View Full Version : IFALPA Recruitment Ban on CX

17th Jul 2001, 13:14
There is now an official IFALPA recruitment ban on Cathay Pacific.
There is also an IFALPA on CX using other airlines for training.

Please call/visit your IFALPA rep for details.

18th Jul 2001, 01:17
Don't think many people care where IFALPA stands to be honest with you....unless IFALPA is able to offer alternative employment opportunities to prospective CX employees, IFALPA should keep it's mouth shut

The Resistance
18th Jul 2001, 05:38
IronButt....you are a sad sack of sh-t. It is people like you that drag our profession down.... I have to wonder what it is in your past that makes you unable to resist making a denigrating comment on just about EVERY issue on PPRUNE. Especially when it involves CX....or practically ANY group of pilots concerned as to where the profession is going. You are truly a pathetic individual. My guess is you were fired from ASL (the CX attempt at undermining the original group of CX pilots). :mad:

18th Jul 2001, 06:20
Looks like the CX guys are getting desperate....they should have accepted the company offer a long time ago. IFALPA will make no difference at all, the CX management holds all the face cards.
Wonder when they will wake up?

18th Jul 2001, 07:10
I fail to see any desperation in this latest development -- if anything, concrete support like this from IFALPA makes them stronger.

Hang tight and chins up, guys. We in the cabin are with you.

18th Jul 2001, 07:15

I think IronButt meant that regardless of IFALPA policy, pilots who are looking for an opportunity to fly heavy jets won't give a stuff. It's me me me, remember. Just today's trend. To be entirely honest I am bewildered to see CX flights back to normal when 52 pilots have received a boot into the seat of their pants. What is IFALPA doing about that one ??

Kaptin M
18th Jul 2001, 08:27
Is it possible to have the IFALPA notice posted on this thread, please? I'm happy to copy it, print it off, and post it on the notice boards in the briefing offices of every airport I visit.

Speaking with some of the Swissair and JAL pilots over the past week or so, I was surprised to discover that MOST of them are UNaware that there is anything happening (outside their own little world) at CX.

tin@rse wake up to the FACT that pilots' unions are ONLY that - pilots who are working TOGETHER to try to improve/maintain their current position. You are a loner, who takes every opportunity to try to blame "unions" for your own failings. Perhaps if you supported others, instead of enviously sticking the knife in whenever possible, you might get some support in return!!

18th Jul 2001, 10:34
Thanks wallaby hit the nail on the head....Kaptin M pls do that maybe CX should sue IFALPA for intimidating prospective new hires and interfereing with it's recruitment operations....remember there is no strike, and cx was recruiting prior to the job action now in place so the link between current recruiting and an all out effort to replace current emplyoees is a bit tenuous don't you think...see any signs of DEC's being screened? didn't think so...

18th Jul 2001, 10:39

I am not sure youre post deserves an answer, but what the h...k. I`ve been a representative to IFALPA conferences a couple of times. When I returned home I can remember thinking; is this what we are doing really working. Because of the magnitude of these conferences I am sure others have had the same feeling. Off course it`s difficult for a huge organisation like IFALPA, with member unions from all over the world, to have its feet moving in a direction that pleases everone. But IFALPA is no different from any other big international association. But this is the only body where your local union can turn to when in need of help. Like in the CX case.

IFALPA is not a crew leasing agency, and therefore cannot offer new opportunities to colleauges that are fired. But handled the right way, I am sure IFALPA can open some doors via their member organisations, doors that can lead to a new position.

I guess HKAOA just have to play their cards right with IFALPA. And you ironbutt57 should try to be more of a colleague in the future.

18th Jul 2001, 11:42
Firstly, for newcomers to this site, you need to know that ‘Tinbum57’ was apparently done a serious wrong by USALPA some time in the past, and far be it from me to tell him to put it all behind him. I know from experience that that’s simply not possible. With some possible justification, he’s now come to the conclusion, wrongly I think, (but that’s just my opinion), that all unions are bad and has transferred his opprobrium for USALPA to any pilot union that attempts to look after the interests of its members.

The dreadful sense of dej vu assails me when I read of what’s currently happening in CX. How many people have earnestly (and some with the best intentions) advised me and others like me to put the events of 1989 in Australia behind us and ‘get on with our lives’? Sadly, and as we predicted, some elements within management didn’t put those events behind them. They studied them carefully and learned from the mistakes made by both sides in 1989. And now in CX they’re acting, repeating as if following a checklist many of the tactics used by Abeles and Murdoch then, right down to controlling press comment through reminding the editors who pays for large subscriptions and advertising, and government by who knows what means. (We know how they controlled government it in Australia. Time will tell how they’re doing it in Hong Kong, although I daresay the communist government wouldn’t take much convincing to stick it up ‘fat cat foreign devil’ pilots.)

On to the subject of the alleged IFALPA recruitment ban in CX: another item ticked off from the 89 checklist, and as likely to have a positive effect for the pilots as it did in 89. Already we see people posting here saying that ‘it can’t hurt to at least attend the interview’ during the current dispute, as they’re unlikely to be employed until after it’s all resolved.

I know my comments will have zero effect on most considering doing this, but to the few who might be able to see past the apparent heaven-sent back door into a ‘quality’ airline, please be aware that dipping your toes into the troubled waters of an industrial dispute ‘just a little’ is a bit like being ‘just a little bit pregnant’. If you get your widebody endorsement, lucky old you, but believe me, gents, the price you end up paying may be far higher than you first believe it to be.

Firstly, you’ll have no credibility and precious little support should one day the same management decide to tighten the screws a little beyond your particular pain threshold. Secondly, this particular dispute won’t be like Australia where the (insert that four letter word)s were left totally in possession of the ‘ball’. There will be a lot of people out there who you’ll have to work with for the rest of your career who’ll remember you for what you will have become to the day you die.

If that doesn’t worry you, (as many in Australia will try to convince you it doesn’t worry them), go for it. But accept what you are and what you’ll always be, and don’t one day, as so many of those in Australia do, try to rationalise your behaviour to junior colleagues who’ll know you for what you are.

I know it’s not a strike. Situations like this are never black and white. All the more reason to stay away from it.

18th Jul 2001, 14:53
One thing you have to give the Aussie 89'ers, they cling to their bitterness like barnacles. None of them, it seems, are able to take responsibility for their lives and wake up to what they did to themselves.

Now, they endlessly warn about the perils of taking a job in the midst of industrial troubles, telling you how it will ruin your life and make you a pariah forever. It all reminds me a little of how, back in OZ, Brit pilots needed minders to protect them from the actions of so-called professional pilots.

Well, wake up and smell the coffee. In industrial disputes like this, the only winners are the ones who still have a job at the end. You see, many people realise that despite the protestations of some of the current workforce, there are far more that woud jump at the opportunity to obtain the endorsement, pay and conditions that CX pilots enjoy. In the same way that the Aussies got greedy, and the Kiwis got greedy, the CX pilots have now got the same disease.

I am a union member, have been all my working life, and I strongly support unions. What I don't support is the use of veiled threats, scare tactics and other unreasonable behaviour by union members bent on intimidation to acheive their ends. That is a throwback to '70s Britain, and, guess what, the world has moved on since then.

Good luck to CX pilots, however I suspect that despite posturing from unions and others, there will be only one outcome to all this...

Kaptin M
18th Jul 2001, 16:15
The (current) Cathay dispute is about the SAME issues as the Australian and the New Zealand disputes were over!
It - the CX dispute is all about:

NOT having a new, INFERIOR set of conditions unilaterally RAMMED down the Pilots' collective throat, and being FORCED, under threat of dismissal to take it - as was tried in Oz and N.Z.

It is about being allowed the democratic right to be represented by the spokesperson ELECTED by the pilot group.
Management assume that SAME ROLE for the entire ownership/shareholder group.
Why does current management believe they have an obligation to deny lesser salaried workers a united representation? As was the case in Australia 1989, and New Zealand 1999.

It is NOT about money - it NEVER was! That is a fabrication played upon, and exploited by some management who are paid FAR in excess of the most senior pilot's wages - for no identifiable contribution to the bottom line, other than a [necessary] visible erosion of the "lesser" workers' overall conditions, in an attempt to justify their bloated salaries.

One thing you have to give the Aussie 89'ers, they cling to their bitterness like barnacles. None of them, it seems, are able to take responsibility for their lives and wake up to what they did to themselves.
Now, they endlessly warn about the perils of taking a job in the midst of industrial troubles, telling you how it will ruin your life and make you a pariah forever.

One only needs to reads some of the Dunnunda & Godzone threads, to realise HOW MUCH 1989 affected the lives of ALL Aussie pilots from then through to NOW. The "scab" pilots, who felt secure because the majority of previously (airline) employed pilots had gone o/s, have now found that the Internet has made the world a much smaller place, and (that) the REAL issues have re-surfaced, and are able to be freely debated in a "Murdoch-less" controlled environment!

Well, wake up and smell the coffee. In industrial disputes like this, the only winners are the ones who still have a job at the end.

How very WRONG!!! The WINNERS are those who are AT PEACE with themselves in knowing that they have taken the correct course of action. Believe me - I was SORELY tempted in the 1989 Australian dispute to take the "easy" path - a quick (assured) command in the city I wanted, at a salary way beyond anything previously paid in Australia, and for that matter anywhere!! But for me to cross that invisible line, and grasp the MOST FANTASIC job available, I needed to do only one final thing. And that was to turn my back on my best friends, their wives and children, and my other work colleagues and their dependants.
And for a very short time - I did it!To try to describe JUST how much of a "*#@* " I felt, is not possible. And so my advice to those of you who haven't been down that road is, you wouldn't want to. It simply is NOT worth the pain.

You see, many people realise that despite the CX pilots have now got the same disease.
CX Pilots don't have any "disease". This dispute was manufatured by "management", along with their USD1,000 per day "advisors", who have FRIGHTENED them into believing that a unionised workforce is a threat to their authority and profitability. Look back at the '70's and '80's, when Pilot unions and Management worked hand-in-hand..expansion and growth was expected, and both enjoyed a symbiotic existence!

I am a union member, have been all my working life, and I strongly support unions.
A management union member - yes!

Good luck to the CX pilots..

Hear hear!!

18th Jul 2001, 23:21
So, MOR, you’re “… a union member, have been all my working life, and I strongly support unions.”

Are you like those ‘true blue unionist’ members of BALPA who, in 1989, when very attractive packages were being offered to Brit charter airline pilots to fly their aircraft out to Australia in the early stages of the Australian dispute, resigned their BALPA membership for the period they were out there? I’m told on pretty good authority that this was the advice given them by certain BALPA officials so that BALPA members would not be seen to be breaking the BALPA ban on members taking jobs in Australia. (Talk about ‘perfidious Albion’!)

This ‘summer holiday Dunnunda’ mob – mercenaries in the nastiest meaning of the word - are probably the ones who’ve been screaming the loudest ever since about the ‘Awstrayians’ coming overseas taking ‘their’ jobs.

19th Jul 2001, 01:07
To see the reaction to H's post sickens me.
The guys at Cx are trying their level best to right the wrongs of the past. Despite the rantings of 411a and IB57..I would respect any request from either of them for assistance in any dispute they thought was just.
49 pilots have been fired from Cathay. none of them were previously warned, all were top operators.They are victims of a despicable management who have run out of ideas. Unlike IB57 and 411A I know ALL of the fired pilots personally. They are good guys and I will swear here and now that ANY of you would be proud to work with them.
These people are pilots ...you are pilots. Please lets stand together. If it hasn't happened to you .it will soon. I Pledge here and now to support you.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE lets put an end to the in fighting.

I promise you the CX Pilots WILL WIN this dispute.

[ 18 July 2001: Message edited by: jumpseat ]

dallas dude
19th Jul 2001, 04:00
Sometimes, one's vision depends whether one's already "on" the wheel or looking for the chance to jump on it.

For those tempted to leap at the "opportunity" for career advancement and join CX via unusual channels, please understand something.

The only reason there's a golden CX career is because the HKAOA fought for the interests of CX's pilots.

Short circuit that process and you're laying yourselves open to the future whims of the bean counters. Then you'll really have something to complain about. Not that you'll be able to fix it 'cos you 'll have helped usurp the Association's bargaining power (leverage).

Any short term gain WILL rapidly erode.

Show your support for HKAOA and stay on the sidelines until this dispute is settled (as it will be).

For those already on the CX wheel, good luck to you and Nigel D, John F et al.


19th Jul 2001, 05:14
Those pilots who call for recruitment candidates to put their entire professional aviation career on hold should be reminded that not once has the AOA called for senior First Officers and Second Officers to refuse a promotion as THEY are the ones actually taking the jobs of the 23 Captains and 26 first officers sacked in the dispute.
A unamimous refusal for promotion will see the company growth stall and the REAL scabs identified.
I know this view may upset some CX pilots and put their wallets into cardiac arrest. :D

19th Jul 2001, 07:52
Surely this is the issue.

Why accuse a 1000hr pilot, who is joining as an SO of stealing CX jobs!

I'm confused. Surely those who take the upgrade to FO (or CAPT) are moving into the vacated posns?

Pse enlighten me?

19th Jul 2001, 09:52
Now, if the CX management called up Parc Aviation and asked for a few experienced Captains to "help them out" for a short contractual period......then these guys would have a legitimate complaint.
I also wonder if any have actually REFUSED the increased pay the company imposed?

19th Jul 2001, 12:18
What does this recruitment ban mean to people already with interviews. Obviously they are not taking an easy route as they had recieved the call before these latest events.

Will IFALPA provide an interview with another major as consolation for helping the cause?????

19th Jul 2001, 14:32
Jumpseat..not saying the fired crews deserved what they got, or casting any aspersions on any CX crewmember...just seems to some of us that the union is overstepping it's bounds by threatening potential cx recruits with blacklisting etc etc...many of us know from experience it is rubbish and even being a scab is forgotten when it's convenient....don't deny it...too many recent happenoings to prove it...

Kaptin M
19th Jul 2001, 15:25
After some consideration, I also tend to think that trying to impose a ban on recruitment of Second Officers might be counter-productive to IFALPA's and HKAOA's aims. I can imagine what CX managements' response would be, if a successful candidate for a Second officer's position told them he was refusing the job because of a union directive!

Certainly a recruitment ban on direct entry Captains, and a ban on ALL training would, to my mind, be supported more enthusiastically, and would be much fairer than jeopardising future Second Officers' positions. In addition - if IFALPA do try to push the recruitment ban on S/O's - I believe that CX will push hard ahead with the intakes to show that the union has "no teeth".
Let them recruit them, but refuse to train them, until the dispute is resolved - it then becomes a win/win situation for IFALPA and the HKAOA!!

19th Jul 2001, 18:42
Hey good on ya Kaptin M ...now there is a good idea..are in fact cx members accepting commands? shouldn't be...I would definitely sympathize with any attempt to prohibit/ostracize DEC's as they definitely would be taking jobs from cx f.o.'s and from sacked pilots...but don't take it out on the poor bloke trying to get in the door...spread that idea around...

Poke Guy
19th Jul 2001, 18:53
CX had started rostering 2 S/Os on ultra long haul since early this year. CX will roster more and more of 2 S/O ULR flight when they can get away with it. The new hire S/Os are, therefore, going to replace the job of the fired captains and F/Os.

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Poke Guy ]

19th Jul 2001, 19:12
Poke Guy

Are you sure about the S/O roistering?

It seems to me that this is not such a great idea, especially if things go wrong, and they do...Murphy's Law :)

[ 19 July 2001: Message edited by: Tan ]

19th Jul 2001, 20:36
CX have never rostered 2 capt's on ULH flights except in the (frequent) scheduling screw-ups. I fail to see how new hire S/O's could replace sacked capt's. BTW, I'll put money on them ALL getting their jobs back before this is over.

IB57, are you getting soft? Where's the invictive? Please don't tell me a real heart beats under that IB facade. In any case, I agree with you about DE commands. Never again.

20th Jul 2001, 05:34
Kaptin M: I believe the training of S/O is probably a part of the job specified in the employment contract. Refusal to do so will give the mgmt an excuse to fire the pilot WITHOUT COMPENSATION. That is no different from an illegal strike.