What's the culture at Cathay like?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was Hogtied, who said (to precis)
- All airlines have incidents
- Many CX crews have "juicy" training files
- This would be bad publicity for the airline
He didn't say, but certainly seems to imply that it is a mistake for there to be exhaustive & "warts & all" training files once the lawyers & press get hold of them. Not sure if he is saying that people should be allowed to pass more easily, or just that it all documented in an anodyne way.
Same sort of idea with references - you can't be honest now in a reference, just use generalities.
Is this how it works in the US now? That airlines feel they need to be "politically correct" in their training records, in case of incidents?
- All airlines have incidents
- Many CX crews have "juicy" training files
- This would be bad publicity for the airline
He didn't say, but certainly seems to imply that it is a mistake for there to be exhaustive & "warts & all" training files once the lawyers & press get hold of them. Not sure if he is saying that people should be allowed to pass more easily, or just that it all documented in an anodyne way.
Same sort of idea with references - you can't be honest now in a reference, just use generalities.
Is this how it works in the US now? That airlines feel they need to be "politically correct" in their training records, in case of incidents?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US, If you passed a checkride, you passed.
There are standards you have to meet in the US to pass, same as here. Don't meet the standards, you don't pass.
Training files in the US will say S for satisfactory if you passed.
As far as the training records in court, you can count on it and not just in the USA. Many comments made with good intention will sound quite different when read aloud in court by the attorneys. Their goal is to prove negligence, because without that next of kin are entitled to a very small payout under the international rules that airlines operate under. But, if they can prove negligence, or the impression of negligence, they can get millions.
There are standards you have to meet in the US to pass, same as here. Don't meet the standards, you don't pass.
Training files in the US will say S for satisfactory if you passed.
As far as the training records in court, you can count on it and not just in the USA. Many comments made with good intention will sound quite different when read aloud in court by the attorneys. Their goal is to prove negligence, because without that next of kin are entitled to a very small payout under the international rules that airlines operate under. But, if they can prove negligence, or the impression of negligence, they can get millions.
Hi Five Greens,
I'll get on to the assessment board in a moment.... first though, English is indeed my first language and I now realise and admit my 2 mistakes; one of omission and the other of poor proof reading! I'm sorry the omission of the word 'am' as word 2 of the last paragraph causes you so much angst! I don't think it changes the sentiment or meaning in any way. By the way you could correct the two spelling mistakes in your reply, dated 13th Aug @ 14.01!!!
The review board I would guess is here to stay, so let's all just get on with the job in hand and fly aeroplanes and have a damned good time doing it, rather than all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. It is not going to get anyone anywhere!
On the subject of books... Everything is written down, clearly and logically; you just have to know where to look. I guess we could combine all the manuals into FCOM 3 and have an enormous index. Alternatively, we could keep the system of manuals we have and learn to use them, that comes with exposure and experience, oh, and a bit of hard work. We could produce briefs and guidlines for everything, but then there would be no fun in watching our junior colleagues running around with their hair on fire trying to figure out who likes what, when it comes to check time!!!
We have to trust the guys to do the hard work themselves, this is after all one of the biggest prizes in aviation... it must be because you are still here chasing it!
Cheers
I'll get on to the assessment board in a moment.... first though, English is indeed my first language and I now realise and admit my 2 mistakes; one of omission and the other of poor proof reading! I'm sorry the omission of the word 'am' as word 2 of the last paragraph causes you so much angst! I don't think it changes the sentiment or meaning in any way. By the way you could correct the two spelling mistakes in your reply, dated 13th Aug @ 14.01!!!
The review board I would guess is here to stay, so let's all just get on with the job in hand and fly aeroplanes and have a damned good time doing it, rather than all this wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. It is not going to get anyone anywhere!
On the subject of books... Everything is written down, clearly and logically; you just have to know where to look. I guess we could combine all the manuals into FCOM 3 and have an enormous index. Alternatively, we could keep the system of manuals we have and learn to use them, that comes with exposure and experience, oh, and a bit of hard work. We could produce briefs and guidlines for everything, but then there would be no fun in watching our junior colleagues running around with their hair on fire trying to figure out who likes what, when it comes to check time!!!
We have to trust the guys to do the hard work themselves, this is after all one of the biggest prizes in aviation... it must be because you are still here chasing it!
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAX you are wasting your time. 
But here I go again.
I foolishly tried to explain as well, but they do not want to listen, especially Five Greens (is english his or her second language - I do wonder?).
They seem to want to be spoon fed, with everything served on a plate. Unfortunately the minority have not yet learnt that you have to put in the effort in this career and you cannot always rely on someone else's cheat-sheet to get through the various courses.
Guys you do not need to know everything verbatim, you DO however have to know where to find it in our manuals. As for "particular" captains ways of doing things, that is what SOP's / NP's are there to prevent, however there can be many different "ways" of doing a particular task and they can be type specific and "best practice". Where you do have a conflict perhaps the conflict is increased due to "attitude". Yours, as well as the trainer's / checker's, CRM is a two way street, it is not just about how you are treated but how you treat and react to other peolpe / inputs.
You also need to be serious about every simulator ride and check ride, they all count and it shows that you are "professional and a committed aviator". You cannot expect to just put the effort in a couple of months before your upgrade, because your number has reached the top of the pile. We also need to remember this is NOT a flying club, but an airline and if the people at the top want it run a particular way, then thats the way it is. If you do not like the heat get out of the kitchen or stop bleating.
As for the pass rate at the moment that "5" go's on and on about, there is NO easy answer and you cannot blame any one part of the system. Perhaps the candidates were not quite up to it, perhaps they were not quite ready, perhaps the company was wrong to give some of them an oppotunity at the upgrade, perhaps some were their own undoing and perhaps some were just "unlucky". I can assure you NO one in the training department / company wants you to fail. Why waste the money? However, if they have a doubt then there can be NO doubt, would you want your loved ones to be put in jeopardy on a dark and stormy night?
I am in the training department, I have flown for another airline, I am ex military, I am an ex QFI ( piston / fast jet). Why did I get into training in Cathay, because I enjoy it, I like to give something back and I want to make sure that you receive TRAINING and not training by checking. That is the aim of the training department!! The RAF went through a serious look at its training system in the late 70's as so many were failing. It was initially the fault of the QFI's and the "training department" but then they realised that was not the whole picture, some fault lay with the selection process and some with the trainee's.
If you all think the training department is so bad why not try and join it, then you can do YOUR bit to TRAIN rather than CHECK. You will then find that is exactly what we are trying to do at present. BIG T little c.
Finally "5" Cathay does not fly under the rules of the CAA (your R/T manual reference - try Vol 2 Pt 2) but the rules of the HKCAD. My comment about my departure from JFK was to highlight the need for STANDARD R/T, the two aircraft in question did not use standard R/T and caused a worrying few seconds. I had hoped that was obvious from the way I wrote the sentence but obviously not, I hope that was clearer.
But here I go again. I foolishly tried to explain as well, but they do not want to listen, especially Five Greens (is english his or her second language - I do wonder?).
They seem to want to be spoon fed, with everything served on a plate. Unfortunately the minority have not yet learnt that you have to put in the effort in this career and you cannot always rely on someone else's cheat-sheet to get through the various courses.
Guys you do not need to know everything verbatim, you DO however have to know where to find it in our manuals. As for "particular" captains ways of doing things, that is what SOP's / NP's are there to prevent, however there can be many different "ways" of doing a particular task and they can be type specific and "best practice". Where you do have a conflict perhaps the conflict is increased due to "attitude". Yours, as well as the trainer's / checker's, CRM is a two way street, it is not just about how you are treated but how you treat and react to other peolpe / inputs.
You also need to be serious about every simulator ride and check ride, they all count and it shows that you are "professional and a committed aviator". You cannot expect to just put the effort in a couple of months before your upgrade, because your number has reached the top of the pile. We also need to remember this is NOT a flying club, but an airline and if the people at the top want it run a particular way, then thats the way it is. If you do not like the heat get out of the kitchen or stop bleating.
As for the pass rate at the moment that "5" go's on and on about, there is NO easy answer and you cannot blame any one part of the system. Perhaps the candidates were not quite up to it, perhaps they were not quite ready, perhaps the company was wrong to give some of them an oppotunity at the upgrade, perhaps some were their own undoing and perhaps some were just "unlucky". I can assure you NO one in the training department / company wants you to fail. Why waste the money? However, if they have a doubt then there can be NO doubt, would you want your loved ones to be put in jeopardy on a dark and stormy night?
I am in the training department, I have flown for another airline, I am ex military, I am an ex QFI ( piston / fast jet). Why did I get into training in Cathay, because I enjoy it, I like to give something back and I want to make sure that you receive TRAINING and not training by checking. That is the aim of the training department!! The RAF went through a serious look at its training system in the late 70's as so many were failing. It was initially the fault of the QFI's and the "training department" but then they realised that was not the whole picture, some fault lay with the selection process and some with the trainee's.
If you all think the training department is so bad why not try and join it, then you can do YOUR bit to TRAIN rather than CHECK. You will then find that is exactly what we are trying to do at present. BIG T little c.
Finally "5" Cathay does not fly under the rules of the CAA (your R/T manual reference - try Vol 2 Pt 2) but the rules of the HKCAD. My comment about my departure from JFK was to highlight the need for STANDARD R/T, the two aircraft in question did not use standard R/T and caused a worrying few seconds. I had hoped that was obvious from the way I wrote the sentence but obviously not, I hope that was clearer.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Asia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say Reheat, but your last post is void of any meaningful content and somewhat contradictory.
In reality, hand wringing and teeth gnashing is trainerside, many crypted ERAS reports bear testimony to this. You as a trainer have just said yourself it is them who like to see hairs on fire, a very good description indeed. Some who find themselves empowered and protected by company culture thrive on this and relish, most on the receiving end are just disturbed and frustrated by it all. As you say, just get on with it, but cut the bull**** please.
It is a very political, often arbitrary and therefore counterproductive environment to produce consistent good results in, even for the workwilling. I fully understand Five Greens valid questions and he obviously means well, your arrogant attitude towards these just prove his point.
Electric Jetjock: Right on, get involved and change it! (As an aside on your last point, the CAA 413 RT manual is the official source for CX Cadet Training in Adelaide and RT Training is based on it)
In reality, hand wringing and teeth gnashing is trainerside, many crypted ERAS reports bear testimony to this. You as a trainer have just said yourself it is them who like to see hairs on fire, a very good description indeed. Some who find themselves empowered and protected by company culture thrive on this and relish, most on the receiving end are just disturbed and frustrated by it all. As you say, just get on with it, but cut the bull**** please.
It is a very political, often arbitrary and therefore counterproductive environment to produce consistent good results in, even for the workwilling. I fully understand Five Greens valid questions and he obviously means well, your arrogant attitude towards these just prove his point.
Electric Jetjock: Right on, get involved and change it! (As an aside on your last point, the CAA 413 RT manual is the official source for CX Cadet Training in Adelaide and RT Training is based on it)
Last edited by CruisingSpeed; 16th Aug 2006 at 10:21.
Cruising Speed,
I was trying to use a bit of wit but clearly it was supersonic when it went over your head!!!
Trust me the only gnashing of teeth is going on here by you guys.
By the way, which part of my post do you find contradictory? I think it clearly states that you... the candidate... has to put in some hard yards and that if you don't.... well, nuff said!
I was trying to use a bit of wit but clearly it was supersonic when it went over your head!!!
Trust me the only gnashing of teeth is going on here by you guys.
By the way, which part of my post do you find contradictory? I think it clearly states that you... the candidate... has to put in some hard yards and that if you don't.... well, nuff said!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Electric
No pilot at CX expects to cruise through a JFO or command course. They all put in incredible amounts of work. Most "cheat sheets" as you say are an effort to collect all the scattered info into more easily studied and understood order. This is something that modern airlines do for their course candidates.
I think you just contradicted yourself. An SOP is just that, STANDARD not different. There are checkers in this airline who over time have drifted to their own version of SOPs. Yes I know it happens in all airlines. However in most airlines you have some way to question the result if it is based on erroneous marking. It is also mandatory for the checker to review all information being placed in the report with the candidate, by way of debrief, before it is entered into the system. Quite often here, questionable marks, and in the worst cases, those of sim partners, are entered as your report. It is the CX culture (because that is what this thread is about) that prevents the candidate from being able to question these reports.
So there is my other suggestion : Closer auditing of the check and trainers to track trends and or problems.
So it comes down to luck here at CX. Now I understand. In your even handed approach you did forget that some of the blame might just might have to be laid on the system. Just as in your RAF days.
I am not against the round table idea. It was originally put there for our benefit. Now, however it has grown into something else. We either need better representation on the round table, or the round table should be inserted into the program earlier. In other words your fate should not be left to whomever is on the third floor that day, but to the pilots and trainers who have worked with you. If I was a check and trainer I might talk to my fellow check and trainers and do what you say you do "help us", by taking up these issues with your managers, with the round table, and lets get some changes for the better made.
Cheers
No pilot at CX expects to cruise through a JFO or command course. They all put in incredible amounts of work. Most "cheat sheets" as you say are an effort to collect all the scattered info into more easily studied and understood order. This is something that modern airlines do for their course candidates.
Originally Posted by electricjetjock
As for "particular" captains ways of doing things, that is what SOP's / NP's are there to prevent, however there can be many different "ways" of doing a particular task and they can be type specific and "best practice".
So there is my other suggestion : Closer auditing of the check and trainers to track trends and or problems.
Originally Posted by electricjetjock
... and perhaps some were just "unlucky".
I am not against the round table idea. It was originally put there for our benefit. Now, however it has grown into something else. We either need better representation on the round table, or the round table should be inserted into the program earlier. In other words your fate should not be left to whomever is on the third floor that day, but to the pilots and trainers who have worked with you. If I was a check and trainer I might talk to my fellow check and trainers and do what you say you do "help us", by taking up these issues with your managers, with the round table, and lets get some changes for the better made.
Cheers
Yawn Yawn Yawn 
The only people that seem to have a beef with the Cathay system are the ones that don't get through. **** it's a wonder we have any Captains at all the way some of you go on.
If you aren't prepared the put in the hard yards and take some heat then get out of the kitchen and stay in your present rank for the rest of your lives.
Simple really.
NOW GET BACK TO THE BOOKS AND STOP COMPLAINING, THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES.
The only people that seem to have a beef with the Cathay system are the ones that don't get through. **** it's a wonder we have any Captains at all the way some of you go on.
If you aren't prepared the put in the hard yards and take some heat then get out of the kitchen and stay in your present rank for the rest of your lives.
Simple really.
NOW GET BACK TO THE BOOKS AND STOP COMPLAINING, THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES.
ACMS
Cruising Speed,
My goodness we really are a bitter little pill aren't we.
I notice from a previous thread that you no longer work for Cathay Pacific. Why don't you sod off back under the stone from whence you came and start living your new life rather than trying to cling on to the one you wish you had!
Cruising Speed,
My goodness we really are a bitter little pill aren't we.
I notice from a previous thread that you no longer work for Cathay Pacific. Why don't you sod off back under the stone from whence you came and start living your new life rather than trying to cling on to the one you wish you had!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to agree with Mr. Reheat on this. If you don't want to be pushed or are happy with mediocrity then Cathay is NOT the place for you.
If, however, you don't mind knuckling down, doing a bit of work...
A system that marks you on a scale (like Cathay) is bound to come under fire, if you don't put the work in you will be marked down. Just as well pilots have small ego's!!
Live to work or work to live, its up to you, but in my humble opinion an Airline Pilot should think of himself as a Professional. That by definition takes more than the 9 to 5.
If, however, you don't mind knuckling down, doing a bit of work...
A system that marks you on a scale (like Cathay) is bound to come under fire, if you don't put the work in you will be marked down. Just as well pilots have small ego's!!
Live to work or work to live, its up to you, but in my humble opinion an Airline Pilot should think of himself as a Professional. That by definition takes more than the 9 to 5.
For christ sake it doesn't take Superman to get anywhere in Cathay.
It takes a little work, determination and maybe some sweat.
The info is in the books, open your eyes and look for it.
By the time you come up for promotion you should have a reasonable handle on the "Cathay way" and what is required of you. If you don't then you must have totally wasted you time here and therefore I'm sorry to say that you don't deserve the promotion.
I am not Superman, just a number in the system that did what was required, no more no less.
As I said above "there are no free lunches"
If you think you can get an easier ride in another airlines system then I urge you to "go for it"
Now can we all stop this stupid bull**** and get on with it.
Cheers
It takes a little work, determination and maybe some sweat.
The info is in the books, open your eyes and look for it.
By the time you come up for promotion you should have a reasonable handle on the "Cathay way" and what is required of you. If you don't then you must have totally wasted you time here and therefore I'm sorry to say that you don't deserve the promotion.
I am not Superman, just a number in the system that did what was required, no more no less.
As I said above "there are no free lunches"
If you think you can get an easier ride in another airlines system then I urge you to "go for it"
Now can we all stop this stupid bull**** and get on with it.
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Asia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no free lunches anywhere and I don’t know what makes you gullible lot think that the standards are any lower elsewhere, maybe aviation was not even invented in Hong Kong… and let’s not forget that the original discussion was not about flight operations standards but corporate culture.
Why colleagues who have flown aircraft with much success elsewhere, have jumped the licensing, recruitment and training hoops but don’t get on in CX are portrayed as loosers, troublemakers or unprofessionals by their own peers is beyond me and you really should be a little less judgmental and condescending, having been there for some time and looking a little left and right. More than a “handful of malcontents who have a beef” have just found themselves incompatible with the culture and that is what this thread is about. I openly admit I have an issue with it, and I sometimes can’t resist posting when I feel that some people forget they are not on third floor where it is shut up or get out. After all this is an open forum on which there should be a measured discussion and some degree of controversy. Fragrant Harbour is my periodical pprune freak show forum and a reminder of how lucky I am to have had an opportunity to take my life and career back home.
Using Max Reheats mindset I should really reverse the argument and spout that it might just be HIM who failed in securing a job (unlike some
who put in the hard yards) with his home country flag carrier and had to ship out to a second world country on a three month contract with diminished COS, third world class labour protection requiring him to bend over to his superiors and in turn passing it on to the unwary FOs or SOs. He might just be hanging around in DB with nothing much else to do but to drive his golf cart around the polluted block or get pissed/laid in LKF and guise his misery of giving up his dreams, ideals and convictions maybe even his marriage for a shiny jet job and a pocketful of money in neverending drivel about a version of professionalism that isn’t even his own but proves to be little more than corporate spoonfed propaganda. Instead of constantly going through the pain of dodging some of the more eloquent characters floating around the offices to preserve his fragile career he then turned into one himself, to give something back or so he says. The place is brimming with a rare and weird breed of ego, overinflated and suppressed at the same time.
It’s dog eat dog and all a big game fellas!
And who would be the one needing a life now…
Sorry, of course I am not 100% serious here, let’s just agree that this profession is mostly about being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. What appears to aggravate things in CX unnecessarily is that it can be being in the wrong fleet or having had the wrong checker or chief pilot, a single misfortune will be haunt you for the rest of your career there. While some say that they have been ok so far others are up for a very sinister experience, call this a consistent and fair 21st century standard then? Cathay can do better than that!
Hats up to Five Green and I hope you find some colleagues or the union offering you time, thought and support!
Why colleagues who have flown aircraft with much success elsewhere, have jumped the licensing, recruitment and training hoops but don’t get on in CX are portrayed as loosers, troublemakers or unprofessionals by their own peers is beyond me and you really should be a little less judgmental and condescending, having been there for some time and looking a little left and right. More than a “handful of malcontents who have a beef” have just found themselves incompatible with the culture and that is what this thread is about. I openly admit I have an issue with it, and I sometimes can’t resist posting when I feel that some people forget they are not on third floor where it is shut up or get out. After all this is an open forum on which there should be a measured discussion and some degree of controversy. Fragrant Harbour is my periodical pprune freak show forum and a reminder of how lucky I am to have had an opportunity to take my life and career back home.
Using Max Reheats mindset I should really reverse the argument and spout that it might just be HIM who failed in securing a job (unlike some
who put in the hard yards) with his home country flag carrier and had to ship out to a second world country on a three month contract with diminished COS, third world class labour protection requiring him to bend over to his superiors and in turn passing it on to the unwary FOs or SOs. He might just be hanging around in DB with nothing much else to do but to drive his golf cart around the polluted block or get pissed/laid in LKF and guise his misery of giving up his dreams, ideals and convictions maybe even his marriage for a shiny jet job and a pocketful of money in neverending drivel about a version of professionalism that isn’t even his own but proves to be little more than corporate spoonfed propaganda. Instead of constantly going through the pain of dodging some of the more eloquent characters floating around the offices to preserve his fragile career he then turned into one himself, to give something back or so he says. The place is brimming with a rare and weird breed of ego, overinflated and suppressed at the same time. It’s dog eat dog and all a big game fellas!
And who would be the one needing a life now…
Sorry, of course I am not 100% serious here, let’s just agree that this profession is mostly about being in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. What appears to aggravate things in CX unnecessarily is that it can be being in the wrong fleet or having had the wrong checker or chief pilot, a single misfortune will be haunt you for the rest of your career there. While some say that they have been ok so far others are up for a very sinister experience, call this a consistent and fair 21st century standard then? Cathay can do better than that!
Hats up to Five Green and I hope you find some colleagues or the union offering you time, thought and support!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: usa
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Max Reheat
I can categorically tell you (as a training captain) that there is NO policy of discrimination between creed, colour or religion or even ability!...
My experience of exchange crews from our 'special cousins across the pond' is that the system there requires fairy tales to be written or else the reportee is considered a failure.... Hmmm.. this from a training captain who categorically denies discrimination. Look, I know it was a joke, but I have had heard from very reliable sources how some C&T's view yanks in the ranks. I have seen it firsthand. After exchanging pleasantries in dispatch on my very first sector, the trainer remarked "First I will break you of your North Americanisms..." This was before we had even made it to the aircraft. Not really a big deal, but certainly indicative of the strange culture here.
Finally, I unable entertain a train of thought that we should pass everyone in case they are one day involved in an incident, lest we fear the backlash of legal and journalistic action!
My experience of exchange crews from our 'special cousins across the pond' is that the system there requires fairy tales to be written or else the reportee is considered a failure.... Hmmm.. this from a training captain who categorically denies discrimination. Look, I know it was a joke, but I have had heard from very reliable sources how some C&T's view yanks in the ranks. I have seen it firsthand. After exchanging pleasantries in dispatch on my very first sector, the trainer remarked "First I will break you of your North Americanisms..." This was before we had even made it to the aircraft. Not really a big deal, but certainly indicative of the strange culture here.
Finally, I unable entertain a train of thought that we should pass everyone in case they are one day involved in an incident, lest we fear the backlash of legal and journalistic action!
Those involved in C&T on this board continue to say getting "candidates" through the system is the ultimate goal. Well, how's it going? I am not an insider, but certainly the statistics are easily enough tracked and pretty poor at that. Notice that no one has denied the poor rates, except tough guy ACMS (I'm doing ok on the 777, screw you guys!) As an aside, I've seen more captains fired here than anyone else, just give it a little more time.
Let's say the average first time pass rate sits somewhere between 50-60%, so there's a pretty good chance that the average candidate will put in 3-4 months grinding away in the 'system' (even longer if he is changing aircraft type!), almost totally isolated from family unless they happen to live in HK. They will have put in years of study and made it through all hurdles, including passing an even longer JFO or DE freighter FO conversion, probably a relief command upgrade, and at least 3 -4 graded sim and flying events a year. They have finally gotten the ok from the star chamber, and quite often above their senior mates due to their "suitable record". So nearly half of these people are rewarded with a thumbs down, and thrown back on the heap. Do you really think that knowing the odds most people fail to adequately put in the effort before and during the course? I can tell you very few!
OK, so most will eventually get another go, and miraculously the pass rate goes up a bit, let's even say 70% (probably generous!). I hardly see how , for example, going back to the long haul fleet getting 2-3 sectors a month in the right seat 'sin bin' would make a difference in the quality, experience, outlook, or overall performance in the candidate the next time around, who already has many thousands of hours and probably 20+ years of flying experience, including many years at cx . It sure does seem to make a difference in the perception of the candidate. So, here is a huge group (35% or more of the total pilot group) who had the 'right stuff' all along, yet they have had to share life altering stresses with their families for periods usually amounting to years until cx finally gives the ok. Pretty nice way to treat your employees! Here's a novel idea: spend those 3-4 long months of command training and checking wisely, and get this group of 35% through the FIRST time, along with the usual 50%. I would say a failure rate of even 15% would be excessive, unless there is a severe flaw in the cx hiring system. This is not the case.
There are those who seem to defend this system out of some sort of foolish pride. Yes, a challenge is great, but not when it comes to your livelihood! How many would voluntarily subject your career to danger by seeking out the most difficult doctor they could find just to brag that they passed the astronaut physical to keep on flying? If you want a challenge, do what I do and get into a ring for an occasional fight... take up an extreme sport. I want my livelihood kept simple... show up ready to work, run a safe and efficient operation, treat my fellow employees with respect, and help create the good atmosphere that ultimately drives a profitable airline. Then I want to go home and concentrate on the more important aspects of life. I have had flying jobs that had a much finer line between life and death than this type of flying, and we didn't have to manufacture the artificial difficulty too many people here seem to tolerate. Spare me the "dark and stormy night" references concerning the requirements demanded by a captain at cx. Show me how the cx safety record is statistically better than the average N American carrier that simply grabs the next guy in the seniority chain, trains him to do his job, then lets him alone to get on with it. Sure some fail, but only the few who truly are not capable. Oh, yeah, I forgot how hard droning around the cx network is, according to some of these people. At the end of the day it's really not a great feat safely finding the runway no matter the length of the drone, or the accent of ports on either end. Barring all engines or a wing falling off, 99% of professional pilots will do the right thing when the going gets tough. Its pretty easy to identify those who won't; get rid of them and leave the others alone.
When a guy comes along and asks: Cathay or... FEDEX, UPS, SWA, CAL (insert any hiring airline here) and I say there is no comparison. Period. Cx has never had a seniority furlough, but it's selective permanent furlough is something you will live with for the rest of your career. It will change a person; bow down and graciously massage those above you , and you will probably be ok. Study habits, ability, attitude, and effort have less to do with success than pure luck in who shows up in dispatch on your checkride to discuss the "all important" fuel decision, or even what fleet you land in. If you join on the N American freighter you will have a slightly more difficult challenge than most. Some will hit most wickets here with just the right mixture of luck and timing, and have little trouble with the system; many more will not. Come here and enjoy your job, take your chances. Cx does not suffer fools, but it isn't just the fools who are suffering.
Last edited by hog tied; 18th Aug 2006 at 05:53.
CruisingSpeed,
I worked for a national carrier for 15 yrs before I came to CX, does that exclude me from your condemnation of Max reheat?
I have great sympathy for anyone running foul of the star chamber but don't agree with the total condemnation of the C & T dept (I'm not C&T).
HogTied,
I think you've got to accept things are changing. Keep telling people they're no better than their predecessors and you'll make it come true.
I have to say this is no longer a fair representation of CX. It has its faults but so do a lot of posters. I want Cx to improve and constructive criticism will help.
I worked for a national carrier for 15 yrs before I came to CX, does that exclude me from your condemnation of Max reheat?
I have great sympathy for anyone running foul of the star chamber but don't agree with the total condemnation of the C & T dept (I'm not C&T).
HogTied,
I think you've got to accept things are changing. Keep telling people they're no better than their predecessors and you'll make it come true.
I have to say this is no longer a fair representation of CX. It has its faults but so do a lot of posters. I want Cx to improve and constructive criticism will help.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got it all wrong
You guys have got it all wrong. The culture at CX is just fine. The real problem we have is that all the pilots that are coming up these days just don't have the experience and same ability as the previous generation. If they would quit walking with backpacks in Cathay City and start wearing long sleeve shirts with gold cuff links and a matching Mont Blanc pen, I think they would get along in the program much easier. It also helps to try to look nervous and frightened for simulators checks. This shows that you are serious and have the right attitude. The culture is great. I really love it here.
