fo/fo's sacked?
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
From: ASIA
entschuldigung! very good. why do you speak german?
no I don´t think it was a rumor. with sacked I´m not sure, I think they are not sure.
BUT I heard they have to pay back the full amount of the housing assitance.
no I don´t think it was a rumor. with sacked I´m not sure, I think they are not sure.
BUT I heard they have to pay back the full amount of the housing assitance.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
From: Hong Kong
I cannot confirm but I have heard they have been sacked and are under appeal.
What I find annoying is that CX taxes housing allowance to stick to the strict letter of the law. This couple, and many others, have also stuck to the strict letter of the law....and they get fired!? There is consistency for you!
I hope the AOA gets involved with this to protect them....
What I find annoying is that CX taxes housing allowance to stick to the strict letter of the law. This couple, and many others, have also stuck to the strict letter of the law....and they get fired!? There is consistency for you!
I hope the AOA gets involved with this to protect them....
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 451
Likes: 6
From: the land of chocolate
I wonder how many others are considered "in breach" of these housing rules.
Maybe i am too... you would hope that cx gave them the benefit of the doubt and gave them a warning before the cull?
I think they were members, but not sure, AOA should be able to do something...
Yea, what consistency, but maybe they wanted to "set an example", they love to treat us like little British schoolboys.
It's a shame too that there seems to be no way find out if someone in cx is leaving or retiring anymore (I think it used to say this in the old crews news, the one you could write to cx with questions), except through the old rumour mill.
Whine whine, love it or leave it bla,bla i know.
cx sux sometimes
Maybe i am too... you would hope that cx gave them the benefit of the doubt and gave them a warning before the cull?
I think they were members, but not sure, AOA should be able to do something...
Yea, what consistency, but maybe they wanted to "set an example", they love to treat us like little British schoolboys.
It's a shame too that there seems to be no way find out if someone in cx is leaving or retiring anymore (I think it used to say this in the old crews news, the one you could write to cx with questions), except through the old rumour mill.
Whine whine, love it or leave it bla,bla i know.
cx sux sometimes
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 35
From: Oztrailia
They were warned
I've just flown with friends of the sacked FO's
They were warned around a year ago through a letter to all crew from the GMA regarding this exact situation "not being acceptable and any person doing it could face the sack" ( or words to those effect ). They chose to ignore it saying "it doesn't effect us"
They lived together and had a family together.( as proved by a private investigator the company hired )
I believe the male FO rented a place which CX paid for, in which they all lived.
The female bought a place which CX paid the mortgage on, then they rented it out. tripple dipping it seems?
I feel really sorry for them being sacked, maybe a bit harsh? They could have paid the money back as in another case earlier.
But they were warned by the GMA and their friends but chose to keep there heads in the sand.
I hope they get atleast one job back on appeal.
Good luck to them
Cheers.
They were warned around a year ago through a letter to all crew from the GMA regarding this exact situation "not being acceptable and any person doing it could face the sack" ( or words to those effect ). They chose to ignore it saying "it doesn't effect us"
They lived together and had a family together.( as proved by a private investigator the company hired )
I believe the male FO rented a place which CX paid for, in which they all lived.
The female bought a place which CX paid the mortgage on, then they rented it out. tripple dipping it seems?
I feel really sorry for them being sacked, maybe a bit harsh? They could have paid the money back as in another case earlier.
But they were warned by the GMA and their friends but chose to keep there heads in the sand.
I hope they get atleast one job back on appeal.
Good luck to them
Cheers.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 2,997
Likes: 35
From: Oztrailia
I've flown with 3 guys that know both ST and JR quite well. All 3 FO's had the same story on different days. If I'm wrong ( and I hope I am ) then please point out exactly where?
They were living together and BOTH getting rent or mortgage assistance which is not allowed.
As I said I hope they both or at least one get their jobs back.
I also read the letter from the GMA quite a while ago, it seemed quite clear to me at the time.
So what's the real story then ay?
They were living together and BOTH getting rent or mortgage assistance which is not allowed.
As I said I hope they both or at least one get their jobs back.
I also read the letter from the GMA quite a while ago, it seemed quite clear to me at the time.
So what's the real story then ay?
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
From: Asia
Double dipping only because the company cannot stand a couple making out well off of housing. They are not doing anything unfair. They are both collecting what every other pilot gets. Only difference is that they live in the same house. Why should they not both be entitled to housing ? Is it not part of our COS ? Why should they be elligible for it while dating but not once married ?
An arbitrary unfair policy IMHO.
An arbitrary unfair policy IMHO.
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
From: usa
Double dipping only because the company cannot stand a couple making out well off of housing. They are not doing anything unfair. They are both collecting what every other pilot gets. Only difference is that they live in the same house. Why should they not both be entitled to housing ? Is it not part of our COS ? Why should they be elligible for it while dating but not once married ?
An arbitrary unfair policy IMHO.
An arbitrary unfair policy IMHO.