Solution for Financial Crisis!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: HKG
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People there is only one solution no matter how many plans we come up with:
Age 65 for all with a substantial payrise on the FO scale to make up for earning losses/bypass. It is simple and avoid ten years of squabling about who gets bypass and who doesn't etc etc etc.
They could sweeten the deal by letting the housing run for 25 years instead of 15 to calm down all of those who will have to spend more time in HKG due lack of bases.
This should be the goal of the AOA.
Age 65 for all with a substantial payrise on the FO scale to make up for earning losses/bypass. It is simple and avoid ten years of squabling about who gets bypass and who doesn't etc etc etc.
They could sweeten the deal by letting the housing run for 25 years instead of 15 to calm down all of those who will have to spend more time in HKG due lack of bases.
This should be the goal of the AOA.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only people that want retirement age to extend to 65 is the FATCATS on extension or FATCATS approaching 55...
CRAP ON ABOUT YA EXPERIENCE BULL$HIT
All you want!!!!....
Think majority would agree to leave it at 55 as it would bring movements for upgrades back to how it should be!.....
LEAVE
CRAP ON ABOUT YA EXPERIENCE BULL$HIT
All you want!!!!....
Think majority would agree to leave it at 55 as it would bring movements for upgrades back to how it should be!.....
LEAVE
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Mr Baron Captain, it looks like you have included everyone. Either post 55 or coming up to 55. Perhaps it is because of your intellect,and others, that we are unable to act as a unified union.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile, I fly with long serving/capable passenger SF/O's who after 9+ years are looking at a very long status quo before command courses recommence. Nobody can justify a single extension (pax/freighter) in the current climate.
I see you have now joined the ranks of the ranting "sack the fatcats now they are useless and overpaid". Are we feeling a little vulnerable Jonathan?
As for you Baron Captain maturity does not seem to be your strong area.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...so, Baron, perhaps you can explain how/why nearly all the other airlines in the world have now extended to 65? What argument exactly did THEIR more junior crew use and discard? Why can all those other airlines 'get over it' and move on, and we can't? Hmmm, let me see, it's because you think you have a god given right to move me out of my seat and take it. Well sonny boy, a word of advice. CX is ALREADY a 65 airline ( in case you haven't noticed, there are many, many pilots here now working to 65). Everyone gets extended until they figure out how to deal with snivelling little short-pant morons like you. They will manage to do so btw...whether you like it or not. Try growing up...then you too can be a Captain one day...but not a day very soon I would imagine... 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite true Jonathan as some of the Command upgrades in the last year were SO's that joined in 2000.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thunderbird
I'm not sure what you’re complaining about.
Are you saying that going from flying C-172's in 2000, to command on the 747/400 in nine years (or by your numbers ten years on the pax) is a long time???
Are you saying that if command now stretches out to 11 or 12 years that you, or these guys, now deserve some kind of redress?? That we're to feel sorry for you?
Deep down don't you feel, even a little bit, that this is an incredibly fast upgrade from S/O to command on a wide-body commercial airliner???? Was this really your expectation when you entered aviation?
If so, welcome to the real world!
For goodness sake.....I'm really beginning to feel that some people here have lost the plot!
I'm not sure what you’re complaining about.
Are you saying that going from flying C-172's in 2000, to command on the 747/400 in nine years (or by your numbers ten years on the pax) is a long time???
Are you saying that if command now stretches out to 11 or 12 years that you, or these guys, now deserve some kind of redress?? That we're to feel sorry for you?
Deep down don't you feel, even a little bit, that this is an incredibly fast upgrade from S/O to command on a wide-body commercial airliner???? Was this really your expectation when you entered aviation?
If so, welcome to the real world!
For goodness sake.....I'm really beginning to feel that some people here have lost the plot!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raven,
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm was trying highlight to iceman that SO's hired in 2000 have not been offered passenger commands. Freighter commands are available the day you join CX. Seniority has nothing to do with those commands.
That's all.
Issues and complaints that I have are addressed to my union not to pprune.
I'm not complaining about anything. I'm was trying highlight to iceman that SO's hired in 2000 have not been offered passenger commands. Freighter commands are available the day you join CX. Seniority has nothing to do with those commands.
That's all.
Issues and complaints that I have are addressed to my union not to pprune.
Well there’s a arrogant / ignorant sermon from a cathay “sky god” if ever I’ve heard one! I challenge you to find ONE, current or former CX s/o who was flying a C172 (other than for fun) immediately prior to joining. Most of the guys I joined with had considerable jet time (and I’m not talking RJ) and the lowest time guy had 5000hrs turboprop command. All of them, bar none, had put in the hard yards to get here!
None of the guys I know feels that the company owes us a command, we’ve all been screwed over in the past (and no doubt will be again!) All we’re after is a fair shot! And by the way we’re not looking at 11-12 years to command, we’re looking at 15-16 + years to command! Are we pissed about it? Kin oath we are! Would you not be if in our shoes?
However, in my opinion, we shouldn’t be pissed with you. It’s the company that’s engineered the current situation, why? As always with CX, because it’s the cheapest option. The company doesn’t give a flying toss about you, or me, or any of the other staff!! It’s all about getting the job done for the least $$ . Thereby maximizing returns for the shareholders!! And if you were a shareholder (which you may well be) that’s exactly what you’d want them to do!!
What do we do about it?? That’s the $64000 question
And no Raven, I think most of us know exactly where the plot is!
Buggs out
None of the guys I know feels that the company owes us a command, we’ve all been screwed over in the past (and no doubt will be again!) All we’re after is a fair shot! And by the way we’re not looking at 11-12 years to command, we’re looking at 15-16 + years to command! Are we pissed about it? Kin oath we are! Would you not be if in our shoes?
However, in my opinion, we shouldn’t be pissed with you. It’s the company that’s engineered the current situation, why? As always with CX, because it’s the cheapest option. The company doesn’t give a flying toss about you, or me, or any of the other staff!! It’s all about getting the job done for the least $$ . Thereby maximizing returns for the shareholders!! And if you were a shareholder (which you may well be) that’s exactly what you’d want them to do!!
What do we do about it?? That’s the $64000 question
And no Raven, I think most of us know exactly where the plot is!
Buggs out