Massive Cathay Strike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Gentlemen,
As a B scaler it is often hard to continue to hear the calls of cheap labour and peanuts for monkeys, as it was our own that let this happen, orchestrated by managemant.
The real issue is rostering and continued denegrtaion of our COS. Hiring in Malaysia, Australia, Antartica for that matter is not a question of ability for money but rather a breach of our seniority, and a review of our worth looking for cheaper labour and lowering the all important bottom line. Lets not get into the value for money/safety argument because unless we lose a bunch of aircraft,which is statistically unlikely,you will never prove your argument. I joined under B scales because that was what was on offer. I am more concerned about the erosion of our COS and getting a roster to give me a life. Those that join from wherever are probably just as professional and committed to aviation as we are, money is the start but we all need a life.
As a B scaler it is often hard to continue to hear the calls of cheap labour and peanuts for monkeys, as it was our own that let this happen, orchestrated by managemant.
The real issue is rostering and continued denegrtaion of our COS. Hiring in Malaysia, Australia, Antartica for that matter is not a question of ability for money but rather a breach of our seniority, and a review of our worth looking for cheaper labour and lowering the all important bottom line. Lets not get into the value for money/safety argument because unless we lose a bunch of aircraft,which is statistically unlikely,you will never prove your argument. I joined under B scales because that was what was on offer. I am more concerned about the erosion of our COS and getting a roster to give me a life. Those that join from wherever are probably just as professional and committed to aviation as we are, money is the start but we all need a life.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Excellent input and back to the most important issue; Erosion of the COS. To those who do not agree with others' post, it might be more useful to not post at all rather than asking others to p*## off. this is a public forum and I dont have to agree with you VV. Those boys/girls shud concentrate on getting the CX management to honour the COS ( and improve them immediately) rather than worry about others being recruited/based somewhere else ( better). Just like the B scalers, they saw that its worth it, signed it and get on with it. These ploy will not stop here and CX is not the exclusive place that we will see it. Can anyone just look at what SQ is offering for BNE, PER and LHR basing and convert them into one common currency ? Does the figures look the same ? Yes, seniority is a very valid point. But again, hey, can you see the difference between the qualification required for S/O and F/O position ? It does matter between being able to take off and land as compared to keeping the radios/ keeping the seat warm in CRZ.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I trust that as many members as possible will be attending the forum night. I believe it would be most worthwhile to place many facets of this argument into perspective.
As has been said before (many times), CX would love to see the pilots pay for the pleasure of having a job.
As for the S/O aspect - I, as a full paying passenger, would be a little nervous knowing that if my aircraft was being crewed by 2 Second Officers, that in fact only 2 out of the 4 pilots were fully qualified on the aircraft type! I don't think many of the travelling public are aware of this fact (that Second Officers are only partially trained on the aircraft type - i.e. do not receive a full type rating).
The company is saving alot of money by having S/O's in the first place. To try it on with crewing an aircraft with 2 of them on a regular basis is simply a lead in to making this situation the NORM - rather than the exception.
Many airlines (notably One World partner British Airways) operate with 2 FULLY QUALIFIED crews generally - no S/O's as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong please).
This is merely one aspect of the CX management attempting to totally screw with the pilots' job, and more alarmingly, with the overall flight safety and reputation of the airline.
I am neither a company man nor staunch unionist. However, I DO believe that a very undesirable situation exists. The amangement have a duty to their shareholders - yes - absolutely and totally granted. BUT, not at the expense of the employees (not just pilots - cabin crew are having, and have had, a hell of a time!) and more importantly not at the expense of safety.
Just face the fact that they will continue to bully EVERYONE as long as any group is willing to rollover and take it.
Call me an idealist, but why can't everyone just get on with each other. To the CX management:
You are being WAY too greedy. To have your two main frontline groups onside would save you hundreds of millions of dollars a year in good will (working on days off, less sickness, happy passengers etc).
As has been said before (many times), CX would love to see the pilots pay for the pleasure of having a job.
As for the S/O aspect - I, as a full paying passenger, would be a little nervous knowing that if my aircraft was being crewed by 2 Second Officers, that in fact only 2 out of the 4 pilots were fully qualified on the aircraft type! I don't think many of the travelling public are aware of this fact (that Second Officers are only partially trained on the aircraft type - i.e. do not receive a full type rating).
The company is saving alot of money by having S/O's in the first place. To try it on with crewing an aircraft with 2 of them on a regular basis is simply a lead in to making this situation the NORM - rather than the exception.
Many airlines (notably One World partner British Airways) operate with 2 FULLY QUALIFIED crews generally - no S/O's as I understand (correct me if I'm wrong please).
This is merely one aspect of the CX management attempting to totally screw with the pilots' job, and more alarmingly, with the overall flight safety and reputation of the airline.
I am neither a company man nor staunch unionist. However, I DO believe that a very undesirable situation exists. The amangement have a duty to their shareholders - yes - absolutely and totally granted. BUT, not at the expense of the employees (not just pilots - cabin crew are having, and have had, a hell of a time!) and more importantly not at the expense of safety.
Just face the fact that they will continue to bully EVERYONE as long as any group is willing to rollover and take it.
Call me an idealist, but why can't everyone just get on with each other. To the CX management:
You are being WAY too greedy. To have your two main frontline groups onside would save you hundreds of millions of dollars a year in good will (working on days off, less sickness, happy passengers etc).
Guest
Posts: n/a
....I second the above post. You have to wonder about a person who seems to spend most of his free time commenting on someone else's company....!! I think you should get some professional help. What an empty and pointless life you must lead....? Sad
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hence forth 411a will be known on this forum as S.O.G (sad old git) Any mention of the above prolific producer of hot air must include his FH forum name of SOG.
I suspect that "Norman No Mates" is probably appropriate too
[This message has been edited by Herb (edited 10 May 2001).]
I suspect that "Norman No Mates" is probably appropriate too
[This message has been edited by Herb (edited 10 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I find it amusing the pathetic attempts to 'ridicule' the 99 sickout. One only has to look at the cover photo of the AOA's newsletter, 'The Flyleaf', and take note of the almost 20 parked aircraft to see that the 'chicken flu' resulted in a 3 week 'critical illness' for our management. Not to mention the severe public castigation in using airlines like China Southern to carry our premium passengers. Oh, and don't forget the severe 'weeny whacking' that our managment took from the HK Government, who warned that they wouldn't allow CX's abysmal employee relations to threaten the transportation infrastructure of HK again. Our management cannot have another sickout of that magnitude again (not to mention the almighty disruption currently being planned), because once it is imminent, they will fold at the 11'th hour as the Government will force CX to deal with the 'extreme' issues that we are no longer willing to live with. Go ahead and 'mock' all you want. It is only the pathetic bleatings of individuals on the 'outside' who have no knowledge of what is actually going on within CX flight ops. The chaos and inefficiency that is prevelant at the moment leaves us with no choice but to take drastic action. The 'background noise' of certain mindless agitators on these forums is meaningless.....and we will continue to plan our strategy for the upcoming confrontation without any regard for their ignorant and comical input.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Major part of the problem is the human element...what we need is some rostering software from Silicon Valley!!
Yes, folks...1500 pilots, five fleets, a dozen or so bases, and we have a MANUAL ROSTERING SYSTEM. Someone call Ripley's.
[This message has been edited by Kubota (edited 11 May 2001).]
Yes, folks...1500 pilots, five fleets, a dozen or so bases, and we have a MANUAL ROSTERING SYSTEM. Someone call Ripley's.
[This message has been edited by Kubota (edited 11 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Tell me its not true. My "little" airline with 2 fleets and a total of only 30 aircraft (B737/757), 450 pilots 1300 CAs, has a fully automated CRS, that checks award/legal problems, currency, flight time and rest rules and the rest. Sure I admit its not perfect all the time, but its pretty well spot on the mark, and we chucked out manual rostering about 4 years ago.
The more I hear, the more I am proud of our "little" operation
The more I hear, the more I am proud of our "little" operation
Guest
Posts: n/a
SOPS
it is as true as it gets..the only computer used for our roster is about as useful as a type-writer. But it is cheaper to pay half a dozen, with all due respect, local employees to meddle with the roster till it puts pilots in planes than employing the extra pilots that are really needed to make roster stability more than a pie-in-the-sky dream.
it is as true as it gets..the only computer used for our roster is about as useful as a type-writer. But it is cheaper to pay half a dozen, with all due respect, local employees to meddle with the roster till it puts pilots in planes than employing the extra pilots that are really needed to make roster stability more than a pie-in-the-sky dream.
