A Safety Risk!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: not here for much longer
Age: 44
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Safety Risk!
so that's what they are, these Second Officers ...
that's how was worded by the Company's representative, the Industrial Relations Manager S.K. - at the 1st Court Case hearing on the 19th.
I think the public should be scared, because these Safety Risks been known to fly the aircraft halfway across the globe whilst frequently having to tell and teach the newly hired Direct Entry FO in the other seat (who simply got the Cruise Relief Qualification as a welcome present) how the f*ck it's done safely ...
this management is soo out of touch with the real world out there it's just not funny anymore
that's how was worded by the Company's representative, the Industrial Relations Manager S.K. - at the 1st Court Case hearing on the 19th.
I think the public should be scared, because these Safety Risks been known to fly the aircraft halfway across the globe whilst frequently having to tell and teach the newly hired Direct Entry FO in the other seat (who simply got the Cruise Relief Qualification as a welcome present) how the f*ck it's done safely ...
this management is soo out of touch with the real world out there it's just not funny anymore
Join Date: May 2006
Location: mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if that's what the company is saying, then it must be true....
-DEFOs are hired as it is a safety issue, S/Os are unsafe!
-DEFOs have far more experience than S/Os, therefore safer!
-DEFOs are quicker and cheaper to train than an S/O to JFO. apperently...
-DEFOs are currently allowing the company to expand?
S/Os are just too damm unsafe, we all know it, so why hire them? I'm guessing there must be alot of very unsafe captains out there aswell that have been through the CX system (s/o,jfo,f/o,cn)..... Well sounds like the majority of the company is unsafe...?? Maybe CX should hire some DE CNs and DEFOs to replace all the unsafe ones that started as an S/O.... much safer!
-DEFOs are hired as it is a safety issue, S/Os are unsafe!
-DEFOs have far more experience than S/Os, therefore safer!
-DEFOs are quicker and cheaper to train than an S/O to JFO. apperently...
-DEFOs are currently allowing the company to expand?
S/Os are just too damm unsafe, we all know it, so why hire them? I'm guessing there must be alot of very unsafe captains out there aswell that have been through the CX system (s/o,jfo,f/o,cn)..... Well sounds like the majority of the company is unsafe...?? Maybe CX should hire some DE CNs and DEFOs to replace all the unsafe ones that started as an S/O.... much safer!
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: can't remember, I'm too tired
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so how do they explain that some of the SO's have more experience than the defo's
sure some don't, but for some of them DEFO wasn't a viable option.
either joined before it was available or didn't have the correct passport.
sure some don't, but for some of them DEFO wasn't a viable option.
either joined before it was available or didn't have the correct passport.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: close by
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or maybe that might stop the hiring of cheap labour and the hire DEFO's only instead like most other companies. So maybe it shouldn't be taken as an insult although thats what it sounds like to current SO's.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: mars
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airbusa330; Or maybe that might stop the hiring of cheap labour and the hire DEFO's only instead like most other companies. So maybe it shouldn't be taken as an insult although thats what it sounds like to current SO's.
It is the DEFOs that are the cheap labour in cx. DEFOs are on a base and are therefore not entitled to Housing, Schooling etc.... The DEFO salary is higher than an S/Os, but works out the S/O is more expensive with the expat allowances included....
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its the JF/Os you have to worry about, as they learn to fly in ADL
Many JFO had probably more experience that many DEFO when they joined as a SO, but joining as a DEFO simply wasn't an option for them at the time they joined.
Don't get confused, that safety risk comment by the company is simply a lawyer type of argument to try to convince the labour department that they should rule in their favor. After all, whoever is presiding the hearings probably knows very little about aviation, and using scary words like "safety risks" might impress him.
What's shocking, is that they publicly states that they hire unsafe crews, then puts them up front with hundreds of pax in the back. How do they explain that??
We all know it ain't true, but using such a strategy in court could have consequences.In the past, at the time when an upgrade to JFO took about 1.5 yrs only, the company was hiring SOs with minimal experience (definitely less than many who joined as SO in the last years) and upgrading them regardless. Many are now newish captains. Have they been running an unsafe operation of years??
There's nothing fundamentally changed in the level of experience of crews, so playing the "safety risks" card is betting that the labour board is ignorant of how the company hires and trains their crews. It makes them sounds desperate.
Last edited by bobrun; 22nd Feb 2009 at 02:17.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Out there
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S/O's = Safety risk (No experience)
JF/O's = Safety risk (Not flying for 4 years, but doing all regional and loads of sectors)
Relief = Safety risk (Maybe getting a sector/month)
Captain = NO safety risk. With a solid foundation laid throughout career as an unsafe S/O, unsafe JF/O and unsafe relief
Sounds like typical CX logic
JF/O's = Safety risk (Not flying for 4 years, but doing all regional and loads of sectors)
Relief = Safety risk (Maybe getting a sector/month)
Captain = NO safety risk. With a solid foundation laid throughout career as an unsafe S/O, unsafe JF/O and unsafe relief
Sounds like typical CX logic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That whole "safety risk" argument to justify the non payment of BPP is flawed anyway. A major point of the court case (IMHO) is that nobody gets assessed until only a few months prior to the actual upgrade!
They can't make a blanket statement that SOs aren't suitable for upgrade unless they've actually made an assessment of every candidates. Only if then the candidate is considered not suitable for upgrade could the BPP be not paid. And I very much doubt that many would be assessed as non suitable if that assessment took place 18 months after joining (like it used to be by the way, not so long ago).
They can't make a blanket statement that SOs aren't suitable for upgrade unless they've actually made an assessment of every candidates. Only if then the candidate is considered not suitable for upgrade could the BPP be not paid. And I very much doubt that many would be assessed as non suitable if that assessment took place 18 months after joining (like it used to be by the way, not so long ago).
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: VHHH
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the SO is such a safety risk then why did CX hire them on as potential Captains?
If the SO is such a safety risk then that is the training departments fault for not giving them proper training.
Give them a P1 type rating and I wonder what sort of safety risk they would become? It would save the company money in the long term. Then they argue that he/she would become un-current? How? The SO's are in the sim every two months doing circuits? They are more current than some RQ FO's for T/O and Landings!
Some (Not all) of the DEFO on the Pax fleet are just dangerous to fly with. Why did CX take them on? Cheap labour and didn't need full training. I think this has come around to bite CX in the butt!!!
For example - ex Oasis guys that according to the company only needed 10-12 sectors before getting checked out. Turns out some of then needed more than the usual SO to JFO 40 sectors. Some a little less but more than what CX has envisaged. It looked so cheap on paper but the reality was so much more.
HEY DFO - Wake up and pull your finger out. You have some good guys in the SO ranks who are fully capable of upgrading for less time and money than some of your DE guys. Why not listen to some of your managers in the various fleet offices. They are working at the coal face while you sit in your office having tea and crumpets!
If the SO is such a safety risk then that is the training departments fault for not giving them proper training.
Give them a P1 type rating and I wonder what sort of safety risk they would become? It would save the company money in the long term. Then they argue that he/she would become un-current? How? The SO's are in the sim every two months doing circuits? They are more current than some RQ FO's for T/O and Landings!
Some (Not all) of the DEFO on the Pax fleet are just dangerous to fly with. Why did CX take them on? Cheap labour and didn't need full training. I think this has come around to bite CX in the butt!!!
For example - ex Oasis guys that according to the company only needed 10-12 sectors before getting checked out. Turns out some of then needed more than the usual SO to JFO 40 sectors. Some a little less but more than what CX has envisaged. It looked so cheap on paper but the reality was so much more.
HEY DFO - Wake up and pull your finger out. You have some good guys in the SO ranks who are fully capable of upgrading for less time and money than some of your DE guys. Why not listen to some of your managers in the various fleet offices. They are working at the coal face while you sit in your office having tea and crumpets!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: hong kong
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A public apology to the SO's!!
Having heard the opening statement from 'SK' at the Labour Tribunal on 19th, I think he should apologise and resign. He openly said that CX has Pilots who are a safety risk currently flying in the ranks. This was witnessed by South China Morning Post and is damaging publicity in a very difficult market. The general public do not know the different ranks that CX has, all they know is there are several Pilots upfront looking after their safety and one of them is a Captain. Any adverse publicity cannot be in the share holders interest, and any Manager jepordising this should be removed. I also think the Training department should step up and quash such a ridiculous statement from 'SK', who has a history of ruining moral within its pilot body. If 2500hrs on B737, 1000hrs Turboprop >18T and 1000hrs instruction before joining CX is a safety risk then maybe I should hand back my various licences!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Risk???
When I joined CX I had friends who joined KA at the same time with almost identical experience as myself.
They start on an A330 as FO with all the benefits etc, while I start as SO and get treated like a peanut on half housing and a low salary.
How am I a Safety Risk when by the time I upgrade to JFO, friends at KA with the same experience will be getting their commands.
Very frustrating when CX owns KA, obviously their training is superior…
What a kick in the guts!
They start on an A330 as FO with all the benefits etc, while I start as SO and get treated like a peanut on half housing and a low salary.
How am I a Safety Risk when by the time I upgrade to JFO, friends at KA with the same experience will be getting their commands.
Very frustrating when CX owns KA, obviously their training is superior…
What a kick in the guts!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slow down girls, slow down.
Has it perhaps occurred to you that the co. is TRYING to goad you into doing something impulsive and play right into their hands? They could just have a cunning plan...just maybe.
Relax. Any judge worth his/her salt will figure it out and throw their argument out.
Keep yer knickers on. It may be a stated "crew relations" (now there's a contradiction) perspective, but it's not mine, nor any one of my colleagues. You are valued, contributing crew members. Silly haircuts and sunnies, but valued anyway.
Has it perhaps occurred to you that the co. is TRYING to goad you into doing something impulsive and play right into their hands? They could just have a cunning plan...just maybe.
Relax. Any judge worth his/her salt will figure it out and throw their argument out.
Keep yer knickers on. It may be a stated "crew relations" (now there's a contradiction) perspective, but it's not mine, nor any one of my colleagues. You are valued, contributing crew members. Silly haircuts and sunnies, but valued anyway.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Paradise
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silly haircuts and sunnies
Nice one Capt. Undies!!
I imagine having a "silly haircut" is quite difficult with no hair. Not to mention that it's hard to find designer brand prescription bi-focal sunnies. Seems most Capts love those nice big "Kim Jong-Il" wrap-arounds (no reference intended to a certain GMA!!).
As for the clothes when hitting the town, repeat after me fellas: "chicks DON'T dig acid-wash jeans !!".
Yet another thread going off track......
Could someone state the 'specific' question that was asked to elicit SK's response. It's kind of meaningless until it's put in context.
I am absolutely in no way defending SK, but this all has to be contextual.
Could someone state the 'specific' question that was asked to elicit SK's response. It's kind of meaningless until it's put in context.
I am absolutely in no way defending SK, but this all has to be contextual.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AOG
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im sure some DEFOs are just unfamiliar with the routes that the SO has flown for sooooo many times. surely most are very capable of doing the job.
talking about the cheap labours... aren't the cadets graduates the cheapest slaves to run?? no housing, no nothing until 4 bars... just saw a recent column on SCMP 22nd Feb, 09 about KA's racist discrimination case against the local pilots pointed forward by their respective union.. and how about CX?? denying everything?!? only Local Captains receive a 24k housing allowance... surely cadets are the most money saving labours.
Nick Gentle
Feb 22, 2009
Dragonair is discriminating against locally hired pilots through policies that result in expatriate fliers receiving up to twice as much in their pay packets, its pilots' union claims....
talking about the cheap labours... aren't the cadets graduates the cheapest slaves to run?? no housing, no nothing until 4 bars... just saw a recent column on SCMP 22nd Feb, 09 about KA's racist discrimination case against the local pilots pointed forward by their respective union.. and how about CX?? denying everything?!? only Local Captains receive a 24k housing allowance... surely cadets are the most money saving labours.
Nick Gentle
Feb 22, 2009
Dragonair is discriminating against locally hired pilots through policies that result in expatriate fliers receiving up to twice as much in their pay packets, its pilots' union claims....