Direct Entry F/O advert
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: on the move
Age: 54
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Direct Entry F/O advert
Saw this advert on www.pilotcrewjobs.com.
Position Offered: First Officers (Very Rare Opportunity)
November 8 2005
Cathay Pacific Airways, based in Hong Kong, has a limited number of opportunities for direct entry First Officers flying Airbus throughout the Asia/Pacific area. ICAO ATPL required with at least 2000 hours TT with 500 hours jet or turbine experience. Must have current A320 type rating or similar. Initial one year contract and applications must be made directly through AINCO Leasing (please do not contact Cathay Pacific directly regarding these positions). This is an exciting opportunity with excellent renumeration and benefits.
Employer: Cathay Pacific Airways (through AINCO Leasing)
Contact: Robin Jamison at AINCO Leasing by fax at +64-9-3531435 - Please quote reference: PilotCrewJobs.com
Is this real?
Cheers FM
Position Offered: First Officers (Very Rare Opportunity)
November 8 2005
Cathay Pacific Airways, based in Hong Kong, has a limited number of opportunities for direct entry First Officers flying Airbus throughout the Asia/Pacific area. ICAO ATPL required with at least 2000 hours TT with 500 hours jet or turbine experience. Must have current A320 type rating or similar. Initial one year contract and applications must be made directly through AINCO Leasing (please do not contact Cathay Pacific directly regarding these positions). This is an exciting opportunity with excellent renumeration and benefits.
Employer: Cathay Pacific Airways (through AINCO Leasing)
Contact: Robin Jamison at AINCO Leasing by fax at +64-9-3531435 - Please quote reference: PilotCrewJobs.com
Is this real?
Cheers FM
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seeing as CX does not operate A320s I think the important part of the advert is "(please do not contact Cathay Pacific directly regarding these positions)".
I have seen similar trawls for pilots that quote one airline then when you sign with the agent you find you are working for another. If you want to work for CX, call or write direct. It's the only way CX recruit.
I have seen similar trawls for pilots that quote one airline then when you sign with the agent you find you are working for another. If you want to work for CX, call or write direct. It's the only way CX recruit.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't worry about that. There's a management clerk who scans these forums daily for dis-information. Anything really dodgey they forward to the legal department. It's all covered, as you would expect from an organisation like CX.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick google found the business in Auckland that is supposedly a leasing company.... well actually it is a web hosting company fax number...weird and dodgy.
http://www.primehost.co.nz/contact.shtml
Physical Address
PrimeHost
Level 3, 60 Cook Street
Auckand Central
New Zealand
Since it is a web hosting company maybe it is a job for flying microsoft flight sim!!
IFP
http://www.primehost.co.nz/contact.shtml
Physical Address
PrimeHost
Level 3, 60 Cook Street
Auckand Central
New Zealand
Since it is a web hosting company maybe it is a job for flying microsoft flight sim!!
IFP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: HKG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Direct Entry F/O Advert possibly correct
The advertisement for A320 Direct Entry contract F/O's is probably correct because of:
1. Qualified DE A330/A340 F/O's would not come to CX for the salary offered.
2. It takes as much ground school/sim/line training to CCQ a DE A320 F/O to the A330 as would train a DE A330 F/O to CX SOP's.
3. A320 DE contract F/O's WILL come to CX to get an A330 (and possibly A340) endorsement and wide body time. Possible offer of employment after contract completion?
Why is the employment of DE F/O's being considered?
The CX training system can't handle the sector training requirement of S/O to F/O at this time of rapid expansion.
DE F/O's require less training sectors than S/O to F/O upgrade.
One reason for the low number of available training sectors is too few Training Captains. CX required a large number of experienced Training Captains to retire at age 55 over the past 3 years.
Another reason for the lack of available training sectors is because of the current high command failure rate. Some of the reasons for the high command failure rate are:
1. In 1994 CX introduced 'B' scale salaries and experienced jet F/O's stopped coming to CX for the lower salary offered.
2. The majority of S/O's joining CX since 1994 only had general aviation experience. These pilots are now rating command courses.
3. The CX Cadet Program started in 1989 and ex-cadets only had limited flying experience before joining CX. These pilots are now rating command courses.
4. The CX training of F/O's towards command, during their time as F/O, has not addressed the lower experience level of 'B' scale or ex-cadet command candidates. In fact this training has changed little since 1994. There have been no command training sims, command line training or command workshops for F/O's prior to their command course.
If you employ pilots of a lower experience level then an airline must be prepared to spend more money on pre-command training, prior to the pilot's command course.
It would be very unfortunate (and unfair) if CX intend to recruit DE F/O's and bypass qualified S/O's for A330 F/O training.
Would CX retain DE F/O's at the end of their contact (offer employment at the bottom of the seniority list)and further delay S/O to F/O upgrades?
1. Qualified DE A330/A340 F/O's would not come to CX for the salary offered.
2. It takes as much ground school/sim/line training to CCQ a DE A320 F/O to the A330 as would train a DE A330 F/O to CX SOP's.
3. A320 DE contract F/O's WILL come to CX to get an A330 (and possibly A340) endorsement and wide body time. Possible offer of employment after contract completion?
Why is the employment of DE F/O's being considered?
The CX training system can't handle the sector training requirement of S/O to F/O at this time of rapid expansion.
DE F/O's require less training sectors than S/O to F/O upgrade.
One reason for the low number of available training sectors is too few Training Captains. CX required a large number of experienced Training Captains to retire at age 55 over the past 3 years.
Another reason for the lack of available training sectors is because of the current high command failure rate. Some of the reasons for the high command failure rate are:
1. In 1994 CX introduced 'B' scale salaries and experienced jet F/O's stopped coming to CX for the lower salary offered.
2. The majority of S/O's joining CX since 1994 only had general aviation experience. These pilots are now rating command courses.
3. The CX Cadet Program started in 1989 and ex-cadets only had limited flying experience before joining CX. These pilots are now rating command courses.
4. The CX training of F/O's towards command, during their time as F/O, has not addressed the lower experience level of 'B' scale or ex-cadet command candidates. In fact this training has changed little since 1994. There have been no command training sims, command line training or command workshops for F/O's prior to their command course.
If you employ pilots of a lower experience level then an airline must be prepared to spend more money on pre-command training, prior to the pilot's command course.
It would be very unfortunate (and unfair) if CX intend to recruit DE F/O's and bypass qualified S/O's for A330 F/O training.
Would CX retain DE F/O's at the end of their contact (offer employment at the bottom of the seniority list)and further delay S/O to F/O upgrades?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPX.
Mate, wot a load of crap.
“Qualified DE A330/A340 F/O's would not come to CX for the salary offered”. There are truckloads of guys willing to take this postion.
‘In 1994 CX introduced 'B' scale salaries and experienced jet F/O's stopped coming to CX for the lower salary offered”
Not true.
“The CX training of F/O's towards command, during their time as F/O, has not addressed the lower experience level of 'B' scale or ex-cadet command candidates. In fact this training has changed little since 1994. There have been no command training sims, command line training or command workshops for F/O's prior to their command course”
Are you kidding me. So you reckon after flying jets for 11 years they are not up to standard to swap seats. How the hell do most other airlines manage. Sounds like CX have re written bernouli’’s theory just like KA have.
There must be something in the water in honky town cos flying an airbus aint that tricky.
Mate, wot a load of crap.
“Qualified DE A330/A340 F/O's would not come to CX for the salary offered”. There are truckloads of guys willing to take this postion.
‘In 1994 CX introduced 'B' scale salaries and experienced jet F/O's stopped coming to CX for the lower salary offered”
Not true.
“The CX training of F/O's towards command, during their time as F/O, has not addressed the lower experience level of 'B' scale or ex-cadet command candidates. In fact this training has changed little since 1994. There have been no command training sims, command line training or command workshops for F/O's prior to their command course”
Are you kidding me. So you reckon after flying jets for 11 years they are not up to standard to swap seats. How the hell do most other airlines manage. Sounds like CX have re written bernouli’’s theory just like KA have.
There must be something in the water in honky town cos flying an airbus aint that tricky.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If (big IF ) there was something in this it would open a bit of a viper's nest as the DE freight F/O's might have something to say about it. There again they could always raise the freight F/O pay to match the DE F/O pay on the pax fleet (I won't even go into the minefield of HKG allowances!). Then the frightner captains might want to maintain the Capt-F/O differential re: pay. Bit of a dog's breakfast if you ask me.
What is an inescapable fact is that it must be getting harder to forecast crewing levels accurately given the imminent expansion. Something will have to be done.
The truth lies out there somewhere.
What is an inescapable fact is that it must be getting harder to forecast crewing levels accurately given the imminent expansion. Something will have to be done.
The truth lies out there somewhere.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPX
You sound like an A-Scalar beating his chest as the almighty experienced and B-Scalers are the inexperienced, underpaid, you get what you pay for, pilots. Firstly, A-Scalars did not oppose the introduction of B-Scales as the company gave a meager pay raise for A Scalars for the introduction, but that is another issue.
You believe the failures rates are due to inexperienced B-Scalers. There are enough A-Scalars out there that failed their commands (the old 400 fleet manager for one).
I dare say that the problem is not the pilots but the Cathay System that was introduced over the last several years ( maybe due to the industrial situation).
We now have a Review Board made up of Management Pilots. After all the training (NOT) is complete and the Check PASSED by a Senior Check Pilot, the Review Board has a look at your file. If you have a minor lapse anywhere on the file and any one person on the Review Board does not like it, then 1) All Command Training will cease, 2) You will require extra sectors, another Check and Review 3) Another Check and Review.
There is not much Training in Cathay Pacific when you get to F/O level for Pre Command. Some Training Captains don’t really know how to train and just check the candidate does it correctly (the first time) during there Command Training. If the Trainee does something wrong and the Training Captain writes a rather large narrative in the Trainees Electronic Report (which the Review Board will use as ammunition at a later date) and may or may not TRAIN him/her on how to do it correctly.
Since the introduction of the Review Board, the Training & Checking Pilots has lost all power. If an STC passes the check, whether Command or QL, it does not mean you passed. If some Training Captain has written has written the Bible in your Electronic File about something trivial or something expected at the beginning of you training, you are done. The person on the Review Board may have never flown with the candidate but feels he needs to make a judgement from what is written.
So CPX, it is not the candidates, it is the way the Trainers are writing up reports about trivial things that should be mentioned in debriefing but not mentioned in the report (Minor details discussed in debrief). If the candidate does not pass the check, well that’s a different story.
In the judgement of Most Checkers, the candidate has passed all checks, only to be crushed by one person on the review board. Sounds fair to me don’t you think or is it still an A versus B Scale thingy.
It seems the Review Board has “Lost All Confidence” in the Check and Training staff at Cathay.
You sound like an A-Scalar beating his chest as the almighty experienced and B-Scalers are the inexperienced, underpaid, you get what you pay for, pilots. Firstly, A-Scalars did not oppose the introduction of B-Scales as the company gave a meager pay raise for A Scalars for the introduction, but that is another issue.
You believe the failures rates are due to inexperienced B-Scalers. There are enough A-Scalars out there that failed their commands (the old 400 fleet manager for one).
I dare say that the problem is not the pilots but the Cathay System that was introduced over the last several years ( maybe due to the industrial situation).
We now have a Review Board made up of Management Pilots. After all the training (NOT) is complete and the Check PASSED by a Senior Check Pilot, the Review Board has a look at your file. If you have a minor lapse anywhere on the file and any one person on the Review Board does not like it, then 1) All Command Training will cease, 2) You will require extra sectors, another Check and Review 3) Another Check and Review.
There is not much Training in Cathay Pacific when you get to F/O level for Pre Command. Some Training Captains don’t really know how to train and just check the candidate does it correctly (the first time) during there Command Training. If the Trainee does something wrong and the Training Captain writes a rather large narrative in the Trainees Electronic Report (which the Review Board will use as ammunition at a later date) and may or may not TRAIN him/her on how to do it correctly.
Since the introduction of the Review Board, the Training & Checking Pilots has lost all power. If an STC passes the check, whether Command or QL, it does not mean you passed. If some Training Captain has written has written the Bible in your Electronic File about something trivial or something expected at the beginning of you training, you are done. The person on the Review Board may have never flown with the candidate but feels he needs to make a judgement from what is written.
So CPX, it is not the candidates, it is the way the Trainers are writing up reports about trivial things that should be mentioned in debriefing but not mentioned in the report (Minor details discussed in debrief). If the candidate does not pass the check, well that’s a different story.
In the judgement of Most Checkers, the candidate has passed all checks, only to be crushed by one person on the review board. Sounds fair to me don’t you think or is it still an A versus B Scale thingy.
It seems the Review Board has “Lost All Confidence” in the Check and Training staff at Cathay.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: HKG
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr.Bloggs,
This reply is off the original topic, however..........
I mentioned 1994 and the introduction of 'B' scales to give background to why the CX command failure rate has recently risen quite dramatically. 1994-2005 = 11years. 2-3 years as S/O plus 8-9 years as F/O = 11 years. Coincidence ? Not.
If an airline employs pilots of a lower experience level then that airline must be prepared to spend more money on pre-command training, prior to the pilot's command course. Sitting in the seat during cruise for 6 long haul sectors/month is not adequate pre-command training. There needs to be a structured program with assessment, PRIOR to the command course.
The CX training system of detailed report writing has not changed over the years. Only the medium of paper reports changing to ERAS. The command training 'board' reviewing trainees progress has not changed either. Many command trainees have had less than glowing initial reports but have made steady progress up to the FLC (3-bar) and have subsequently been given the nod by the review board.
I would suggest that rather than talk about how good the post 94 employed trainees are (c/w pre-94) and how bad the establised command review system is, that discussion be directed towards how the training of F/O's towards command (BEFORE the command course), could be improved.
If you employ the right people and give them the right training then you will get the right result.
This reply is off the original topic, however..........
I mentioned 1994 and the introduction of 'B' scales to give background to why the CX command failure rate has recently risen quite dramatically. 1994-2005 = 11years. 2-3 years as S/O plus 8-9 years as F/O = 11 years. Coincidence ? Not.
If an airline employs pilots of a lower experience level then that airline must be prepared to spend more money on pre-command training, prior to the pilot's command course. Sitting in the seat during cruise for 6 long haul sectors/month is not adequate pre-command training. There needs to be a structured program with assessment, PRIOR to the command course.
The CX training system of detailed report writing has not changed over the years. Only the medium of paper reports changing to ERAS. The command training 'board' reviewing trainees progress has not changed either. Many command trainees have had less than glowing initial reports but have made steady progress up to the FLC (3-bar) and have subsequently been given the nod by the review board.
I would suggest that rather than talk about how good the post 94 employed trainees are (c/w pre-94) and how bad the establised command review system is, that discussion be directed towards how the training of F/O's towards command (BEFORE the command course), could be improved.
If you employ the right people and give them the right training then you will get the right result.
Perhaps the degradation in experience level has more to do with DE SO instead of FO.
B-scales would seem to be an unfortunate and incidental coincidence. The application of which had little bearing on experience levels - to suggest otherwise is an affront to these professional aviators. Yes I'm fortunate to be an A scaler, but don't confuse the scales with ability!!!
Mr Bloggs, I agree there are training challenges to be resolved. You raise some interesting issues: I think I can answer some of your concerns in the same way - blah blah blah blaH bla .....
On the original thread: I have absolutely no idea what the A320 recruitment ad could mean. However, I do ask the conspiracy theorests what they make of Cathay currently employing A320 qualified people on the B744? SO and FO. Maybe this is part of a cunning plan to test the feasability of fast tracking from A320 to B777!
Who knows? then again, who cares?
Da Spleen
B-scales would seem to be an unfortunate and incidental coincidence. The application of which had little bearing on experience levels - to suggest otherwise is an affront to these professional aviators. Yes I'm fortunate to be an A scaler, but don't confuse the scales with ability!!!
Mr Bloggs, I agree there are training challenges to be resolved. You raise some interesting issues: I think I can answer some of your concerns in the same way - blah blah blah blaH bla .....
On the original thread: I have absolutely no idea what the A320 recruitment ad could mean. However, I do ask the conspiracy theorests what they make of Cathay currently employing A320 qualified people on the B744? SO and FO. Maybe this is part of a cunning plan to test the feasability of fast tracking from A320 to B777!
Who knows? then again, who cares?
Da Spleen
The reality is that most of the command failures aren’t from any direct entry group. The largest proportion of failures over the last two years have been from the cadet ranks. Most direct entry S/O’s have considerable experience whether it be other major airlines, regional airlines, GA or the military.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 5th Floor
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange...
Just getting back to the original post and the reason this thread was started...
Is there any more light to be shed on this?
Is CX (via AINCO) looking at taking A320 guys and girls to CCQ on their own fleet for a period of time... perhaps indefinately?
Does anyone have any information regarding that?
As has been mentioned - this could be a real Pandoras Box and a suprise coming from a Company like CX that has a pretty good history of sticking to Policy regarding Seniority etc...
It seems strange to use the theory that to take a 320 pilot off the street and train him/her to CX SOP's, inc a CCQ is less hassle and much easier than taking a 2-3 year CX SO and putting him/her in the RHS as an FO...
My, this Industry can be full of suprises ey?
Never a dull moment!!
Can anyone elaborate?
Is there any more light to be shed on this?
Is CX (via AINCO) looking at taking A320 guys and girls to CCQ on their own fleet for a period of time... perhaps indefinately?
Does anyone have any information regarding that?
As has been mentioned - this could be a real Pandoras Box and a suprise coming from a Company like CX that has a pretty good history of sticking to Policy regarding Seniority etc...
It seems strange to use the theory that to take a 320 pilot off the street and train him/her to CX SOP's, inc a CCQ is less hassle and much easier than taking a 2-3 year CX SO and putting him/her in the RHS as an FO...
My, this Industry can be full of suprises ey?
Never a dull moment!!
Can anyone elaborate?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Fragrant Harbour
Age: 49
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would never happen, for a start the day the first DE FO on the pax fleet joined all three hundred SOs would instantly get bypass pay,,, not a cheap solution.
It sounds like a rishworth type company maybe getting a feel for whos out there, if there is a CX link it could possibly be for Air HK freighters.
Also why would CX mainline trust some others do do their recruitment, they have a large office with a number of experienced people doing the recruitment, and on the whole they do a good job.. maybe with the exception of hiring Wanchai Warrier
It sounds like a rishworth type company maybe getting a feel for whos out there, if there is a CX link it could possibly be for Air HK freighters.
Also why would CX mainline trust some others do do their recruitment, they have a large office with a number of experienced people doing the recruitment, and on the whole they do a good job.. maybe with the exception of hiring Wanchai Warrier
Gobble/Kiwi,
Well done !!
At least we are back on the topic.
Oz2
Well done !!
At least we are back on the topic.
Oz2