Asian Pilot Shortage

[Frogman1484]

Numero

Thanks Mate finally I get what you are saying. I agree that this is about saving training costs. Yes the time to command will move out in the future.

All I can say is that I'm sure that reduced training and no bypass pay will be lower than offering A scales to current A scale guys.

The RA65 that is being offered because of the base is BS! The number of based guys is less than 10% of the total pilot body. If they were worried about age discrimination they would be offering RA65 to cabin crew too (they have based crew too) instead of offering retrenchment packages to senior ones.

[Five Green]

Please clarify

NC:

Always so accurate however I am not sure I read the following right...

We currently have around 130+ FOs on the seniority list higher than the most junior CN - not sure what category they all are.

You might be trying to say something else but the most junior Captain(s) in the company joined in 2005. They upgraded this year on the 400F, so there are more the 130 FOs senior to them.

[CX has been offering extensions(C+T) or freighters(line CNs) for a while now so that it cannot be accused of age discrimination.

I think this is hard to confirm. They are offering extensions because they need bums in seats and the training system cannot supply Captains fast enough. As you know many of those retiring at 55 are C&Ts. If we could upgrade faster (ie higher pass rate) then the company would not extend more expensive pilots when they could upgrade cheaper ones. They are just hiding behind the age laws at the moment and using it to their advantage.

What is the status with the cabin crew's COS. With reference to the age discrimination court case put forward by the FAU. Did the company change the CC's COS ?

Thanks

[Numero Crunchero]

Five Green and frogman

Five green
you got me. I knew exactly what I meant to say and then wrote it ambiguously.

I have access to my numbers now so can be a bit more accurate.

What I meant to say is that there are 125(approx) pax FOs on the ASL above our most junior pax CN. Over last 5 1/2 years, since NC went from 3 to 4 bars, the most junior pax CN (also a keen Carlton supporter;-) is 400+ slots below me. IN between us there are over 125 FOs. That equates to a 30% failure(Cat C)/Cat B/Cat D rate in that time. There are probably a few who have deferred for lifestyle issues on a base.

I have not tried to analyse the freighter side of the house as it is a lot more problematic getting the data. We hear of the 'successes' of 2-3years to command but we hear nothing of the failures.

RA65 - a year ago management made it clear that full B scale for all extendees(for RA60) was unacceptable. Now they simply offer RA65 with A scale? More to it than just the need for expansion methinks. They have been asking for RA60 since at least 2001 I can assure you. But they haven't been prepared to pay the price - the reason the extendee's T+C are so frugal is that the extendee's cost equated to a new B scale CN 1 in HKG - so extending was close to salary neutral, ignoring bypass pay;-)

I do think it is 'mostly' because of onshoring issues - only the UK base is imminent though - April08.

Frogman
If I stay for 10 years (55-64)my total salary bill is $7million+ more than the B scale guy replacing me. I have old training cost figures from CX - the 3 courses that I deferred will cost less than $2million. And ultimately those 3 courses will occur, just 10 years later.

So please accept it, extending on A scales is a huge cost vs RA55. But another way to look at it is that they have kept me on 1994 pay scales (about what the current A scale is equivalent to after the 99-01 cuts) for 35 years of my career...so a win for them!


Some have accused me of being mischievous for pointing out that the CX 'market driven salary' is now at the same level as it was in 1990/91. So I will instead focus on closing the B-A scale gap before focusing on that new salary being the same level over 20 years later.

The most senior B scaler is on the same increment as I am. I earn 25.5% more than he does as, whilst I am also on CPAPF93, my 15.5% is based on a higher ghosted salary. My actual monthly salary is 24% above his.

The last CX offer had a 3% payrise in Jan 08 and another in Jan 09. HDP was applied equally so does not bridge the gap between the scales.

If CX were to repeat this deal indefinitely in Jan 2015 my B scale peer would have finally caught up with my salary scale - the same scale that was around in 1994. He would have been in almost 22 years by then.

RA65 is not an issue in HKG - but with over 450 based FOs and around 250 based CNs representing a 1/3rd of our workforce, there will eventually be an effect in HKG from based issues on RA. I am not suggesting the law will change in HKG any time soon, just that we have many more on a base than the cabin crew. The cabin crew on a base are on separate contracts to their hong kong peers.

I do not know what is happening about the FAU case - sorry!

If I stay beyond 55th birthday I save between 3 and 8 courses depending on growth rate. That will save them a few million up front...but then over 10 years I will cost them over $7million extra in salary and bypass pay would add up to $5million. The once only training course savings are approx $1-4million. So $12million vs $1-4million - do you still believe that RA65 on A scales saves money?

They are training/courses limited - between DEFOs and extensions they can halve the training requirement over the next 10 years.

If they used these 'saved courses' to expand the airline faster, such that there were no delays to command due to RA65, then we would have 346 a/c in 2019 and 381 in 2020.

Anyone still believe the company mantra that says RA65 will accelerate your time to command????

[404 Titan]

I believe CX has offered “A” scalers “A” scale to 65 because they have hit the hard wall regarding the training limit of the company. We have seen evidence of this over the last few years with FC’s not being done on DESO’s doing their JFO upgrade, line checks not being required anymore for FO’s being RQ’d, the request for “volunteers” for sim duties for SO training and DEFO’s on the PAX fleet. There just aren’t enough trainers, sim instructor, sim slots and sectors to complete the required task for the expansion. If you take into account the wasted resources because of the failures it is even worse. I believe the company has offered the “A” scalers “A” scale to 65 because they had no choice in the short term to drive the expansion forward, not because of some anti-discrimination laws that might become reality. Even if they did become reality because of new laws in HK or bases going onshore, no one (repeat no one) can be forced to work to 65 if they don’t want to. Your current contract is still valid including your RA55 if you so wish. It is just a red herring being thrown around by the company and those that probably don’t realise the implication or should I say the lack of, of anti discrimination laws.

NC, my personal belief and I have no proof to prove one way or the other is that the company has been playing the poker game regarding pay scales past 55. They have probably realised that “B” scale for “A” scalers past 55 hasn’t been accepted by enough of the troops in recent times, whether it be the C&T or line captains going to the freighter to drive the future expansion. They have upped the anti only enough “in their mind” to hopefully stem the retirement flow over the expansion period. They are still hiding their hand though if more needs to be done. Remember CX has a history of only doing what it has to and even then it is like pulling teeth.

[Numero Crunchero]

Titan mi amigo

You may be right. Them deciding to only offer bypass pay to HKG based FOs would tie in with your poker game theory. They would know that in a 12-13 year wait to command maybe half of the SO/FOs eventually go on a base so they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in bypass pay.

I know they have sought legal advice on the basings issues. Maybe it is a combination of both needs. If they have to offer RA65 on a base all the C+T guys will bid for a base...leaving them with a lot less in HKG. So maybe that is the driver for offering RA65 in HKG?

Oh well, bottom line is that they are going to offer it...how can we protect and reduce the impact to our 1350+ colleagues who joined under the assumption that RA55 would keep their command time under a decade?

[404 Titan]

Let’s play poker.

[Frogman1484]

405 I agree with you...they are bluffing...look at the trend DEFO, A scles to RA65 etc they are hitting a major block CX does not give an increase or better terms for nothing.

Numero do you number this time include Bypass pay as per our contract , lets see how the figures look this time.

[goingdown]

NC
to protect the pilots affected by longer time in back/right seat there are several things that have to be done and those are interconnected
-better lifestyle(extra crew for proper bidline/request system)
-decent payrise with more increments
-better pension
We all know that RA65(and i think 60 would have been more than sufficient) will come sooner or later.
Time will tell what the company will do...

[newbie1972]

RA > 55 will only come if the company forces it. No legislation will force CX to do it. That is merely an excuse and once again, expectation management is working it's wonders. I am not saying that it will not happen. My point is that the pilots seem willing to roll over on things on the assumption that it will happen (rumour, speculation etc). Clear as mud??

It's a bit like the theory that if people (not implying anyone or any group in particular) tell lies often enough, even they will start to believe their own lies.....

[Five Green]

Pain in the arse

NC :

Sorry ol' mate slight correction again.

IN between us there are over 125 FOs. That equates to a 30% failure(Cat C)/Cat B/Cat D rate in that time.

That would only be correct if everyone passed first time. Since a good portion of those commands were achieved in the second attempt, you must also factor them into a true 'failure rate".

Granted they do eventually pass. However I think to paint a more accurate picture you must include all failures.

The reason being that a 1 or 2 year stint in the penalty box equates to less career earnings and a considerable amount of stress over and above the stress of the first command course. It also may mean losing out on a base as well.

Sorry, but I am learning to be pedantic.

FG

[jester_icarus]

shortage of pilots

hey all..im reading all of these comments regarding shortages of pilots. im a US based pilot with citizenship in an Asian coutry. Im trying real hard to work for any asian airline. i do realize that the pay may be ower that what i make here.. but regardless.. any suggestions on which company is hiring? 3000 total time, 1500 turbine PIC

[Numero Crunchero]

Five Green

I agree that a year or two delay to command has a huge impact on career earnings.

Yes my maths are only an approximation. All I am doing is trying to see what is a 'back of the fag packet' number for the pass rate. I never see any number published by CX - all we ever get told about is the guys doing it on the freighter in 2-3 years.

Now a statistic I would like to see is the failure rate before and after Nick became DFO? Anecdotally it was very very low before I did my command, when the abacus was in charge. Obviously the zoologists' darwinian filtering techniques are more rigorous that what CX did for the previous 55 years. Of course it is possible that the previous GMA recruited badly in the mid-late 90s and that is why we have a high failure rate now - who was GMA back then??????

[jtr]

Of course it is possible that the previous GMA recruited badly in the mid-late 90s

Expect a clip from me next time I see you. I represent that remark.

[Numero Crunchero]

jtr, Your mum will protect me since I only said nice things about you to her;-)

My point is, we either have a) poor quality candidates or b) a flawed command process.

Occam's razor - either CX recruited badly for many many years starting from about 1992 or the command course/star chamber is flawed - the simplest, most likely answer is the latter. WHy do I say this....because it is hard to believe that the same people that recruited in 1990, 1991 etc then changed their standards in 1992, 1993 etc. Additionally and more importantly, was the very sudden increase form ZERO Cat Bs in 2001 to multiple today. When I started my command course it was expected that about 95-99% got through on their first go. I knew of only 2 guys who were the equivalent of Cat C and 7-9 Cat D equivalent guys. Those numbers bear no resemblance to today's statistics!

Like I said, I can't 'prove' either hypothesis is correct. What I do know is that NR was GMA in late 90s and DFO after that!

[climbout]

N.C.: .....hiring F/O with low experience - CX will have to deal with that, when this guys have their command, in let's say a decade...

Question:
Is the CX airline operation a 'Single Hand/Single Pilot ops'?
As far as I know, and experienced in former airlines, Flight Ops Dep.recognise F/O, S/O as Crew member, who are ,together with the Captain ,responsible for a safe conduct of the flight.
So ,it's a safety threat 'now', and not, when this guys come up to command.

By the way- CX hire the people! CX train(?) them!

So: What's wrong the the recruitment dep?+
What's wrong with the training dep?

It's just to simple to blame the 'single pilot'.

[jester_icarus]

whats CX

whats is CX....is it China Airlines?

[BigPimpin]

You've got to be kidding me!

[Midnight Rambler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iN...&feature=bz301

[jester_icarus]

CX....

of course.. just wanted to humor the aviation since its giving me heart-burn... Cathay!!!! happy flying all!!!!

[sirhcttarp]

Oasis rumor

Anyone able to confirm Oasis is now paying 35000 housing + education allowance?