this one: Nobody forces anyone to do anything in this country; at least that's how I feel as a citizen here.
When anybody wanna join SQ, he will be properly "explained" on the need to sign a bond for obvious reasons. Just in case anyone may ask, people did leave breaking their bonds despite signing such hugh amount of money away. It really irritated a lot of people when they started using lack of FREEDOM as one of the excuses. You have the freedom NOT to sign the contract, NOT to live in this country and definitely NOT to listen to any politicians if you so choose to.
As for Capt X, I had flown with this great chap before and I wil fly with him again anytime. On what happened to him, there's one thing I would like to comment on Singapore society: we have to learn to be more receptive towards criticisms and not over-react towards them. Capt X made lots of remarks regarding whatever bad points about whatever country/company from his view point and he has every right to do so, BUT he was a SQ Capt and he got drunk and created an unwanted scene for both pax and the company, hence the latter has every right to deal with him too. It's such a pity he had to be shown the exit in this manner by SQ.
Lastly, don't get me wrong that I don't look forward to "polishing my ferrari and having 18days off a month...etc..". Would love to...though at the mean time, life's pretty good here if you know how to ignore certain "commands" or "orders" directed towards those who REALLY need the attentions.
I guess I should be all ready to receive some "kind" comments relatively soon and for furhter info; am not related to anyone with last name LEE.
@Will reply asap after my long trip@

[Hermie]

thegypsy,

In case you didn't know, if you have more than 20 posts you will become a PPRunNe Flight Deck Qualified. Yes, I am a student as I have described in 'detailed' in my Personal Particulars. I do have quite a number of relatives in SQ but they NEVER talk about this topic posed on PPRuNe at all. They keep on telling me that the TOPICS posted on PPRuNe are in fact just plain lies and advised me not to believe in any of them.

Thanks for the information(thegypsy) by the way, ' I didn't know about that ' !

I wonder hows "Latiff" doing by the way ? http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/eek.gif

Cheers,
Herman http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif




------------------
Ad Astra Per Aspera

[Gladiator]

I am still waiting for the date of the ghost Hong Kong flight.

Piss poor driver? If so then that truly represents SIA's finest training and recruitment. Was a piss poor driver the best SIA could do?

Gladiator is bitter, twisted, bad news, etc? Or may be David kicked Goliath's rear in court. Goliath had to change policy, lose face, lose millions, and has trouble manning flights due to lack of pilots.

It appears that the word Gladiator is bad news at SIA, specially the 4th floor. Sorry guys, you drew first blood, had plenty of notice as to the outcome, but decided to roll the dice, got arrogant and under estimated the information in hand. You fell on your own double edge sword.

The 4th floor people are amongst us here in PPRuNe, easily identifiable by the strong emotions and resentment towards Gladiator. I can't blame you, you are only human and doing your job per the LKY programme.

I have always said, "you can run, but you can't hide". By now it is evident that employment at SIA is the worst in the industry.

Also as previously mentioned, whistleblowers are good for the industry. We enhance safety as well as inform potential pilot candidates of the real picture. You are now welcome to take more pot shots.

Sick Squid, you are correct and I do know better. However I do have Mr. XXX's permission but nevertheless will comply with your requirement.

[thegypsy]

Hermie Thanks for explanation re Flight Deck qualified.
You really are a very naughty boy for dropping in on all these lies on Pprune!!
I am surprised you admit to it to your relatives.
There is no smoke without fire Confucius said or was it someone else. I cannot remember as it is a long time ago when I too was a student.

[Kaptin M]

Well Glad it didn't take long for the venom and vitriol to start again, once you returned from leave, did it?! Unfortunately, your failure, and INexperience working as an expatriate doesn't qualify YOU to make comparisons of SIA with other employers of expats on contracts.

SQ may have been a tough boss, but during my tenure with them - 5 years and 7 months - they did NOT break any of the clauses in my contract. The same cannot be said for two other Asian carriers I have worked for, one of which was through PARC (who "acknowledge" the breaches, but do sfa).

Now off you run, and when you've finished polishing your Ferrari (with KY??), remember to put it up high on the display cabinet where the kids can't reach it with their grubby little fingers!! :)

[Gladiator]

You got what you wanted Kaptin M. You often fuel the fire for entertainment value, hence the thread, 'what happened to Gladiator...., etc'.

Even when on leave I still read PPRuNe. I will always be here unless SIA buys PPRuNe. Your comments are not new, you pop up in every subject with only one aim, entertainment.

As usual Far East forum/ SIA threads accuratly represent employment and human relations at SIA. Resentment, resentment and more resentment.

[Kaptin M]

Informative entertainment perhaps, Glad - and "yes" I did get what I wanted from SQ, and just as you believe YOU have the right to post AGAINST SQ, as a disgruntled employee, I likewise have the right to tell others that SQ is not the big, bad bogeyman you make them out to be. There are other (major) airlines who literally flaunt contracted conditions, and even with recruiting agencies (such as PARC) simply snub their noses when brought to their attention. I had NO such experience during my employment with SIA, and although certain individuals on the staff made it hard (at times) for the expats, overall, I enjoyed the experience.

Asia, as westernised as the dress of the people and surrounds appears, has a different psyche to the non-Asian. Westerners will speak forthrightly - saying exactly what is at the forefront of their thinking, whereas the Asian will not, but will allude to the subject hoping you will be able to pick up on it. Culture differences, Glad, just as there are differences between Irani's, Iraqi's, Brits, and Yanks. I'm not saying by any means, that I understand it completely, BUT I don't try to change them to my accustomed way of thinking.

A little understanding, and a lot of tolerance - on both sides!

[Gladiator]

In regards to Singapore and SIA, there are more my kind (the word disgruntled would better apply if I was dimissed, since I (we) dumped the employer, disgruntled employer would be more accurate) than your kind Kaptin M. That makes us the MAJORITY.

For every SIA employer (cabin, engineering, office, etc.) that agrees with you, 99 agree with me.

We have had these discussions many times before Kaptin M. Beating a dead horse does not amuze me even though you get a kick out of it.

You are now on your own.

[0.88M]

After all the lengthy postings, i'm still trying to evaluate SQ as a company and Culture. Any ideas?

[twitchy]

Hey guys..
Today is the last day for the ALPA-S to sign the CA, if not today then it has to be decided in the IAC. Does anybody has the clue what is going on ? Thanks in advance

[thegypsy]

.88M Do you seriously want to open such a can of worms??

[Kaptin M]

More of Gladiator's "facts" that are easily uncovered for the cheap, sensationalist value he thrives on, trying to gain attention.

"For every SIA employer (cabin, engineering, office, etc.) that agrees with you, 99 agree with me.

If that were the case, 99% of the SQ employees' posts here on PPRuNe would agree with your point of view, Glad. FACT is - they DON'T. The group to whom you constantly make reference, were some of those other First Officers [like yourself], who believed they could "fast-track" their career progressions by leaving SIA. Care to admit to that one - of course NOT. Other F/O's, with far more experience than you have - even now - opted for the mutually agreed upon contractual conditions, and took the honorable course.

[411A]

Kaptin M---
Would have to agree with your views regarding the local guys at SQ. In my 4 years there only a very few locals had complaints. The pay was not the best but the airline was expanding at a rapid rate and their prospects looked good. Ran into one of my former F/O's on the 707 last year in ZRH, he is now a 747-400 skipper and said altho it is not as "freindly" a company as in the past, considering the problems at other asian carriers, he thought he had the best deal. Some of the ex-pat F/O's who joined in the early 90's were a real pain, in his opinion. Think he may have been right.

[shane25]

Slightly O/T
Gladiator you recently wrote:
"My children do not have to urinate in their clothing at school as is expected in the Singapore school system, your children have to avoid drinking water at school."
Is this a new course in schools- PEEING 101?
Although I do not live in Singapore now but most of my family still live there, I have not heard of this phenomenon.

[VH DSJ]

Kaptin M, if SQ was so hunky dory for you, then why did you leave? Or were you booted out?

[Gladiator]

Shane25, this issue has been subject of debate in the Straits Times (Singapore news paper).

[A Few Good Men]

Gladiator

Didn't we conclude some time ago that our dear Kaptin M never worked for SQ? Remember the cabin crew shoes?

[Gladiator]

I remember very well. It was a thread in cabin crew forum. Pay no attention to him.

[whalecapt]

Wow, Glad!! Those are frightening stats in your post of 15 May. What's your source?

[Gladiator]

The source? The pilots, cabin crew, etc.

If one were to study the numbers, the following conclusion would be reached,

1) Most unhappy employees.
2) Most underpaid.
3) Most overworked.
4) Most resignations.
5) Most complaints about employer on PPRuNe.
6) Most feel cheated.

I am sure many others can add to this list.

[MAStake]

Gladiator, you obviously don't know much about other airlines.
Just look to the airline to the north of SQ.

[Gladiator]

There are different levels of abuse. You bring the conditions to yourselves.

You want to change the system, have balls and make the change when it is time to vote.

Reformasi is in your hands.

[leGrand]

Gladiator,
Did you do a survey of the all the SQ staff before coming up with the 99% figure? Bet you pluck it out from thin air. There some unhappy crews but you get that in many other airlines that I know, but what I do not know is whether it's disproportionally high at SQ. With the conclusion of CA and the 6.04 months bonus, that number should reduce.

[Gladiator]

Yes obviously 99% is exaggerated, however easily above 50%. That being the case management has failed.

Why the success? Fear, and intimidation. Merit to promote? No SAKKA, NO PROMOTE.

[blackadder]

Gladys,
you must get out more!
Haven't you got a life yet?

[Kaptin M]

Gladiator's EXPERT opinions are based on his experiences gained working for...how many airlines, Glad?...4, or 5 - perhaps 3? No 2 - total airline employers TWO...2.

I particularly liked this gem, "[i]You want to change the system, have balls and make the change when it is time to vote.

Reformasi is in your hands.

What happened when Our Glad didn't like the system in SQ? Did the Gladiator have the balls to stand and fight? Don't be silly - he ran away...absconded to the good ol' US of A, from where he now urges those who have remained to "resist the evil Singapore, LKY, and the wicked school teachers."

The transcripts of the court proceedings were perhaps of some value to some, Glad, and at least factual, but your freelance writing is erroneous, and highly speculative - to say the least..."Yes obviously 99% is exaggerated, however easily above 50%." Really?! BUNKUM!!

[Landing Lights]

Back in your box Glads.... deal in facts and your usual diet of waffle and blustering rubbish and 'one liners'. You are always will be - the lunatic fringe..... too many late nights walking Orchard Road.

I dont think it is 'Reformasi' you have in your hand Glads.
Byeeee

[Sick Squid]

Enough already! Play the ball not the player, all of you. If you have nothing to add to the topic under debate, then don't bother posting.

As a reminder, the title of this thread is "New Deal for New SQ Pilots." Keep it on track.

Sick Squid
Far East Forum Moderator

[Gladiator]

Well over 50%, with no doubt.

Foreigners in SIA have no right to vote within ALPA-S (Oh Kaptin M did not know that).

Foreigners in Singapore have no right to vote either.

Reformasi is in the hands of the locals only. Grown up with the intimidation of the LKY system, no one dares speak.

Hence even attorney general of Singapore became a fugitive once he spoke.

The truth prevails.

[locgreen]

Hi Sick Squid,

Why do i get the impression that Gladiator and Titan are given plenty of slack to vent their spleen on ALL SQ related topics, whereas replies to some of their rubbish are given a very short rope. I don't see how any of Gladiator's posts here are related to the topic at hand, other than being another pointless venting of hot air.

Locgreen, that's exactly what it is, your impression, not reality. The cards are dealt equally by this Squid. Re-read my intervention above, it applies to all. Attack the argument, not the man, and respond to the topic or it's natural development; I don't care who it is, everyone gets the same treatment and it will continue that way.

Sick Squid




[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 23 May 2001).]

[titan]

Because we produce facts, real incidents, laws and rulings to back up what we say, rather than the emotional rantings of the likes of FO M.
Sadly, we are all just products of our enviroment; thankfully ours is not one ruled by a dictorial government accomplished in the art of noninvasive subliminal lobotomies.

[747400CA]

Guys and Girls -

May we keep this discussion on track with a posting or summary of the recent CA?

Thanks to all.

[0.88M]

why fellas are having a hard time keeping to the topic, is because there is nothing to talk about the topic.
Wrong company to chat about especially when all staffs are considered 'slave'.Need i elaborate further. Bet everyone hass something badd to add to list of SQ related BADD accolades.

[Kaptin M]

6 months bonus and a salary increase in the new C.A. - nothing to be sneezed at.

Each to his own, if Glad is happy as a 737 F/O working in the States and enjoying the way of life there, good luck to him. Not every nationality has the opportunity to live and work in the country of his choice - similarly, some nationalities are virtually unrestricted because of their passports. Singapore offers (comparatively speaking) a reasonably high standard of safe living - SQ boasts a fairly modern fleet and used to provide modestly good re-muneration. Of pretty much all the Asian countries, Singapore offers the non-Asian a chance to live what he would term "a fairly normal lifesyle". If there were NOT the Glads and Titans, who couldn't adapt, it would probably have to be re-named Nirvana.

[VH DSJ]

Captain M,

I speak on behalf of all those considering the move to nirvana .

I say again, if Singapore and SQ is nirvana for you, then why did you leave?

I have asked you this question before and you have conveniently avoided it.

Your credibilty is questionable. PS are you really a Captain?

[Kaptin M]

Dear Titan, I left SQ because it was the end of my contract. I was offered an extension, on local terms - as a first officer - but I felt that I could advance myself more quickly (ie. to command) outside SIA, than to remain within their system......and I did! Within several months of leaving SQ, I obtained my initial jet command, thanks to a previous Australian airline captain who had trained me as an F/O some 12 years prior.

P.S. Yes, I really am a captain, and have been for about 5 years. But in reality, I can probably "feel" just as much for the F/O's - having been one for close on 18 years!! I still have many friends who should be in the lhs, and who - but for the mis-fortunes of times past - have been relegated to serve their time in a position they don't deserve, and there - but for the grace of "god" - go I.

Life is what you make of it.

[This message has been edited by Sick Squid (edited 24 May 2001).]

[Gladiator]

Need I/we bring up the subject of cabin crew shoes again Kaptin M. The thread that finally proved you had never ever worked for SIA at least as a flight or cabin crewmember.

Kaptin M does what he does and the only thing he does, COUNTER PROPOGANDA.

Singapore government tactic used in all subjects related to Singapore on the World Wide Web. Civil servants who surf the web, find anti-Singapore discussions and then counter the argument.

Kaptin M was doing fine for a while, he/she has been and is learning about aviation as he/she goes along. The trouble is he/she got caught when he/she made a comment about SQ cabin crew female's footwear, in the cabin crew forum in 1999.

He/she commented that SQ female cabin crew change from shoes to sandals once onboard. SIA flight and cabin crewmembers remember differently.

In regards to pilot subjects at SIA, I would not take Kaptin M very seriously, he/she is a fake.

[Damsel]

Actually they do change from shoes to sandals after take-off.
Designed by the original uniform designer.

[Goofyfoot]

Damsel , they do indeed change from shoes to sandals after t/o , but that started only a few months ago and as a consequence of the SQ006 , although the company denies that is the reason .

[Kaptin M]

As a pilot with SQ, Glad, I had better things to occupy my grey matter, than foot fetishes of the "Singapore Girls" - perhaps it's an arab thing.

Little wonder your perception of Singapore and SIA is as perverted as the diatribe you spew out here, Gladdie, when you are able to determine my career by the footwear worn by the SQ cabin crew.

Time to get out your Ferrari and the (L)KY jelly again.......6 months bonus!! Not bad.

Agent M.

[Gladiator]

Kaptin M, you were the one inside cabin crew forum talking about cabin crew shoes, not I.

The issue was brought to my attention via e-mail by one of SIA cabin crew (a female).

You got caught Kaptin M.

Education for you, Iran is not an Arab contry.

Six months bonus! What does that have to do with you? You claim to be former SIA and now in Australia.

Better quit while you are behind, you are having difficulty keeping up with your own posts.

You can run but you can't hide.

[Damsel]

VH DSJ
He FINISHED his contract, he said that in his posting.
The others did not.

[VH DSJ]

Damsel, point taken. Thank you

[Kaptin M]

Titan/Gladiator alias VH DSJ,tell me where I stated "and yet you were able to join another airline as a non-national F/O ... You gentlemen show a distinct lack of ability to display lateral thinking ability - something that IS required of professional pilots.

Because you shot yourselves in the foot, career-wise at SIA, don't try to prevent other aspiring pilots [who probably have more grit and determination than both of you combined] from realising their aspirations by your continual moaning and put-downs of EVERYONE else who has done the hard yards and made it. Face the FACTS - Singapore Airlines has employed thousands of expatriate pilots throughout its history. those who failed are in the vast MINORITY - however, you two have the "honour" of being counted among those failures. That's nothing to be proud of, nor to continually publicise your obvious INability to ACCEPT that YOU were the ones UNable to adapt. No-one else (who completes a contract in ANY foreign country) expects that that country and its people are going to change to your customs and lifestyles. My suggestion - and I think that you'll both agree with me here - is that you should both remain where you are now, in your own respective countries (albeit an adopted one for Glad - and wallow there in your delusions of granduer and own self-importance.

[Landing Lights]

Sick Squid,

Saw your post. Agree fully so I assume Galdys will be asked to drop his irrational, unwarranted, and false statements which are more to do with his failure as an SQ driver and hatred of Singapore than those who actually enjoy the job, the terms, the place and Asia. He is and 'always be' the lunatic fringe... too many nights walking Orchard Road at night.

Without his irrational oneliners the debate could continue - having said that its been flogged to death and most are just plain bored by the likes of Titan and Gladys who have pirated the posting. Sensorship sometimes is what IS needed. Confine Gladys to the digibim... for good.

Hi Ho, Hi Ho its off to fly we go!

[Gladiator]

Kaptin M, you can not be more incorrect as the majority of F/O on contracts have taken the same path as I. So that makes it the majority.

Therefore is it us or is it the employer? There can be one lunatic, but were the majority also lunatic?

I don't think so.

It is also worth mentioning that SIA plays dirty tricks when it comes to contracts. Singapore court's opinion and not Gladiator's.

So grow up. The truth prevails.

[Sick Squid]

Since none of you can keep this on track, and it has just degenerated into another pointless slanging match, I'm closing it down.

Sick Squid