Defopax

[cpdude]

That’s a complete distortion of the truth. Do you know the demographics of the average SO joining the company? It aint 20 years old mate. It’s closer to 35. A very large proportion of those could have joined as DEFO’s on the freighter if places were available in the ports from which they were employed but they weren’t. RA60 will delay any FO and Command upgrade by at least 5 years. Simple mathematics.

I didn't say 20, I said "A low-time 20 something guy with 35+ years available" which means about 25 with 35 years available! I'm also talking about ALL S/O's not just the ones that qaulify for DEFO but couldn't find an open base to their liking.
As for your "SIMPLE" math...it's too simple and therefore not accurate. It would be accurate if there was no expansion, no hiring and upgrades relied on retirement alone. We all know that's not the case so why make such assumptions?
RA60 has the potential to cause a minor delay (a year or two) to an F/O's command to speeding it up by a couple of years depending on expansion and seniority of an individual F/O. IE. a slow-down at first but then the entire machine will speed things up.

[fire wall]

If the travelling public had any idea of the juvenille and unstable nature of some of the crew that inhabit foward of the flight deck door then I suggest that staff travel would be a hell of a lot easier.
Try hard, you are a case in point and were your identity known then I can assure you that the only thing you would responsible for on any flt deck I am involved in would be manning the radios. Idiot.

[404 Titan]

fire wall

I suspect the company already knows who he is. It only takes on average six posts here for the company to work out who you are, if they should so desire.

[A/T less]

TITAN,
So how many ppruners have you turned in and did it help with your progression to the left?

People do funny things when there's a lack of seniority system in place to upgrade. Lots of Brownie points=4 bars.

[Numero Crunchero]

AT, I can vouch for 404. And he is not left seat yet.
If you really don't want CX to know who you are log in under different names and have people log in for you when you are flying. It is simple mathematics to work out peoples identities on this forum.

Busy B, HKG is an anachronism in the modern business world. Until communist china feels that old pilots have rights I think it will be quite a while before RA60 is forced onto us. The base issues...hmmm...lets see what happens. Maybe that is the way it will go. If you stay in hkg, it is 55RA, if you go on a base it is 60? But that is a major change to our COS so, as you know, I have always assumed it is something we have to agree to...ie a vote!

cpdude

Please inform us math deficient plebs how RA60 "accelerates" time to command? Remember KT has a maths degree, 404 has an accounting degree.

Let me attempt to preempt your reply. If all C+T are 55, we can EXTEND them. But that costs the company money as then there is bypass pay. If the company knows that it will have to extend them, it will plan ahead and not train up new C+Ts and that will also mean it will not need to upgrade new line CNs to replace those that would have been upgraded to C+T. If they knew they couldn't extend, they would have to train up lots more CNs in advance of any expansion. Its not like we dont have years notice of any aircraft arriving so they have plenty of notice for their planning.

One more point, please tell me how 300 captains not retiring over a 5 year period will only delay an FO's upgrade by a year or two. Lets say CX planned 600commands over the next 5 years...I think it is about 120 for this year. If no one retires for the next five years, we only need 300 commands. So FO number 301 today would have had his command in 30months now has to wait 5 years.So all FOs/SOs more than 300 on the seniority list will have their command delayed by at least 2 1/2 years. There will also be knock on effect to FO upgrades. Any downturn will exacerbate that time. cpdude, do you have any idea what that means in terms of career earnings? You are 2 to 3increments lower in rank at 55 than you would have been. I haven't done an NPV calculation yet (but I will) but my best guess is that you break even at around 59. Great, increase to RA60 and then spend 4 years extra working just to get where you would have been if RA55 had stayed. Still cpdude, there is a silver lining. At least at 59 you are 4 years closer to dieing so less time to spend the money you have;-)

Lastly cpdude, please explain how needing to upgrade 300 less captains over the next 5 years will speed up everyones command...in an expansion or static scenario? I dont mind you using non 'simple' maths if that is what it takes.

[cpdude]

Well NC, this is how I see it all!

If all C+T are 55, we can EXTEND them. But that costs the company money as then there is bypass pay.

Money CX has, pilots they don't!

How many Captains do you need to fill 40 additional cockpits? Considering most of the aircraft will be ULR flown I would say 400+. This is needed in the next 3 years just for expansion!

please tell me how 300 captains not retiring over a 5 year period

Where did you get that figure from? You're suggesting 50% of our Captains will reach age 55 over the next 5 years? I would suggest it is half that figure. Over the past 30 months I believe we have lost only 60.
Like I said, your math is simplistic and fails to adjust for variables.

So here we come...where I answer your question so you can understand this notion of time to command in a growing airline.

We have about 2000 pilots of which 650-700 are captains. If we have 150 retiring over the next 5 years then that would allow 150 new captains to upgrade. I know you get this part and I agree with you! If those 150 captains extended to age 60 that would basically delay 150 upgrades. I know you get that too!

We have more than this happening in CX. We have 40 new aircraft arriving over the next 3 years. Up to 400 new captains are required to fill these aircraft. We both know where these captains will come from but who will train them?

If we lose 150 Captains, probably 120 of them will be C&T Captains. So you say train more C&T Captains but who will train them? CX blew it 3 years ago when they should have trained not only extra C&T Captains but line Captains too.
Last year CX ran 115 Command courses and failure rates were high. I believe only 70 passed but I could be wrong. This year they want 129 courses. If the retirement age does not extend to age 60 then the course numbers will fall dramatically. A pilot only 150 numbers away could wait 3-4 years instead of 2.

Remember every course takes a C&T. They are running 502 training courses in 2007 up from 442 in 2006. If they lose 30% of the C&T staff...well I'm sure your Math Major and accountant can work those numbers!

Personally, I think CX is doing too little too late. They will either dramatically change the course syllabus for new-hires and Command training or they will have to delay acquisition to prevent parking a valuable asset.

Believe me when I say…as long as we are buying aircraft, we can’t train them fast enough. So if you think forcing the retirement of senior C&T staff will speed up your command…you are so dreadfully wrong!

[Five Green]

In addition

Numero ! Well said and calculated again !

Also the crewing compliment is going to gradually change if we increase our Long haul flying. We will also increase the crew required as we switch to 777ers and more frequency with less capacity. Therefore we will have a much steeper triangle of seniority with a higher ratio of FOs to Captains and a slightly higher SO to FO ratio. All of which will negatively impact the career earning potential if (when) our retirement is pushed to 60 or higher.

As you said you could work 5 more years for 2 more years pay !

FG

P.S. we are five posters !!

[BusyB]

cpdude,

I agree with that calculation with the proviso that I feel there is an initial delay as they ramp up SO/FO/DEFO training instead of commands. Overall whilst CX is expanding towards 240 aircraft it means everyone in CX now will move through the system to command. (star chamber permitting).

[Numero Crunchero]

cpdude,
you got me. There is no slipping anything past you.
Here are the numbers of pilots reaching 55 from 2005 to 2012 based on a 2001 seniority list.
2005 39, 2006 43, 2007 40, 2008 34, 2009 61, 2010 68, 2011 51, 2012 54.

That gives us 82 retirements over the last 2 years. That gives us 260 over the next five years. Over the period 2009-2013(incl) retirements peak at 295(ie 295 guys who are still working due to RA60 vs RA55). Forgive my memory...it has been a few years since I looked at this data but i thought it was 300. By the way, a few of those retirees will be FOs.

So CX has money....why then can it not just EXTEND these C+Ts, thus ensuring that the pilots whose commands are delayed by this act, will not be penalised financially since they will get bypass pay! I know many of the C+Ts are in their early 40s or even younger in some cases. So I think the C+T wastage rate is going to be lower than you have suggested.

More planes flying with more captains senior to you does not mean you get your command earlier! It just means there are more captains in the airline who are senior to you. I dont think a guy whose command is delayed will take any consolation from the fact that there are more aircraft flying.

I agree with you on the training issue. They should have been upgrading C+Ts years ago. If they had done so, we would have not the situation where CX either needs to extend lots of guys or somehow get age 60. But from an FOs point of view, CX created the problem, so why should FOs wear the burden of the solution?

Based on our average cost of employment it is cheaper to work everyone up to around 93-96 credit hours a month than it is to employ more pilots. Maybe this is how the company will manage some of the expansion?

cpdude,thank you for the compliment. You are the first person in about a decade that has accused me of using 'too simplistic' mathematics;-)


I need you to explain to me that example you gave of an FO being 150 away from command. You said with RA 60 he will get his command in 2 years instead of 3-4 if we keep RA55. Did I get that right?


cpdude, I think what you are alluding to is that without those C+T replacements there would be more upgrades as there are more courses, right? OK, an example. On average, there will be 50retirees per year for the next few years(increasing to closer to 60). So, we need 50line captain upgrades, 50SO-FO, 50recruits and up to 50courses for CN upgrade to TC/STC/BTC. If we were expanding we would need around 150courses for the 50captains and a few more to keep the proportion of C+T constant. So say around 160-170 courses in total. If they are upgraded to replace retirees we need 200 courses(assuming all the retirees were C+T). So at best I can see that RA60 would accelerate command by about 10more captains considering we would need 10 more FOs and 10 more SOs(30courses). So RA60 accelerates command by about 10 due to more courses available, but delayed by about 50 due to 55year olds remaining...net effect, command is delayed by 40 per year. This is only true in a training limited scenario. If we are not training limited, commands are delayed in direct proportion to the number of retirees.

For simplicity I have ignored transfers across fleets but I concede that this will have a major effect as the older guys tend to be on the 400. It would probably cost up to an extra 50courses, or less than 17captains.

The smart thing to do for CX is to extend C+Ts, recruit more DEFOs and maybe pick a few guys under 50 for C+T!

RA60 helps the airline, it does not help FOs and SOs. An FO wants to get into the left seat. I dont think he really cares whether that left seat is one of 100 or 240. According to NPR, as long as it is shiny and new he is happy!

[Five Green]

Almost

NC and CP ;

Don't forget that some of the extendees are not C+T. So they definitely take away an upgrade.

What is the course duration for a Line Captain upgrade to training and a trainer upgrade to C+T and C+T to STC ? Are they shorter than a command course ? ie less hours required.

So we are talking about the need for a quick fix. Any quick fix that involves a long term degrade of our contract is bad news. What may or may not affect us in good times will certainly hurt us when we slow (and we will) to upgrade by attrition only.

Not even sure why we are talking about this as the company is extending at will anyway, so why agree to a permanent change ??

FG

[cpdude]

Here are the numbers of pilots reaching 55 from 2005 to 2012 based on a 2001 seniority list.
2005 39, 2006 43, 2007 40, 2008 34, 2009 61, 2010 68, 2011 51, 2012 54.

Thanks for that. I knew someone had to have an old list.

So CX has money....why then can it not just EXTEND these C+Ts, thus ensuring that the pilots whose commands are delayed by this act, will not be penalised financially since they will get bypass pay!

...because they are painfully cheap but it will sneak up and bite them good.

Based on our average cost of employment it is cheaper to work everyone up to around 93-96 credit hours a month than it is to employ more pilots. Maybe this is how the company will manage some of the expansion?

Many 400 Captains are already working 90 hours and it will only get worse!

I need you to explain to me that example you gave of an FO being 150 away from command. You said with RA 60 he will get his command in 2 years instead of 3-4 if we keep RA55. Did I get that right?

As you said, we are in a training limited scenario. 2007 will see 129 commands but I believe they need 150+ commands over the next 3-4 years. Also remember the success rate must improve from the 65-75% they had in 2006.

Let's say we need 150 commands per year. We currently will produce 129 commands this year which is already a 12% increase over last year. C&T is stretched and they need more people. We need a further 16% more command training over the next few years. If we lose 30% of our C&T pilots then at best we can accomplish 90 command courses which is 40 less in 2007 and 60 less than desired for 2008. Sure you can focus on Command training to still make 129 courses but then new-hires and JFO's suffer and CX needs all of them! So you say train more C&T pilots but this takes away from Command training and new-hires not to mention JFO upgrades as well. This is why CX is trying to hire as many DEFO pax as they can.

So...a pilot at #150 should only wait 1.2 years but with RA55 he could wait 1.6 years. A pilot at #300 would wait 2.1 years but could end up waiting 3.3 years.

Rememeber, you can't just train more C&T pilots because most of us see the lifestyle and will not do it.
OK, I concede that my initial estimates of delays due not factor out exactly as I suggested but there is still a delay to command over the next 3-5 years if we do not RA60. This as we have stated is only true in a training limited scenario as you suggested.

In an ideal situation, CX would make it desireable to become a C&T pilot and we conduct 200 commands a year over the next 3 years. But, CX is to cheap and doesn't have the management skill to see the writings on the wall.

[BusyB]

NC,

I think this discussion is a red herring, although why I have no idea.

If age discrimination applies to basees then anyone wanting/needing to work past 55 will go on a base.
This will then ruin the planned lifestyle of more junior pilots purely because more junior pilots have made things difficult in HKG.

This is one of those items like no more F/E, no more Navigator, no more 3 pilot aircraft.

Lets face up to the fact that legislation is changing everywhere and all we can do is try and improve our T & C's so we can make our own choices about when to go.

[Numero Crunchero]

why a red herring busyB?

cpdude
I accept your argument if the choice was no extensions allowed. Whilst they are training constrained it is their choice whether to take the expensive extension option or upgrade slightly younger captains to TC/STC/BTC. I dont think we need to do anything...they already have the mechanism in place(extensions) to deal with rapid expansion.

5G
much much shorter than command courses. I would estimate that you could upgrade 2-3TCs a month versus2months of command course flying.

BusyB, one other thing. Somewhere you posted about age discrimination forcing someone CX to allow us to fly past 55. That would only be true if the pilot falls under the jurisdiction of UK/NZ/OZ etc and the basing company. However, you cannot then come back to HKG and fly past 55 here regardless of what UK/OZ/NZ say. They have no jurisdictional power here. You may be able to work on a base after 55 but you couldn't come back to HKG and there is nothing any government can do about it!

[BusyB]

The only part of your contract that would be affected by the age discrimination laws is your retirement age. Any change to any other part of your contract becomes age discrimination. If your contract says that after so many years on a base you can return to HKG that applies.

It will have to be tested in court if CX doesn't grasp the mettle so we'll have to wait for a retiree on a base to go for it.