SCMP, letters to Ed, today

[hongkongfooey]

Just for a change of pace, another :mad:wit, green with envy and completely devoid of any facts wrote into the SCMP, letters to the Ed, today.
Apparently, if CX was'nt paying their pilots so much, in particular housing allowance, then they would be financially in the pink.
So the :mad: up with the freight fine and the fuel hedging is not the problem at all, its the pilots fault, Brilliant :ok:
What does this moron think we are here for ? our health.
Why are these weeds coming out from under their rocks now ? Maybe a mate of TTs or NRs :ugh:

PS: For those who did'nt read it, it is directed at those bloody CX pilots who are buying out South Lantau :rolleyes:

[Guava Tree]

Fooey, you are absolutely right. Hong Kong air is bad for your health.
Escape is possible. There is a procedure for resigning. Just do it.

[hongkongfooey]

Gee, I never thought of that, thanks for your educated and informed input, as soon as things turn around I will be doing just that :ok:

[Ex Cathedra]

What can I say. Somehow, pilots have become the object of hatred of the masses. When things start going wrong, everybody starts blaming crooked banker, child rapists and airline pilots...

I still don't understand why. Especially in HK where there are legions on expats making ridiculous amounts of money working for the finance sector. Or is it just that some people can't accept the fact that other people try to make a stand and fight for their conditions and lifestyle? Are we expected to say: We make enough money, let's sacrifice some of it for our beloved airline who has always gone off the track to help it's pilots out?

Anyway, another pointless and unsubstantiated accusation. :yuk:

[Kurtis Chukle Willis]

Look familiar?


Craig Sanderson - Hong Kong | Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-Sanderson/558604965)

[Frogman1484]

Don't worry about the letter, this is nothing but CX management spreading rumors prior to the 18th deadline. Usual cx tactic....ignore it!!!

[Guava Tree]

For how long is CX going to continue defrauding its shareholders by appeasing these union bludgers? CX should not be a closed shop.Terms and conditions should be adjusted to market.

[Lowkoon]

Most of us are still trying to come to grips with why anyone would want to live in Sth Lantau! :} They list the benefits as being near the airport, typically not a plus anywhere else in the world, and the fact that there is a road going in! Wonderful! :) (tongue in cheek Sth Lantauians, we appreciate how sensitive you are!)

[badairsucker]

Said the man that lives in DB.......:ugh:

[crewsunite]

Some of you guys not in Aviation (or CX) should just stay out of it!
I wish Pprune gave us a private forum!

Pilots still live the good life

May 11, 2009

In response to Mark Peaker's letter ("Support Cathay in difficult time", May 4), I dispute that Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) is in any financial trouble, faces ongoing difficulties or requires our sympathy.

This is clear by the continued excessive housing subsidies and salaries paid to pilots.

Click here to find out more!

Anyone feeling sorry for this firm should visit South Lantau where nearly every new or second-hand home purchase is made by a Cathay pilot.

Cathay's management could reduce a significant amount of recurring cost from its operations by eliminating or significantly reducing these excessive allowances. However, there appears to be little desire to do this, instead favouring such measures as unpaid leave.

These blanket policies affect lower-paid cabin crew and ground staff while protecting fat-cat pilots.

Can Cathay's management team justify excessive housing allowances and salaries to the public and shareholders?

Craig Sanderson, Lantau


REPLY

Pilots haven't had a pay rise in 10 years, even as inflation bites

May 14, 2009

Craig Sanderson ("Pilots still live the good life", May 11) clearly does not have a very clear picture of the actual remuneration package of Cathay Pacific (SEHK: 0293) pilots, nor does he appear to understand the new unpaid leave scheme put forward by the company.

For a start, the scheme that Cathay Pacific proposed to its employees does not favour pilots at all - as your seniority within the company rises, so too does the percentage of your pay that will be cut.

Those with the lowest-paid positions in the company will forfeit only about 3.8 per cent of their salary over six months, while higher ranks such as pilots will forfeit as much as 15.4 per cent of their salary.

Second, Cathay Pacific pilots have not had a pay rise in about 10 years, and in some cases the only adjustment to their salary over this period has been a pay cut.

The average consumer price index rise over this period of about 4 per cent has seen the pay package of all Cathay pilots deteriorate significantly.

Furthermore, changes made to the provident fund mean that many of Cathay's pilots feel they must take advantage of their housing allowance to pay off a mortgage if they are to have any chance of having sufficient savings for retirement.

Mr Sanderson refers to Cathay pilots as "fat cats". He belittles our profession without any idea of the skill that is required to be a pilot in the modern environment, or the work we put in to maintain and improve our skills as professionals.

I put it to Mr Sanderson that, if he were to be on an aircraft with a serious malfunction, he would be hard pressed to find a more capable set of hands with which to entrust his safety than a Cathay Pacific pilot.

Perhaps there is another reason why he writes to the South China Morning Post (SEHK: 0583, announcements, news) . He appears to be bitter about something.

Is he really concerned about the public welfare or the Cathay Pacific shareholders, or is he more concerned about his own ability to buy a house on Lantau?

[crewsunite]

You may be a marked Man! You may have to live like a South African in their neighborhood. Barb wire etc..

[Lowkoon]

Not even close B.A.S, it was a tongue in cheek comment. Enjoy the new road though! ;) Think of the fun you will have on it! Wohoo!

[Lantauflyboy]

This is what this is all about: A norwegian woman living in Pui O, South Lantau made public defamatory statements about CX pilots in South Lantau.
(I believe there was another thread about this recently, but it just fits in nicely here)
That would be negligable if this was just any old (censored for public forum) being envious of us pilots, however this woman calls herself a journalist and hosts a radio programme on RTHK. (It's a cantonese learning programme).
My intention is to put an end to this lying about CX pilots once and for all - I want to take her off the air.

Here's the article: They Don’t Give A Flying Flock at China Droll

If you're as peeveded off as I am, copy and paste the attached complaint to the following email address:


[email protected]


Complaint against Radio Programme Host - Cecilie Gamst Berg



Dear Madam/Sir,


I herewith lodge an official complaint against the host of the radio show "Naked Cantonese" - Cecilie Gamst Berg.

Ms. Gamst Berg has recently published various statements to publicly defame a whole community of people living in South Lantau. Without making any effort to check her facts, she viciously accused Cathay Pacific employees of stealing, cheating, being involved in property scams, dumping construction waste and other illegal activities.

Not only are these accusations simply unfounded and only based on her envious imagination, but the truth could have been easily found out with just a little bit of journalistic effort and sense of ethics on her side. Even after being educated about this, Ms. Gamst Berg refuses to apologise or retract her statements.

I do not believe that RTHK is willing to be associated with this kind of "journalism" and demand the immediate removal of Ms. Gamst Berg from any public radio show.

It is simply unacceptable that a person who publicly spreads lies is given a platform on a public Hong Kong radio programme. I will take the matter to the press if required.

(your name)

[hongkongfooey]

So this idiot is not even Chinese ?

Gauva, your usual standard of intelligent post :rolleyes:
I bet you were keen as mustard to have CX spend 1,000,000hkd on your training but now you sit in the jumpseat green with envy, have I got that about right ?
Take some of your own advice, leave and go to a better job :uhoh:

[Dan Winterland]

That's easy then. Alll Cathay Pacific have to do to save a lot of money is stop paying it's expat pilots housing and education allowances. And when they all leave, they can replace them with all those Hong Kong nationals who are sitting at home with ATPLs and without a job.

[Lantauflyboy]

hongkongfooey (http://www.pprune.org/members/191605-hongkongfooey) said
So this idiot is not even Chinese ?so far almost none of the pitiable fools that publicly displayed "pilot envy" in the
SCMP are chinese ...


Pls copy & send that email to RTHK and any friends that would like to give their support.

[hongkongfooey]

Sorry, should have been clearer, I thought that moron Cecil was Chinese ( ie a local ), the fact she is'nt makes her racist vitriole even more ridiculous.

Email has been sent :ok:

[Lantauflyboy]

thanks everybody who forwarded the letter of complaint to RTHK.
I received the following email in reply today:

Thanks for your recent message concerning Cecilie Gamst Berg.


Dear xyz,
As I understand the matter, Ms. Gamst Berg made the comments you object to on a personal blog which has no connection to Radio 3 or RTHK. On our station she is employed solely to give a weekly lesson in Cantonese.
Please note also that she is in no way 'given a platform' on RTHK.

Given this, I have to inform you that we have no intention of acting against Ms. Gamst Berg.

Regards

Hugh Chiverton
Head, RTHK Radio 3

Even though no formal action has been taken I am sure she had a very memorable day at the office as she got invitated to explain all these lies to her superiors.
One can only hope she's learnt her lesson.

:ok:

[The Professor]

"Especially in HK where there are legions on expats making ridiculous amounts of money working for the finance sector"

Have you considered joining the finance sector then?

"....sufficient savings for retirement." Sufficient, as determined by ......you?

"I put it to Mr Sanderson that, if he were to be on an aircraft with a serious malfunction, he would be hard pressed to find a more capable set of hands with which to entrust his safety than a Cathay Pacific pilot."

You guys really have tickets on yourselves don't you. What makes a CX pilot safer than a pilot WN? Or BA. CX is a small airline that flies few sectors compared to shorthaul airlines in North America and Europe.

[preset]

You guys really have tickets on yourselves don't you. What makes a CX pilot safer than a pilot WN? Or BA. CX is a small airline that flies few sectors compared to shorthaul airlines in North America and Europe.

If you have to ask then you probably don't know much about airline aviation then :ugh:

[The Professor]

"you probably don't know much about airline aviation then"

Probably a lot more than you think and I suspect a lot more than you.

I am genuinely interested to know what makes a CX pilot "more capable" than most others. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that goes beyond the simplistic non answer such as the one you just gave in the absence of a genuine opinion.

[Apple Tree Yard]

Professor, why don't you run along and play with your superior academic credentials? The one thing I learnt many years ago is that it is pointless and futile to argue my worth with someone who is not involved in my profession, and does not work for this airline. Having worked for other carriers, it is easy to understand why CX has a 'better' product as far as the operational side of things is concerned. I, and i'm sure most of my colleagues, have better things to do than justify our worth to you. You can feel free to denigrate or devalue us all you wish. You of course do so from a position of ignorance. :=

[hongkongfooey]

Thanks for your recent message concerning Cecilie Gamst Berg.


Dear xyz,
As I understand the matter, Ms. Gamst Berg made the comments you object to on a personal blog which has no connection to Radio 3 or RTHK. On our station she is employed solely to give a weekly lesson in Cantonese.
Please note also that she is in no way 'given a platform' on RTHK.

Given this, I have to inform you that we have no intention of acting against Ms. Gamst Berg.

Regards

Hugh Chiverton
Head, RTHK Radio 3

So RTHK is happy to employ people who engage in slanderous and racist views on a public forum ?? How would CX react if one of us started a similar rant ( BLOG ) and they received complaints, I wonder if they would be quite so flippant about it :confused:
So typical of this place :ugh:

[quadspeed]

CX is a small airline that flies few sectors compared to shorthaul airlines in North America and Europe.

The bloke actually has a point, whether we like it or not.

We may (think we) hold the highest standards when it comes to the academics of long-haul, but we've got no proficiency in handling. That's just a fact of life; 3 sims and 12 landings a year (for the majority of our career) give no rise to claims of "capable sets of hands."

It goes without saying that operators like CX needs to hire experienced pilots who can overcome the lack of proficiency by relying on previous experience. The longer you've been with Cathay, the less proficient you become. That, I'm afraid, is the truth.

It was once said that "a superior airman uses his superior knowledge to avoid getting into situations when he's required to use his superior skill". For the average CX pilot, due to the very nature of his operation, the latter part of the statement does not entirely hold true. However, in my humble opinion, the former most certainly does.

[Frogman1484]

Quadspeed, you are talking absolute Cr@p!!! In the last year I have flown +850 hours , mostly short to medium haul. I did an average of 10 landings a month (+20 sectors per month). In the last 3 years alone I have flown in at least 7 Typhoons. I've had to do more +25Kts crosswind landing than I can recall, and you are calling me "Non Proficient in handling" .

Maybe you should change your quote to "a superior airman uses his superior knowledge to know when to shut up!":mad:

[turnandburn]

//////////

[The Professor]

"....not involved in my profession"

It appears you draw comfort from the misguided belief that I am not part of your profession and therefore have no credibility in my argument. Your simplistic assumption being that I don't agree with your very narrow ill informed point of view therefore I must be an outsider.

If this belief ensures that you sleep soundly at night then I will not waste my time arguing the contrary.

".....CX has a 'better' product as far as the operational side of things is concerned."

And this little gem is where the fun starts. What exactly is the "product" to which you refer? Would you care to explain how achieving a rating of "better" is determined? Who determines this?

I look forward to your response. It should be interesting.

[freightdog188]

you just offered to shut up, my dear professor, but then just couldn't help it, could you?

[quadspeed]

Frogman..

So you're the most proficient pilot in Cathay, congratulations! Fair enough, but you certainly don't speak for the vast majority of our pilots.

Hours mean crap, and you know it. I flew 800 last year; 750 of them during cruise. It usually works the other way around; more sectors, less total hours. Are you really making the argument that 20 sectors a month is a lot compared to short-haul carriers? I've got mates doing 5-6 sectors a day; multiplied by 15 days a month. They're proficient.

As for all the talk of typhoons, the fact is we don't land when the winds exceed our aircraft limits, just like the rest of the world. The typhoon may be blowing 180kts out there, but you're not in it, are you? Any pilot flying around in North America or Europe gets magnitudes more experience operating in high winds and gusty conditions. It's called winter.

Now, to complete the rebutall; No, I wasn't calling you "non-proficient in handling." I was calling the average CX pilot "non-proficient in handling." You realize the difference, right? Which makes your personal example miss the point. Completely.

And no, I'm not gonna change my quote.

As for cadets, turnandburn, that's another issue all together. Most western airlines start their cadets on regional fleets to build handling skills; Cathay doesn't. If someone could argue how, starting with 200hours someone becomes more proficient by flying 6 four hour sims a year, then I'm all ears. I just don't see it.

[The Professor]

Freightdog,

Its much more comfortable when those with differing points of view simply remain silent, isnt it. An ignorant point of view is easy to maintain and requires very little thought.

However I digress. The intention of my previous post was to point out that I would not engage in debate about whether I am involved in your profession or not. I do apologize if I did not make myself clear. I will ensure my future posts are written in such a manner that you can understand them.

[iLuvPX]

Great post Quadspeed :D

[The Wraith]

The Professor...

Your pomposity is of almost biblical proportions. Your friends must all fall at your feet in awe of your immense intellect and bearing, and you must be an absolute JOY to live with.

You could aim your disdain at any serious profession be it legal, medical etc, but for some reason you choose ours. Whether you are, in fact, part of the aviation sector or not, and I suspect not, means nothing. You have an axe to grind and you do it here. I personally have a problem with saying Cathay pilots are better than any other particular group of pilots, there but for the grace of god etc, but I would happily put my family on any Cathay flight and certainly when I am in the back for a change I am not busy second guessing the guys up front.

I'm not really interested in entering a slanging match with you because frankly I am too busy flying beautiful Boeing 777s around the region and farther afield in the company of other great guys and gals. I suspect that maybe you would like to do so too and perhaps that is your axe. But, it would be nice not to have to read your ill informed, confrontational and self congratulatory drivel on a predominently pilots and engineers forum.

Of course, it takes all sorts to make the world, yes, even people like you. And as the great Mr T famously says, "I pity da fool!"

The Wraith.:ok:

[treboryelk]

if the professor was a Brit, this would smack of being chopped at biggin hill

[hongkongfooey]

the fact is we don't land when the winds exceed our aircraft limits, just like the rest of the world

Not quite true Quad, the " superior " pilots at HKA regularly exceed the limitations of the a/c, they are after all only " demonstrated " limits :}:}:}:ugh:

[The Professor]

And then along comes The Wraith barking up the same tree as Apple Tree Yard.

“You could aim your disdain at any serious profession be it legal, medical….”

I suspect so. But this is not a legal or medical rumor website and I have had no involvement in either of those industries.

“You have an axe to grind…….”

This is a very lazy yet common technique used by people to refute an argument when they are not imaginative enough to engage in genuine debate. You have an axe to grind/you are not one of us/you are a communist. Simplistic nonsense.

“I suspect that maybe you would like to do so too…..”

No, my days of nodding off in the seat on yet another pacific crossing are long gone. I couldn’t imagine anything more uninspiring that staring at a PFD for 18 hours.

I still await some genuine discussion about CX pilots and what makes them “more capable” than most others. Or is it much easier to float the idea without actually backing it up?

[proud]

:)That was very well said Quadspeed. I enjoyed your post.

[Dynasty Trash Hauler]

I flew for CX and left almost 20 years ago. Cant say they stand out as being a bad operation at all but no where near as "the best" as some of them think they are. A lot of managers back then thought the airline was the cats whiskers. Maybe they are now but it was a real cx trait back then that many (limies) simply thought the airline was cutting edge when it was far from it. A dangerous attitude to foster I reckon. I left and returned to a US domestic airline where ops were light years ahead of CX.

just my 2 cents worth.

[Apple Tree Yard]

Professor, you just don't seem to get it do you? We're not interested in wasting our time in a debate with you. Your opinion is of no value, as you don't work in our particular enviornment. I find it curious that you seem so obsessed with attempting to establish something that is of no consequence. If you wish to think that we are 'average', feel free to live with that opinion. What YOU think is really of no consequence.

[Apple Tree Yard]

Dynasty...I come from the US domestic/intl carriers. CX is light years ahead of their ops. A few examples: altimetry procedures, approach procedures, standardisation, overall requirement to maintain high skill levels, operations in varied and numerous difficult ATC enviornments...etc, etc. Happy to debate you with specifics...anytime.

[404 Titan]

The Professor

You said:
I still await some genuine discussion about CX pilots and what makes them “more capable” than most others. Or is it much easier to float the idea without actually backing it up?
That's not what was said at all. The original quote was:
I put it to Mr Sanderson that, if he were to be on an aircraft with a serious malfunction, he would be hard pressed to find a more capable set of hands with which to entrust his safety than a Cathay Pacific pilot.
The point being made by the poster of this statement and is being lost by most including yourself is we aren’t trying to say we are any better than most proficient airlines elsewhere. All is being said is that we are up there with them. As proof of this point our last LOSA audit has stated we are proficient in our operation especially when you consider the diverse high threat environment we operate in e.g. weather, terrain and ATC.

[oicur12]

"proficient in our operation especially when you consider the diverse high threat environment we operate in e.g. weather, terrain and ATC."

As apposed to most other carriers whose LOSA report indicates:

"proficient in our operation especially when you consider the diverse high threat environment we operate in e.g. weather, terrain and ATC."

[404 Titan]

oicur12

If you honestly believe that most other carriers LOSA report includes the same statement, care to share it with us and which ones they were? As I have said the intent of the original statement wasn’t to imply we are more competent than other airlines. It was to imply we were just as competent as other well run and operated airlines. Do you dispute this?

[Guava Tree]

Yes, it sure looks like a climb down to me.

[404 Titan]

Guava Tree
A Climb down?
No. If you and the Professor and who ever wanted to read into something that wasn’t there, that is your business. I’m just pointing out what the intent of the post was. You care to dispute that?

[oicur12]

Titan,

Settle down there big fellah. Lot of paranoid folk in CX obviously.

I have seen a LOSA process once before in a previous airline. Did the report say exactly what the CX report did. Dunno. Never read it. But I do know that LOSA reports are generally vague and contain spectacular results such as proficient. An airline will receive little more. MOST airlines in your region have passed LOSA audits without any problems.

Do I think CX pilots are just as competent as other pilots. Yep, I guess. But this is NOT the implication of the original post.

Chill dudes. You wont make many friends carrying on about how much better you are than others. There are millions of airline pilots in the world and only a couple of thousand of you. Ever heard of Custer?

[Sleeve_of_Wizard]

Quadspeed said " Now, to complete the rebutall; No, I wasn't calling you "non-proficient in handling." I was calling the average CX pilot "non-proficient in handling." You realize the difference, right? Which makes your personal example miss the point. Completely.

What is the Average CX Pilot? A 744 relief F/O???? I'm doing 5 landings per month in a bad month. JFO's are doing 20............. captains are doing as much as they bloody well like to........ The Average CX Pilot is not doing 12 a year, sorry , but your rebuttal needs Rebutting.

[hongkongfooey]

Guys, the origin of this post was a moron, probably a bum buddy of TT or NR, writing in to the SCMP about how much better off CX would be financially if it did'nt pay those pesky pilots so much.
If anything, it is more pertinent to discuss the difficulties of living in HK versus our home, rather than wether or not we are better pilots than anyone else.

CX/KA has great pilots, good pilots, pilots who think they are great/good and a small % of crap pilots, just like every other airline I have worked for.

What is different is having to live in HK, which has good points and bad points. As I was trying to explain to someone ( with no success ), the number one factor for me is THIS IS NOT MY HOME, my family, best friends etc, are at least 8 hrs away. I am living in a much smaller place ( yes, I know by some locals stanadards, a palace ) and I, and my family, are breathing far worse air.
So, to sum up, I have no family or friends close by, I have lowered my accomodation standards, and I am breathing pollution........................so why the :mad: would I come here if the money was'nt great for christs sake.

end of rant

[FOCX]

404, you should just ignore GT as he's just pissed that you have his rightful command. GT:=

IMO, having also flown for a number of airlines CX IS up there with the best, and is definitely the best in Asia. You haven't seen any smoking holes with the chicken wing on it, though we may have been close! The green band is somewhat narrower than most airlines especially for the LHS and I've not flown with a captain yet, who I would consider anywhere near marginal. Though I think the checking standard is very subjective (but I can say I've not personally been subjected to it, just witnessed it) and CX is somewhat in love with this "Command Presence" thingy which, I think is over blown. Not better pilots, but definitely high standards expected and enforced which doesn't allow you to get lazy.

[mr Q]

1) Hugh Chiverton's use of English leaves a lot to be desired if he has written
Given this, I have to inform you that we have no intention of acting against Ms. Gamst Berg.
2) Ms Berg clearly has a biased attitude towards CX pilots and perhaps an axe to grind but it is after all a blog.
3) The comedian in the whole episode is the contributor who seeks to have her sacked and seems to think that free speech and public comment should be suspended either because that contributor disagrees with what is said or thinks that CX and its expatriate employees against whom the blog was directed should have special privileges protecting them from such public comment.
3) Shame on you. You have given this lady credibility and publicity she would otherwise not have achieved or attained and your rantings are I hope not representative of either CX or the unnamed employees (and one spouse)against whom the original blog was directed.

[hongkongfooey]

The comedian in the whole episode is the contributor who seeks to have her sacked and seems to think that free speech and public comment should be suspended either because that contributor disagrees with what is said or thinks that CX and its expatriate employees against whom the blog was directed should have special privileges protecting them from such public comment.

You're an idiot, she was slandering CX pilots, saying that they were ripping off CX by cheating the housing allowance system, that is against the law, bright spark.

[mr Q]

OK
Put your money where your mouth is ....
SUE HER
BUT....
check what the legal definition of slander is AND
check whether you can have a group defamed
CHEERS
Happy Flying
check

[Lantauflyboy]

somebody seems to confuse the right of free speech with an imaginary right to libel or slander ... (or throw shoes for that matter)

[Arcla]

Defamation - slander or libel - may be defined as the publication , whether oral or written, of a falsehood which damages the reputation of the person concerned and lowers the victim's reputation in the eyes of 'right thinking members of general society'.

Slander is in the form of the spoken word; libel is defamation in some permanent form, such as publication in books or newspapers.

Defamation may attract criminal or civil liability - civil liability is more frequent.

There are certain defences to an action for defamation - such as truth , fair comment and unintentional defamation.

So Mrs Q - if the said lady has made statements that are false knowing that they are false and it can be shown to have harmed the reputation of a certain group she may indeed be liable...

Whether anybody has the inclination to spend the time and money to pursue this matter is another question!

[hongkongfooey]

Whether anybody has the inclination to spend the time and money to pursue this matter is another question!

Good point, I have better things to do in my spare time than spending it in court with an oxygen thief like Ms Berg.
( and that is not slander/defamation, I am sure I can prove she is an oxygen thief, might even get a conviction :ok: )

[Traffic]

Arcla

You are correct. Indeed if by a process of elimination, it can be shown that the alleged libel was directed at one particular individual, it is a monty that she would lose a civil suit in most countries with a common law system in place.

If I were Ms Berg I would be deleting said blog... this time the Titanic could win the engagement!

[water check]

Why is anyone bothering about this stupid womans comments? You can't control people making uninformed or malicious comments. The best advice is to ignore such events, and avoid giving them unwarranted publicity.

[Dynasty Trash Hauler]

altimetry procedures?????

Explain this cos it sounds interesting.

approach procedures????

Same.

standardisation????

Wow, things have changed since I escaped. CX was the most non standard airline I have worked for, with the exception of the obvious one. Just because everyone does the same thing every time does not mean "standardisation". SOP's were handed down from father to son.


operations in varied and numerous difficult ATC enviornments???

This one I love. Do CX operate into airports that no one else does. How do the others cope? Do CX crew ever do 5 sector days in snow/Cat III/ 45 min turns etc?

[Major-Domo]

Better to be thought of as a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt !

Homer Simpson

[Air Profit]

Further to ATY's comments,

Altimetry procedures: yes, something that done improperly can kill you. The procedure at CX leaves that likelyhood improbable.

Standardisation: Compared to two major US airlines that I have flown for...CX is far and away the most standard airline by comparison.

Numerous ATC enviornments: having flown for 12 years US domestic, with many 'catII,snow,lowvis' approaches (blah,blah), I can safely say that the variety of ATC and Wx enviornments encountered in CX is a step beyond. Flying around the US all your career is not particularly character building. You can argue the point, but i've done it, and my opinion is based on experience.

I could go on, but I can't be bothered arguing about something that most of you are only speculating on. After years of 'feet out' called for the 'gear down', '992 for me and you' and 'vis apprch to rwy 29L, any questions'....the procedures at CX are a refreshing and welcome change in professionalism. If you disagree...fine, i'll still sleep at night. http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif