To All Prospective Malaysian FOs
Guest
Posts: n/a
To All Prospective Malaysian FOs
This really isn't hard. You may either:
(1) Join CX Freighters (M) as a F/O on half or less pay. Fly freighters only, with their associated poor rostering and schedules. Have the "option" to go to pax fleet in three years taken away from you - after all, the ad only says you "may" be offered this choice, and why would CX allow you to massively upgrade your pay when they can keep you cheaply - you are obviously happy being paid the freighter salary after all? You'll not be on any seniority list, so command is probably also optional. You'll have no union representation and may incur the enmity of others who have now been fighting CX on fundamental contractual issues for many years. You'll be on your own.
OR
(2) Join CX as a S/O based in Hong Kong, paid about 50% more* than the Malaysian Freighter salary. Commute home to Malaysia, as your rostering will allow 5 days off between trips - roughly 15 days per month - much, much better than the freighter rostering which has no such provision (just one of the benefits of a stronger contract and union to enforce it). You'll be on a seniority list, so guaranteed to be upgraded to F/O with the associated pay. Fly with about 30 other nationalities and enjoy the protection of a union that currently represents more than 90% of the pilots in CX, as well as others in DragonAir and Air Hong Kong.
*Yes, SOs are paid more than FOs. FOs are paid more than Captains. CX must be the only airline in the world to do this! But if you join on the right contract, with enforceable provisions, you should have a prosperous career. (There are many problems with our conditions, rostering and remuneration, but with 90%+ of pilots pulling more or less in the same direction it will be resolved. The Malaysian FO contract is much worse).
We've been through this before, and said the same things to others. Sadly, many chose to join on a lower salary with reduced contractual protection, and after some years are now complaining about how low their pay is and how poor their rostering is.
Are you going to make the same mistake they did?
[This message has been edited by St_Paul_Island (edited 15 April 2001).]
(1) Join CX Freighters (M) as a F/O on half or less pay. Fly freighters only, with their associated poor rostering and schedules. Have the "option" to go to pax fleet in three years taken away from you - after all, the ad only says you "may" be offered this choice, and why would CX allow you to massively upgrade your pay when they can keep you cheaply - you are obviously happy being paid the freighter salary after all? You'll not be on any seniority list, so command is probably also optional. You'll have no union representation and may incur the enmity of others who have now been fighting CX on fundamental contractual issues for many years. You'll be on your own.
OR
(2) Join CX as a S/O based in Hong Kong, paid about 50% more* than the Malaysian Freighter salary. Commute home to Malaysia, as your rostering will allow 5 days off between trips - roughly 15 days per month - much, much better than the freighter rostering which has no such provision (just one of the benefits of a stronger contract and union to enforce it). You'll be on a seniority list, so guaranteed to be upgraded to F/O with the associated pay. Fly with about 30 other nationalities and enjoy the protection of a union that currently represents more than 90% of the pilots in CX, as well as others in DragonAir and Air Hong Kong.
*Yes, SOs are paid more than FOs. FOs are paid more than Captains. CX must be the only airline in the world to do this! But if you join on the right contract, with enforceable provisions, you should have a prosperous career. (There are many problems with our conditions, rostering and remuneration, but with 90%+ of pilots pulling more or less in the same direction it will be resolved. The Malaysian FO contract is much worse).
We've been through this before, and said the same things to others. Sadly, many chose to join on a lower salary with reduced contractual protection, and after some years are now complaining about how low their pay is and how poor their rostering is.
Are you going to make the same mistake they did?
[This message has been edited by St_Paul_Island (edited 15 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I do like the #2 Option, as I was initially interested in all the way, till the Freighter Add. But you make it sound so easy to get get either one. If only...
I just hope I'm one of the "best pilots in the world" as they say they want, to pass their selection process in the future.
I just hope I'm one of the "best pilots in the world" as they say they want, to pass their selection process in the future.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SPI,
What you say regarding the SO option is a valid point, particularly as SO's are entitled to Housing Benefits (albeit reduced) and Education Allowance, should that be a player.
However, I cannot agree with what you say regarding the Freighter Option. It is my understanding that anyone employed on the KUL base shall be employed on the same basis as any another Freighter pilot employed post 1st Jan 2000. Namely, they shall be employed by Veta and take a seniority number at the bottom of the CX list. When they have seniority to hold a J/FO position, or 3 years service (whichever happens last) they should move across to the pax fleet as a year 4 F/O. In the event that the company blocks the move to an available pax slot the company's present written position is that they shall pay a type of by-pass pay called "Integration Deferment Pay in the form of the aplicable HK$ salary which the Officer would have received.."
Given that any of the Freighter pilots joining post 1st Jan 2000 were welcomed into the AOA, surely the same will apply to the KUL guys?? You refer to "associated poor rostering and schedules", are you saying that pax rosters are better?
Finally, you appear to hold up the SO on B-scales as an acceptable job within CX. Surely, the SO on B-scale is a denegration of the DE B-scale FO, which in turn was a denegration of DE A-scale FO. It would, therefore, seem accepting any pay scale other than A-scale is unacceptable in your eyes?
What you say regarding the SO option is a valid point, particularly as SO's are entitled to Housing Benefits (albeit reduced) and Education Allowance, should that be a player.
However, I cannot agree with what you say regarding the Freighter Option. It is my understanding that anyone employed on the KUL base shall be employed on the same basis as any another Freighter pilot employed post 1st Jan 2000. Namely, they shall be employed by Veta and take a seniority number at the bottom of the CX list. When they have seniority to hold a J/FO position, or 3 years service (whichever happens last) they should move across to the pax fleet as a year 4 F/O. In the event that the company blocks the move to an available pax slot the company's present written position is that they shall pay a type of by-pass pay called "Integration Deferment Pay in the form of the aplicable HK$ salary which the Officer would have received.."
Given that any of the Freighter pilots joining post 1st Jan 2000 were welcomed into the AOA, surely the same will apply to the KUL guys?? You refer to "associated poor rostering and schedules", are you saying that pax rosters are better?
Finally, you appear to hold up the SO on B-scales as an acceptable job within CX. Surely, the SO on B-scale is a denegration of the DE B-scale FO, which in turn was a denegration of DE A-scale FO. It would, therefore, seem accepting any pay scale other than A-scale is unacceptable in your eyes?
Guest
Posts: n/a
SPI...let's get real.How many times have asian pilots(not HongKongers) applied to CX and not getting reply at all?Many pilots that i know have tried but always the same,no replies or KIV which is conveniently forgotten.I doubt there is any chance even today for asian pilots to be given the shot of a Hong Kong based copilot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Squawker,
You are quite wrong, CX does now employ pilots from a very large number of countries. Our pilots have many different ethnic backgrounds including Asian.
The objection to this new move by our management is only that it does not comply with previous agreements they have made with the HKAOA. Colour, race, sex or anything else has absolutely nothing to do with it. The very fact that many of the prospective applicants from KUL seem to be stirring up a racial pot may be evidence enough that the company is looking in the wrong place for it's future aircrew. We do not want anyone in our ranks who bears a chip on their shoulder about race. We do not have a problem with our race relations and we certainly do not want to see one developing in the future.
[This message has been edited by mole (edited 16 April 2001).]
You are quite wrong, CX does now employ pilots from a very large number of countries. Our pilots have many different ethnic backgrounds including Asian.
The objection to this new move by our management is only that it does not comply with previous agreements they have made with the HKAOA. Colour, race, sex or anything else has absolutely nothing to do with it. The very fact that many of the prospective applicants from KUL seem to be stirring up a racial pot may be evidence enough that the company is looking in the wrong place for it's future aircrew. We do not want anyone in our ranks who bears a chip on their shoulder about race. We do not have a problem with our race relations and we certainly do not want to see one developing in the future.
[This message has been edited by mole (edited 16 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
mole,
Good post. I agree.
Liam,
quote "Finally, you appear to hold up the SO on B-scales as an acceptable job within CX. Surely, the SO on B-scale is a denegration of the DE B-scale FO, which in turn was a denegration of DE A-scale FO. It would, therefore, seem accepting any pay scale other than A-scale is unacceptable in your eyes?"
Absolutely! It's time to stop making the same mistakes we've made over the last 8 years.
[This message has been edited by fossil fuel (edited 17 April 2001).]
Good post. I agree.
Liam,
quote "Finally, you appear to hold up the SO on B-scales as an acceptable job within CX. Surely, the SO on B-scale is a denegration of the DE B-scale FO, which in turn was a denegration of DE A-scale FO. It would, therefore, seem accepting any pay scale other than A-scale is unacceptable in your eyes?"
Absolutely! It's time to stop making the same mistakes we've made over the last 8 years.
[This message has been edited by fossil fuel (edited 17 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fossil Fuel,
Every pilot in CX has accepted reduced terms in one fashion or another. However, some hold themselves out as superior beings and try to identify a scapegoat to dump the blame upon; whether that be the Canadians, the Aussies, B-Scalers, ASL-scum or this month's punch-bag, the Malaysians.
It would appear that we, collectively, now face our best last chance to make a stand. Whilst not directed at you, we all, individually, need to stop looking for scapegoats and need to recognise it is high time to put up or shut-up!
Edited for spalling
[This message has been edited by Liam Gallagher (edited 17 April 2001).]
Every pilot in CX has accepted reduced terms in one fashion or another. However, some hold themselves out as superior beings and try to identify a scapegoat to dump the blame upon; whether that be the Canadians, the Aussies, B-Scalers, ASL-scum or this month's punch-bag, the Malaysians.
It would appear that we, collectively, now face our best last chance to make a stand. Whilst not directed at you, we all, individually, need to stop looking for scapegoats and need to recognise it is high time to put up or shut-up!
Edited for spalling
[This message has been edited by Liam Gallagher (edited 17 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Squawk, unfortunately i tend to agree with you from what i've heard from asian applicants.... admittedly, there are less asian pilots in the world suitable for recruitment but there are some out there. Why not give them a go when they can do the same job, meet the same standards etc.? definitely a racial issue i'd say.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MNG isn't even a pilot. He's a wannabee. MNG, a word of advice: If you want a cadet slot, a job in CX or to have a career in aviation at all, keep your head below the ramparts. This is none of your business, and you know not of what you speak.
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A,
You really show a lack of understanding about aviation in HK.
There is NO general aviation in HK ( except GFS, but I doubt you know what that is!), and therefore no supply of pilots.
It was'nt until CX paid for their training that they were able to employ locals and thus giving these Chinese an excellent start in aviation.
You really seem hung up on your race, what a shame & thank god we dont have to put up with the likes of you.
Now quick start typing!!
BTW did you go to the Mahathir School of racial whinging
[This message has been edited by HUSTLER (edited 22 April 2001).]
You really show a lack of understanding about aviation in HK.
There is NO general aviation in HK ( except GFS, but I doubt you know what that is!), and therefore no supply of pilots.
It was'nt until CX paid for their training that they were able to employ locals and thus giving these Chinese an excellent start in aviation.
You really seem hung up on your race, what a shame & thank god we dont have to put up with the likes of you.
Now quick start typing!!
BTW did you go to the Mahathir School of racial whinging
[This message has been edited by HUSTLER (edited 22 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
411A,
You are right of course. There is a racial bias At Cathay Pacific Airways. How many Caucasians behind the check in desks in HK,LA,SYD,YVR etc..........?
How many blonde hosties down the back of our aircraft? ( not a single one out of how many thousand?).
How many Caucasians have had their ATPLs' paid for Cathay Pacific Airways?
Get back in your box 411, there two sides to every story.
ANYONE is welcome here at cx as long as it doesn't undermine any existing contracts.
[This message has been edited by Herb (edited 22 April 2001).]
You are right of course. There is a racial bias At Cathay Pacific Airways. How many Caucasians behind the check in desks in HK,LA,SYD,YVR etc..........?
How many blonde hosties down the back of our aircraft? ( not a single one out of how many thousand?).
How many Caucasians have had their ATPLs' paid for Cathay Pacific Airways?
Get back in your box 411, there two sides to every story.
ANYONE is welcome here at cx as long as it doesn't undermine any existing contracts.
[This message has been edited by Herb (edited 22 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
HERB--
Well at least you want to engage in intelligent dialogue, unlike Hustler, above. I have been in aircrew training for over 25 years on heavyjet aircraft (base, line, sim) and the foreign carriers that I have worked for all encouraged the locals to apply, so long as they had the relevent experience. If they did not, a cadet program provided the necessary training. Very few problems were encountered. I always found it odd however, that CX, an airline based in HKG, surrounded by Chinese, did not LONG AGO establish a training program for the locals. Wonder why this took so long? Was it because the British employed at CX did not want to upset the applecart? I have trained many Chinese (at SQ) and found them to be excellent pilots in most every respect.
Well at least you want to engage in intelligent dialogue, unlike Hustler, above. I have been in aircrew training for over 25 years on heavyjet aircraft (base, line, sim) and the foreign carriers that I have worked for all encouraged the locals to apply, so long as they had the relevent experience. If they did not, a cadet program provided the necessary training. Very few problems were encountered. I always found it odd however, that CX, an airline based in HKG, surrounded by Chinese, did not LONG AGO establish a training program for the locals. Wonder why this took so long? Was it because the British employed at CX did not want to upset the applecart? I have trained many Chinese (at SQ) and found them to be excellent pilots in most every respect.