These postings are not from CX pilots
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Agreed BahrainLad, "running a SUCCESSFUL airline is a team operation", and not dissimilar to an aircraft, with redundancies designed in several areas to take the extra load should one system fail - unfortunately however, some systems are "one-offs", the failure of which may result in the aircraft being rendered completely unflyable.
You win 411A - no accounting staff, and the airline would be grounded.
Now toddle off to another site and annoy people of your own mental capacity - try a search using "crayola" as the keyword!
You win 411A - no accounting staff, and the airline would be grounded.
Now toddle off to another site and annoy people of your own mental capacity - try a search using "crayola" as the keyword!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M, your own sense of self has given you tremendous tunnel vision. With all due respect to pilots who do a wonderful job flying the plane, the same praise goes to those who keep the planes flying, and those who keep the passengers wanting to fly CX as opposed to some one else.
Oh and let's not forget those who serve the pax and yes there are those who prepare the items that are made available for them to be served to pax.
And yes what about those who load the cargo and meals onboard, and the ones who write the rosters so the right people show up to each flight?
If you want to Kaptin M, you can play as a team, if you don't then go fly a crop duster where you can do everything yourself and bark till your hearts content.
I'm so happy the majority of cockpit crew I have met are down to earth enough to realize it takes more then one person to play a team sport. so to speak...
Oh and let's not forget those who serve the pax and yes there are those who prepare the items that are made available for them to be served to pax.
And yes what about those who load the cargo and meals onboard, and the ones who write the rosters so the right people show up to each flight?
If you want to Kaptin M, you can play as a team, if you don't then go fly a crop duster where you can do everything yourself and bark till your hearts content.
I'm so happy the majority of cockpit crew I have met are down to earth enough to realize it takes more then one person to play a team sport. so to speak...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptain M, you don't understand. Still.
An airline is like a machine with cogs. The failure of any one cog will cause the airline to be grounded.
Name me one out of scheduling, maintenance, fleet acquisition, ticketing that you could fly without, and how you propose to do this, and you'd make a lot of money as a consultant
An airline is like a machine with cogs. The failure of any one cog will cause the airline to be grounded.
Name me one out of scheduling, maintenance, fleet acquisition, ticketing that you could fly without, and how you propose to do this, and you'd make a lot of money as a consultant
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
BahrainLad, I believe you are missing MY point, and that is, IMMEDIATE removal of any or all of the departments you have nominated, will not IMMEDIATELY ground an airline - other staff are able to "cover" areas such as cabin crew duties, ticketing, (often) scheduling and rostering - which is pretty much static from month-to-month, and unless the aircraft are due for maintenance (sheduled or unsheduled), it would be some time before the effect of lame's would be noticed.
Flybygirl, catering is non-existent on many low cost operators these days (pax carry their own refreshments aboard), and -yet once again - I have seen the "suits" (attempting) to load the cargo during a stoppage by loaders.
IMMEDIATE removal of the pilot group means IMMEDIATE cessation of flying ie. grounding of the airline's aircraft - THAT was my point (phew!).
In this case however, it would seem that the mis-management team, of Turnbull, Tyler, Bartlett and associates, believe they have pre-empted a withdrawl of pilots' labour, and have VOLUNTARILY decided to incur financial losses to Cathay, by ceasing services to some destinations.
The corollary of my point might be also be proven, by showing that the REMOVAL of Cathay's current management would cause an INCREASE in revenue for the Company!
Flybygirl, catering is non-existent on many low cost operators these days (pax carry their own refreshments aboard), and -yet once again - I have seen the "suits" (attempting) to load the cargo during a stoppage by loaders.
IMMEDIATE removal of the pilot group means IMMEDIATE cessation of flying ie. grounding of the airline's aircraft - THAT was my point (phew!).
In this case however, it would seem that the mis-management team, of Turnbull, Tyler, Bartlett and associates, believe they have pre-empted a withdrawl of pilots' labour, and have VOLUNTARILY decided to incur financial losses to Cathay, by ceasing services to some destinations.
The corollary of my point might be also be proven, by showing that the REMOVAL of Cathay's current management would cause an INCREASE in revenue for the Company!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And my point is that action by a number of other groups in the airline would also cause the IMMEDIATE GROUNDING of the airline.
Take Cabin Crew for example. What's the legal implications of trying to fly a 747 from LHR to HKG with flight deck crew only? Are you going to fight your way out of the flight deck, down the stairs, all the way back to Door 5R to help with an evac. in an emergency? Didn't think so.
Seems you have forgotten the safety aspect of Cabin Crew which is far, far more important than their role as meal server.
Take engineering for example. Why is it that when I come as SLF to BAH on a BA 777, invariably the cover of the GE90 pops open and there are people looking at the engine? Surely not, if maint. only happens every couple of weeks. What about the BA Engineer that flys BAH-DOH-BAH every day. Does he do this for the good of his health?
And don't give me that 'anyone could do it' bollocks - you're not the only one that has to be legally certified in an airline operation.
Take Cabin Crew for example. What's the legal implications of trying to fly a 747 from LHR to HKG with flight deck crew only? Are you going to fight your way out of the flight deck, down the stairs, all the way back to Door 5R to help with an evac. in an emergency? Didn't think so.
Seems you have forgotten the safety aspect of Cabin Crew which is far, far more important than their role as meal server.
Take engineering for example. Why is it that when I come as SLF to BAH on a BA 777, invariably the cover of the GE90 pops open and there are people looking at the engine? Surely not, if maint. only happens every couple of weeks. What about the BA Engineer that flys BAH-DOH-BAH every day. Does he do this for the good of his health?
And don't give me that 'anyone could do it' bollocks - you're not the only one that has to be legally certified in an airline operation.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a e-type person myself, I am intrigued to see that PPrune Towers are able to
"...know, for example, exactly how many CX management or SCMP machines are reading the site at any one time. We can produce detailed logs for any hour of any day for any company server accessing this site - it's childsplay..."
A powerful weapon to scare off management types - but how do you tell if they are management rather than pilots, for example? IP addresses are normally for the whole company, right?
"...know, for example, exactly how many CX management or SCMP machines are reading the site at any one time. We can produce detailed logs for any hour of any day for any company server accessing this site - it's childsplay..."
A powerful weapon to scare off management types - but how do you tell if they are management rather than pilots, for example? IP addresses are normally for the whole company, right?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
BahrainLad you really are wearing my patience thin. Do the names Fedex, Tower Air, Polar Air Cargo or UPS support your argument for running an airline without cabin crew? As I stated earlier, MANY of the unskilled jobs are able to be outsourced and replacement workers brought in within a matter of days.
Now, you said "Take engineering for example. Why is it that when I come as SLF to BAH on a BA 777, invariably the cover of the GE90 pops open and there are people looking at the engine? Surely not, if maint. only happens every couple of weeks.
My guess is that it is either (a) engineering staff familiarisng themselves with the 777, and/or (b) artisans - and isn't that word salt in the wounf for lames - checking fluid quantities.
What about the BA Engineer that flys BAH-DOH-BAH every day. Does he do this for the good of his health?
He is there IN CASE that particular aircraft on which he is paxing, requires work that only HE - as a 777 rated lame - can perform/oversee, and sign off. But ONE aeroplane going u/s won't ground the entire airline. And for as long as the aircraft continue to fly without developing any major problems, or requiring any scheduled maintenance, the mechanics can sit back and enjoy paxing around without getting any grease under his fingernails. If perchance he carks it enroute, it's not going to ground the aeroplane. Same cannot be said for EITHER of the pilots.
Now, you said "Take engineering for example. Why is it that when I come as SLF to BAH on a BA 777, invariably the cover of the GE90 pops open and there are people looking at the engine? Surely not, if maint. only happens every couple of weeks.
My guess is that it is either (a) engineering staff familiarisng themselves with the 777, and/or (b) artisans - and isn't that word salt in the wounf for lames - checking fluid quantities.
What about the BA Engineer that flys BAH-DOH-BAH every day. Does he do this for the good of his health?
He is there IN CASE that particular aircraft on which he is paxing, requires work that only HE - as a 777 rated lame - can perform/oversee, and sign off. But ONE aeroplane going u/s won't ground the entire airline. And for as long as the aircraft continue to fly without developing any major problems, or requiring any scheduled maintenance, the mechanics can sit back and enjoy paxing around without getting any grease under his fingernails. If perchance he carks it enroute, it's not going to ground the aeroplane. Same cannot be said for EITHER of the pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bahrain Lad...there are many cogs required to run the airline, but when one of them becomes out of alignment such as say flt ops management, the metal shavings resulting contaminate the whole operation....eventually resulting in the destruction of the airline.....Kaptin M...remember the forum is for ALL opinions and views...why don't you voice your opinions, and keep your crybaby silly comments to yourself...no one else here is behaving in your true union-boy fashion...so like it, or ignore it....
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptain M, yes an a/c needs flt crew to fly that is given. However for him/her to be able to legally fly that a/c that a/c has to be released for flt and under the HKGCAD Law an appropriately approved/licenced/authorised engineer has to sign the CRS for any or nil defects the a/c may have, the maint check that is c/o iaw the Approved Maintenance Schedule (even a transit). As for the freighters, even though they do not have Cabin Crew, still require that release, that is the Law in HKG (and elsewhere), so whilst you're sat there waiting to go, until I sign it off you ain't going nowhere. 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptain M, you will surely be aware of the way in which an unsecured or imbalanced load on a cargo aircraft can reduce you to a mere passenger.
But who's responsibility is this? Or are Fedex pilots now loading their MD-11s themselves?
ironbutt57, agreed. Seems CX Management are screwing the whole thing up - but not surprising considering their history.
Kaptain M - for the last time no one is suggesting that Pilots can be removed from the operation. However, you do seem to have an elevated sense of your own importance...
And I called your bluff about the 777 - most of the time they are checking for fanblade cracks in the GE90 - or could you do that?
But who's responsibility is this? Or are Fedex pilots now loading their MD-11s themselves?
ironbutt57, agreed. Seems CX Management are screwing the whole thing up - but not surprising considering their history.
Kaptain M - for the last time no one is suggesting that Pilots can be removed from the operation. However, you do seem to have an elevated sense of your own importance...
And I called your bluff about the 777 - most of the time they are checking for fanblade cracks in the GE90 - or could you do that?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Hypothetical for you spannersatcx: aircraft diverts to and lands at an airport where there are no lames, at all - can that airplane depart without the Tech Log being signed by a mechanic? According to you - no. According to me - yes!
The pic is legally responsible for the overall safety of the aircraft, and its occupants - hence should he decide it is safe to depart, WITHOUT the aircraft being "signed off" by a lame (even if one IS available) he IS permitted to do so. Of course he must be able to justify his decision, should it come under scrutiny.
Tin@ass this thread wouldn't have gone the distance it has so far, without the various opinions being offered. I appreciate hearing from most of them, as they allow each of us to interchange our thoughts, and perhaps add some extra dimensions to our views. I happen to believe it should the right for those who desire it, to be represented in their employment conditions by whomever they choose - whether that is the individual, a solicitor, or a representative body...ie. a UNION. Employers present prospective employees with a professionally written, legally prepared document, usually involving penalties if those terms and conditions are not adhered to. If there is a disagreement, the employer will not hesitate to use a legal professional to extract, from the employee, the said penalty.
Why should an employee be denied the same right when dealing with his employer?
The pic is legally responsible for the overall safety of the aircraft, and its occupants - hence should he decide it is safe to depart, WITHOUT the aircraft being "signed off" by a lame (even if one IS available) he IS permitted to do so. Of course he must be able to justify his decision, should it come under scrutiny.
Tin@ass this thread wouldn't have gone the distance it has so far, without the various opinions being offered. I appreciate hearing from most of them, as they allow each of us to interchange our thoughts, and perhaps add some extra dimensions to our views. I happen to believe it should the right for those who desire it, to be represented in their employment conditions by whomever they choose - whether that is the individual, a solicitor, or a representative body...ie. a UNION. Employers present prospective employees with a professionally written, legally prepared document, usually involving penalties if those terms and conditions are not adhered to. If there is a disagreement, the employer will not hesitate to use a legal professional to extract, from the employee, the said penalty.
Why should an employee be denied the same right when dealing with his employer?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fantasy Island
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptain M, with regards to your last question, it all depends on the school of management your employer went to, and which country you are in.
It seems that CX management are taking the attitude that they are doing you (pilots) a thumping great favour by employing you in an increasingly competitive job market, and therefore they can dictate terms. After all, from their position they know far more about their money in/out situation than you do. (See recent comments from CX in the wires). Additionally, they represent investors without which you would not have aircraft to fly nor airports to fly to. A 100% attitude like this will not get them anywhere.
Then there is the pilot/employee attitude which says that we are the backbone of the company and doing everyone a service at our own expense. A 100% attitude will not get them anywhere either.
Obviously the great question is where to find a happy medium between the two. I do think Pilots (especially at CX) should be paid more - the steps taken at Delta are 'a good thing'. However, there must be a limit - and that won't be imposed by management, it'll be imposed by economics.
I know you and your colleagues take 300 lives in your hands - price $300 million as a result of AF4590 - but the passengers are simply not prepared to pay a level of fare that would even begin to pay you for that level of responsibility.
I posted what I thought was a very interesting article in the Economist on the R&N board - if you haven't, I encourage you to read it.
It's very much a case of 'where do we go from here?'
It seems that CX management are taking the attitude that they are doing you (pilots) a thumping great favour by employing you in an increasingly competitive job market, and therefore they can dictate terms. After all, from their position they know far more about their money in/out situation than you do. (See recent comments from CX in the wires). Additionally, they represent investors without which you would not have aircraft to fly nor airports to fly to. A 100% attitude like this will not get them anywhere.
Then there is the pilot/employee attitude which says that we are the backbone of the company and doing everyone a service at our own expense. A 100% attitude will not get them anywhere either.
Obviously the great question is where to find a happy medium between the two. I do think Pilots (especially at CX) should be paid more - the steps taken at Delta are 'a good thing'. However, there must be a limit - and that won't be imposed by management, it'll be imposed by economics.
I know you and your colleagues take 300 lives in your hands - price $300 million as a result of AF4590 - but the passengers are simply not prepared to pay a level of fare that would even begin to pay you for that level of responsibility.
I posted what I thought was a very interesting article in the Economist on the R&N board - if you haven't, I encourage you to read it.
It's very much a case of 'where do we go from here?'
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hmmm?
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a CX pilot but wish to offer my support to them all.
It's important that ALL CX PILOTS take the same action...the ones who sit on the bench are the ones who should be sacked not the ones out there after better conditions and pay.
ON YOU GUYS, BEST OF LUCK.
It's important that ALL CX PILOTS take the same action...the ones who sit on the bench are the ones who should be sacked not the ones out there after better conditions and pay.
ON YOU GUYS, BEST OF LUCK.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I didn't get back earlier Kaptain M but I've only just flown back to my base as I had to go to another port to release an aircraft, funnily enough the Crew couldn't!
Rgds spannersatcx.
Rgds spannersatcx.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M I am sure that a captain would never take an aircraft unless his life depended on it without the relevent CRS signed by an engineer. As for taking an aircraft with defects outside the MEL again I don't think so. Nobody has tried to belittle your qualifications so why do so to others? It might be good experience for you to spend a day on the ramp with an engineer, you could learn something!!!!!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lookout Mtn Tennessee
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Methinks from perusing this forum that "Kaptin M" is unable to learn anything, as he knows it all...like most other "89ers"....too bad all the other airlines in the world are not blessed with the presence of these miserable whinging, self-indulgent morons...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: NZ/UK
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M.
Your arrogance astounds me, and it is not just on this thread that it has reared it's ugly head.
The amount of time it would take to train up all of these ("unessential" workers in your eyes) would be enough to see an airline suffer to a huge extent. Possibly even enough for it to go under completely. Unless of course you wanted to park the aircraft, get out and put the gate/stairs on, offload the bags and freight, then load the outgoing. Then you can head up stairs and cater the aircraft, clean it, and if you have time, you can chase up those annoying pax that decide they want to get to the a/c 10 minutes after it is supposed to leave. After they are finally on board you can some how take the gate off, push the aircraft back and make your way on to the flight deck.
And I only mentioned what happened airside.
Your arrogance astounds me, and it is not just on this thread that it has reared it's ugly head.
The amount of time it would take to train up all of these ("unessential" workers in your eyes) would be enough to see an airline suffer to a huge extent. Possibly even enough for it to go under completely. Unless of course you wanted to park the aircraft, get out and put the gate/stairs on, offload the bags and freight, then load the outgoing. Then you can head up stairs and cater the aircraft, clean it, and if you have time, you can chase up those annoying pax that decide they want to get to the a/c 10 minutes after it is supposed to leave. After they are finally on board you can some how take the gate off, push the aircraft back and make your way on to the flight deck.
And I only mentioned what happened airside.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the short time I have been a member of this board, I have swung from neutral to in favour of the the companies sacking of the pilots who are not performing their duties up to the standards expected of them.
The arrogance of Kaptin M is a classic case of the "I KNOW BEST" mentality despite the rest of the participants pointing out very good reasons with patient explanations.
This "I KNOW BEST" attitude has landed 52 pilots in hot water, I feel the only way they will fly CX again is as a passenger on their journey home.
Putting this into perspective:
Hong Kong is paying a huge price for the sake of 1200 pilots staff? Can't the AOA see how unfair it is to effect so many lives for this small number?
There are many who will suffer, even amoungst the pilots! Wives, kids etc.
Very sad indeed
The arrogance of Kaptin M is a classic case of the "I KNOW BEST" mentality despite the rest of the participants pointing out very good reasons with patient explanations.
This "I KNOW BEST" attitude has landed 52 pilots in hot water, I feel the only way they will fly CX again is as a passenger on their journey home.
Putting this into perspective:
Hong Kong is paying a huge price for the sake of 1200 pilots staff? Can't the AOA see how unfair it is to effect so many lives for this small number?
There are many who will suffer, even amoungst the pilots! Wives, kids etc.
Very sad indeed
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diamond .. How can you explain that 52 pilots were sacked in one day "for not doing their duties" in the middle of an industrial action that involves nothing other than carefully checking company manuals and procedures? (Please note that four of these individuals were prominent union members, some were on leave, others were sick.) Surely this smacks more of intimidation?? I would hope that any corporation with a safety reputation as exemplary as Cathay would notice that 5% of their crew were incompetent.
Further, my understanding is that salary is not the major issue in this dispute. Rostering issues and practices, which the company has been promising to fix for many years (and has so far refused) is. You sound like an intelligent business owner. Can you imagine only finding out what your roster was 15 or less days (depending on where you are flying) before the next month and having NOTHING to say about it? Can you imagine never being able to plan a family event, attend your daughter's school play, or attend a friend's wedding? Can you imagine getting your roster and knowing that it is going to change anyway? Do you have any idea how much stress that causes in a person's life? The sad thing is that it doesn't have to be that way.
Going back to the salary issue, first of all, don't belive everything you read. If salary was the only problem Cathay Pacific was facing, why aren't they asking for across-the-board reductions from all their employees? Why isn't management taking a pay cut with the pilots? I believe that management gets the same housing and education benefits that the pilots do. How do you expect pilots to believe ANYTHING management says after forcing them to take a pay cut "for the salvation of the company" only to have the company post record profits?
Cathay has always hired the cream of the crop, and as we all know, the cream costs more. Ask yourself if you're willing to choose your doctor or surgeon based on cost. Aren't you more likely to choose your doctor based on experience and skill? When you need surgery, do you quibble about price? Every time you get in an airplane (or car - since you're hiring a driver) you are putting your life in someone else's hands. You would be foolish to hire on the basis of price.
Ask yourself also if the price of leasing aircraft wouldn't have gone a long way to meeting the pilots demands. When you have a staff of pilots reporting for work and being turned away, you must ask what management's agenda is. A lot of these searching questions are now being asked in the newspapers and the answers are not being answered very credibly by management.
Please keep an open mind.
Further, my understanding is that salary is not the major issue in this dispute. Rostering issues and practices, which the company has been promising to fix for many years (and has so far refused) is. You sound like an intelligent business owner. Can you imagine only finding out what your roster was 15 or less days (depending on where you are flying) before the next month and having NOTHING to say about it? Can you imagine never being able to plan a family event, attend your daughter's school play, or attend a friend's wedding? Can you imagine getting your roster and knowing that it is going to change anyway? Do you have any idea how much stress that causes in a person's life? The sad thing is that it doesn't have to be that way.
Going back to the salary issue, first of all, don't belive everything you read. If salary was the only problem Cathay Pacific was facing, why aren't they asking for across-the-board reductions from all their employees? Why isn't management taking a pay cut with the pilots? I believe that management gets the same housing and education benefits that the pilots do. How do you expect pilots to believe ANYTHING management says after forcing them to take a pay cut "for the salvation of the company" only to have the company post record profits?
Cathay has always hired the cream of the crop, and as we all know, the cream costs more. Ask yourself if you're willing to choose your doctor or surgeon based on cost. Aren't you more likely to choose your doctor based on experience and skill? When you need surgery, do you quibble about price? Every time you get in an airplane (or car - since you're hiring a driver) you are putting your life in someone else's hands. You would be foolish to hire on the basis of price.
Ask yourself also if the price of leasing aircraft wouldn't have gone a long way to meeting the pilots demands. When you have a staff of pilots reporting for work and being turned away, you must ask what management's agenda is. A lot of these searching questions are now being asked in the newspapers and the answers are not being answered very credibly by management.
Please keep an open mind.