Local pilots fly off the handle at expat perks
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread should be deleted.
It is disgusting that there are so many people here that are trying to deny a group of our colleagues the right to ask for an equal package.
It does not affect the expat contract if the LEP's fight for a better deal. It does not mean that because your contract is better you are therefore a better pilot and worthy of elevated status. It just means that you begrudge a group of our fellows a benefit that makes your own life better.
Standing up in support of the LEP's would benefit all of us in the long run by showing our strength and unity. The company needs to understand that we are not so selfish as individual groups, and so easily managed, that they can cause us to turn on each-other and do their own dirty work for them.
And do not be fooled into thinking that you are safe on your contract. My contract has been changed unilaterally without my permission in the past, with a "sign or you're fired" gun to my head. Don''t think it won't happen again.
We ought to stand by the LEP's to support them in their fight against the company.
Have some integrity and look out for your colleages, and wish them well for a better deal!
It is disgusting that there are so many people here that are trying to deny a group of our colleagues the right to ask for an equal package.
It does not affect the expat contract if the LEP's fight for a better deal. It does not mean that because your contract is better you are therefore a better pilot and worthy of elevated status. It just means that you begrudge a group of our fellows a benefit that makes your own life better.
Standing up in support of the LEP's would benefit all of us in the long run by showing our strength and unity. The company needs to understand that we are not so selfish as individual groups, and so easily managed, that they can cause us to turn on each-other and do their own dirty work for them.
And do not be fooled into thinking that you are safe on your contract. My contract has been changed unilaterally without my permission in the past, with a "sign or you're fired" gun to my head. Don''t think it won't happen again.
We ought to stand by the LEP's to support them in their fight against the company.
Have some integrity and look out for your colleages, and wish them well for a better deal!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It All comes down to Choices
It's great to see that no longer do we wait for the Company to put forth a proposal , or a change to our conditions that will ultimately have the Pilot body pitted against each other...Now the AOA is doing the work for them!!!!
This whole argument stems from the choices that we make as individuals,, plain and simple.
I joined as a B scale DESO 14 years ago, but before I joined, I had a VERY good look at the conditions that were on offer, and compared them to what was on offer for a pilot with my qualifications in my home country. Simply put....they were better.
When I joined, I was NOT offered A scale Salary and benefits....do I have a valid arguement that as a Captain now, doing the same job as my A scale collegue next door, flying the same aircraft, to the same destinations, in the same wx conditions, that I should now be entitled to A scale Salary and Benefits??? Of course not. Because I know what I signed up for before I came here.
When I joined, I missed out on the Travel Fund offered to Expat Crew only a few months before....should I now ( after doing X number of years of service) be entitled to this Benefit???? As much as it would be nice....NO, because again, I know what I was entitled to under the Contract that I read, and signed, 14 years ago.
Could I have joined the Cadet Scheme as a NON HKID Card Holder at the time, and had my training paid for by CX, with a fairly reasonable chance of my first job being in the back seat of a -400, instead of an instructor on slave wages???? No, because I wasn't entitled to it! So...rather than whinge about what I didn't have, I MADE A CHOICE and I went through the process of gaining enough experience so that I could apply, on EXPAT terms with CX....and fortunately for me, I was accepted....ON THE TERMS THAT WERE ON OFFER AT THE TIME!!!!
I have friends who joined around the same time as I, who were Captains on Lears etc...doing .90 to Europe, Asia and the Middle East, at FL 430 ( passing the CX Classic underneath them) who were told that because they weren't Air Force, flying Twin Otters, or the lightning quick Cariboo, doing 180 kts, that they were only being looked at as potential S/O's, and not direct entry F/O's because of their previous experience....seem fair???? Probably not, but that was what they were being offered at the time. So they had choices, and they made their choices based on the position, pay scale, and benefits on offer at the time
We all have to make choices in our lives, and those choices come with consequences. Plain and simple!
Would I love to have been making A scale salaries, complete with travel funds etc all these years??? Of course I would, but I do not begrudge the guy next to me who has, because that was what was on offer for him.
Now, once we have made those choices, that is not to say that we don't want to protect what we have, and strive for better, but we have to do so wisely, and within reason.
In a war, it is never wise to try and take all the opponents ground in one move, but rather try to take that hill, bridge, river, port etc without EVER losing the ground that you have fought for in getting to where you are now. Try to take too much, and history shows that you are more than likely to not only be unsuccessful in gaining the ground that you were after, but you will most likely lose a part of what you had, and take heavy casualties along the way.
In an effort to try and gain some membership numbers, I believe that is exactly what the AOA is suggesting that the membership support now....rather than try to take the hill , bridge etc and then defend the ground that they have gained, they are suggesting that we throw all of our offence at this "discriminaton" arguement, whilst losing sight of the fact that the war is always won in the accumulation of the small "battles". The current move suggests "all or nothing" Those of us who have been in CX for more than just a few years have seen where that mentality has gotten us!
I fully understand the lack of trust that people feel towards Management who, many times in the past, have made promises, and then failed to deliver. Been there!!!
In this case, the company has said that they are willing to talk about the possibility of an increase in the CEP's "package" when housing talks take place later this year. Maybe you don't trust them...maybe you think the $12K number that has been bantered around is not enough....maybe you think that it should be offered to every CEP from date of joining....lots of things to talk about, but rather than going into the talks with the attitude that " we will push for the best that we can get" and then build on that in the future, the AOA is proposing that it's "all or nothing"
To people like Child Labour...think back to the choices that you made before choosing to join CX....as a Canadian, you could have chosen to pay for your own training, gone and got that instructor job, or float job, and built your hours up to the level required to get a job with CX as a direct entry SO, and therefore been entitled to EXPAT Benefits....but you didn't, you read the contract (presumably) and made a choice. Full Stop!
I don't think anyone at CX wants to see another "group" on lower conditions, but we need to remember the past, and what the outcomes have been using the "all or nothing" approach.
If its about a "cost of living"increase???, than insist that the AOA sells it that way, because no Court in the land is going to see this as discrimination...not a chance. They will say...."you made a choice" plain and simple!
Using your own logic, I have every right to go to Management and demand that I am on A scale Salary and Benefits immediately (as I have done a pre-determined number of years of service) and while your at it, throw in the Travel Fund too....seem sensible???? I made a choice, and I live every day with the consequences!
If, as you say, you would be happy with a "training bond" situation that would have you paying off the training costs over a period of time, in exchange for a "cost of living increase" after????.....than fight for that, and EVERYONE will support you, but continue down this emotive, and ill thought out "discrimination" road, and you will NOT get the support from your peers, the public, nor the courts...cause you made a choice.
History has shown us too many times that rightly or wrongly, the "package" offered to all the Crew DOES come from a Budget, and in my time in CX I have NEVER seen a situation where the "bottom" packages move towards the "Top"....its always the other way around. Always!
So you'll have to forgive those of us who have made calculated choices, based on the conditions on offer at the time, from trying to protect the "hill" that we are currently standing on!
The current move threatens to knock down the hill, and then....what have we actually achieved
You had a choice....I can use my HKID card now, or wait, and then use my Canadian passport...and you made your choice!
You cant have it both ways...
As for the ones who have had the contract changed after the fact, by virtue of their having a HKID Card??? I have personally never run across anyone in this situation, but ill take your word for it. That sounds like a fight worth fighting, and one that will garner support from all sides, including the public and the Courts.
Your arguement however????
Sorry Mate....suck it up, stop whinging ( and making a fool out of yourself and all the other CEP's/LEP's) and start trying to win the battles 1 by 1, and NOT the whole war in one fell swoop
And here come the well thought out retorts, full of constructive ideas and suggestions........
This whole argument stems from the choices that we make as individuals,, plain and simple.
I joined as a B scale DESO 14 years ago, but before I joined, I had a VERY good look at the conditions that were on offer, and compared them to what was on offer for a pilot with my qualifications in my home country. Simply put....they were better.
When I joined, I was NOT offered A scale Salary and benefits....do I have a valid arguement that as a Captain now, doing the same job as my A scale collegue next door, flying the same aircraft, to the same destinations, in the same wx conditions, that I should now be entitled to A scale Salary and Benefits??? Of course not. Because I know what I signed up for before I came here.
When I joined, I missed out on the Travel Fund offered to Expat Crew only a few months before....should I now ( after doing X number of years of service) be entitled to this Benefit???? As much as it would be nice....NO, because again, I know what I was entitled to under the Contract that I read, and signed, 14 years ago.
Could I have joined the Cadet Scheme as a NON HKID Card Holder at the time, and had my training paid for by CX, with a fairly reasonable chance of my first job being in the back seat of a -400, instead of an instructor on slave wages???? No, because I wasn't entitled to it! So...rather than whinge about what I didn't have, I MADE A CHOICE and I went through the process of gaining enough experience so that I could apply, on EXPAT terms with CX....and fortunately for me, I was accepted....ON THE TERMS THAT WERE ON OFFER AT THE TIME!!!!
I have friends who joined around the same time as I, who were Captains on Lears etc...doing .90 to Europe, Asia and the Middle East, at FL 430 ( passing the CX Classic underneath them) who were told that because they weren't Air Force, flying Twin Otters, or the lightning quick Cariboo, doing 180 kts, that they were only being looked at as potential S/O's, and not direct entry F/O's because of their previous experience....seem fair???? Probably not, but that was what they were being offered at the time. So they had choices, and they made their choices based on the position, pay scale, and benefits on offer at the time
We all have to make choices in our lives, and those choices come with consequences. Plain and simple!
Would I love to have been making A scale salaries, complete with travel funds etc all these years??? Of course I would, but I do not begrudge the guy next to me who has, because that was what was on offer for him.
Now, once we have made those choices, that is not to say that we don't want to protect what we have, and strive for better, but we have to do so wisely, and within reason.
In a war, it is never wise to try and take all the opponents ground in one move, but rather try to take that hill, bridge, river, port etc without EVER losing the ground that you have fought for in getting to where you are now. Try to take too much, and history shows that you are more than likely to not only be unsuccessful in gaining the ground that you were after, but you will most likely lose a part of what you had, and take heavy casualties along the way.
In an effort to try and gain some membership numbers, I believe that is exactly what the AOA is suggesting that the membership support now....rather than try to take the hill , bridge etc and then defend the ground that they have gained, they are suggesting that we throw all of our offence at this "discriminaton" arguement, whilst losing sight of the fact that the war is always won in the accumulation of the small "battles". The current move suggests "all or nothing" Those of us who have been in CX for more than just a few years have seen where that mentality has gotten us!
I fully understand the lack of trust that people feel towards Management who, many times in the past, have made promises, and then failed to deliver. Been there!!!
In this case, the company has said that they are willing to talk about the possibility of an increase in the CEP's "package" when housing talks take place later this year. Maybe you don't trust them...maybe you think the $12K number that has been bantered around is not enough....maybe you think that it should be offered to every CEP from date of joining....lots of things to talk about, but rather than going into the talks with the attitude that " we will push for the best that we can get" and then build on that in the future, the AOA is proposing that it's "all or nothing"
To people like Child Labour...think back to the choices that you made before choosing to join CX....as a Canadian, you could have chosen to pay for your own training, gone and got that instructor job, or float job, and built your hours up to the level required to get a job with CX as a direct entry SO, and therefore been entitled to EXPAT Benefits....but you didn't, you read the contract (presumably) and made a choice. Full Stop!
I don't think anyone at CX wants to see another "group" on lower conditions, but we need to remember the past, and what the outcomes have been using the "all or nothing" approach.
If its about a "cost of living"increase???, than insist that the AOA sells it that way, because no Court in the land is going to see this as discrimination...not a chance. They will say...."you made a choice" plain and simple!
Using your own logic, I have every right to go to Management and demand that I am on A scale Salary and Benefits immediately (as I have done a pre-determined number of years of service) and while your at it, throw in the Travel Fund too....seem sensible???? I made a choice, and I live every day with the consequences!
If, as you say, you would be happy with a "training bond" situation that would have you paying off the training costs over a period of time, in exchange for a "cost of living increase" after????.....than fight for that, and EVERYONE will support you, but continue down this emotive, and ill thought out "discrimination" road, and you will NOT get the support from your peers, the public, nor the courts...cause you made a choice.
History has shown us too many times that rightly or wrongly, the "package" offered to all the Crew DOES come from a Budget, and in my time in CX I have NEVER seen a situation where the "bottom" packages move towards the "Top"....its always the other way around. Always!
So you'll have to forgive those of us who have made calculated choices, based on the conditions on offer at the time, from trying to protect the "hill" that we are currently standing on!
The current move threatens to knock down the hill, and then....what have we actually achieved
You had a choice....I can use my HKID card now, or wait, and then use my Canadian passport...and you made your choice!
You cant have it both ways...
As for the ones who have had the contract changed after the fact, by virtue of their having a HKID Card??? I have personally never run across anyone in this situation, but ill take your word for it. That sounds like a fight worth fighting, and one that will garner support from all sides, including the public and the Courts.
Your arguement however????
Sorry Mate....suck it up, stop whinging ( and making a fool out of yourself and all the other CEP's/LEP's) and start trying to win the battles 1 by 1, and NOT the whole war in one fell swoop
And here come the well thought out retorts, full of constructive ideas and suggestions........
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly I am absolutely disgusted and appalled to have to call you guys my colleagues. When one group is trying to better their conditions, instead of support or even indifference because it affects you in no way, you lot go out of your way to purposely attack the will to improve contractual agreements!! I have never heard any CEP complain to me about expat conditions changing with new housing agreements over the years. They sit there quietly listening to expats complain about how they cannot afford to pay for their second yacht because selling their first one has been harder than they thought, or how their flat in Repulse Bay is costing more in renovations than they thought because the jacuzzi has to be craned up to the roof. Is it any surprise that finally they are sick of it?
So, instead of supporting them in their quest for improvements we attack them because they had a cushy way into an airline job? Can any of us honestly hand on heart say that we would not have jumped at the same opportunity? It is purely hypocritical to say that the CEPs are jealous of the superior lifestyle afforded by being an expat. Bitching about the way they have had their training paid for doesn't seem like jealousy to you? Yes they got some cheap training and therefore they must pay for that by being inferior pilots for the rest of their lives and retire to a lower standard of living than expats. Come on....
Perhaps when the housing deal for the expats is up for renewal the CEPs can go to the media with an attack of how we dare wish our conditions to be improved, afterall that would be totally fair and justified seeing the way we have acted on this public forum.
So, instead of supporting them in their quest for improvements we attack them because they had a cushy way into an airline job? Can any of us honestly hand on heart say that we would not have jumped at the same opportunity? It is purely hypocritical to say that the CEPs are jealous of the superior lifestyle afforded by being an expat. Bitching about the way they have had their training paid for doesn't seem like jealousy to you? Yes they got some cheap training and therefore they must pay for that by being inferior pilots for the rest of their lives and retire to a lower standard of living than expats. Come on....
Perhaps when the housing deal for the expats is up for renewal the CEPs can go to the media with an attack of how we dare wish our conditions to be improved, afterall that would be totally fair and justified seeing the way we have acted on this public forum.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post TimsBits 
You obviously have not been reading any of the above posts...it wasn't even in your contract to begin with!!! So how can you call it an 'improvement'???
hahaha...what a moronic statement. In case you hadn't noticed we are all on the same payscale, I wish I had two yachts 
. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh!!! So next time I hear a CEP complain about how his Audi or BMW broke down, I should be up in arms then 
you lot go out of your way to purposely attack the will to improve contractual agreements!
They sit there quietly listening to expats complain about how they cannot afford to pay for their second yacht because selling their first one has been harder than they thought, or how their flat in Repulse Bay is costing more in renovations than they thought because the jacuzzi has to be craned up to the roof.
. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story eh!!! So next time I hear a CEP complain about how his Audi or BMW broke down, I should be up in arms then
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MARS
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the point
Mmmmm..no, let's discuss it HERE..
The AOA forums are for a few pathetic clowns who are trying to justify their monthly subs by posting "intelligent" posts on those forums, only to be given an answer by a fellow "more intelligent" pilot.
And yes, been there, done that..
F!!!k me! As has been posted before numerous times before, please discuss this on the AOA site.
The AOA forums are for a few pathetic clowns who are trying to justify their monthly subs by posting "intelligent" posts on those forums, only to be given an answer by a fellow "more intelligent" pilot.
And yes, been there, done that..
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Casbah
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what the basic premise of the ineligibility discussion is:
I had to go through hell and highwater, therefore you have to as well before I consider you worthy of what I get, regardless of whether or not we do the same job.
Don't ask me to help you climb the same mountain. Get your own carabiners, your own bungees. See you at the top suckas.
Nice guys.....nice.
I had to go through hell and highwater, therefore you have to as well before I consider you worthy of what I get, regardless of whether or not we do the same job.
Don't ask me to help you climb the same mountain. Get your own carabiners, your own bungees. See you at the top suckas.
Nice guys.....nice.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I, like the public, and I’m sure most of our flight crew, support the CEP’s in their quest.
However, CEP’s not receiving housing assistance is not discrimination, it is cost cutting by the Company. Pure and simple. The Company is in the business of making money; can anyone argue that they’re not good at it? The Company will always look for ways to maximize their profit….unless it hurts them in the eyes of the Hong Kong public.
Good Post Timbit, some sound points. However, after reading your post, I still feel in my heart that the CEP’s have a valid case to make. I also feel the public would agree. Given the DFO’s quick response….I take it he agrees as well.
The Company cannot ignore public perception. And the public, not to put too fine a point on it, would stand squarely behind the CEP’s.
I don’t agree with the DFO’s argument that if housing were to be paid to the CEP’s then all other staff could argue for it as well. If other staff members want pilot benefits, then let them become pilots…as many are choosing to do. If pilots on a base want housing allowance….well then, they should never have left Hong Kong. If you were recruited on a base and you want housing assistance…move to Hong Kong. Based pilots can’t have it both ways.
We all used to be on one package, the pilot package, and we all need to work on restoring that one package. The cost of living, of which the major component is housing, in Hong Kong is prohibitive. Cadet pilots, after a period of paying back their training costs, should be on the same pay packet as the rest of us. That is only fair, and that is exactly how the public would see it. Hong Kong based CEP's should get housing assistance.
Dragon…..why must you resort to sarcasm and ridicule when making your arguments. It only serves to discredit you. You come across as a bully. Some of the points you make are sound, but your personal attacks personally turn me off. Stop it.
The CEP’s should be able to count on all of our support. Maybe they’re making too strong a point by arguing discrimination, but shouldn’t we, especially us senior crew, try to guide and help steer them straight?
This is one battle they are poised to win!
However, CEP’s not receiving housing assistance is not discrimination, it is cost cutting by the Company. Pure and simple. The Company is in the business of making money; can anyone argue that they’re not good at it? The Company will always look for ways to maximize their profit….unless it hurts them in the eyes of the Hong Kong public.
Good Post Timbit, some sound points. However, after reading your post, I still feel in my heart that the CEP’s have a valid case to make. I also feel the public would agree. Given the DFO’s quick response….I take it he agrees as well.
The Company cannot ignore public perception. And the public, not to put too fine a point on it, would stand squarely behind the CEP’s.
I don’t agree with the DFO’s argument that if housing were to be paid to the CEP’s then all other staff could argue for it as well. If other staff members want pilot benefits, then let them become pilots…as many are choosing to do. If pilots on a base want housing allowance….well then, they should never have left Hong Kong. If you were recruited on a base and you want housing assistance…move to Hong Kong. Based pilots can’t have it both ways.
We all used to be on one package, the pilot package, and we all need to work on restoring that one package. The cost of living, of which the major component is housing, in Hong Kong is prohibitive. Cadet pilots, after a period of paying back their training costs, should be on the same pay packet as the rest of us. That is only fair, and that is exactly how the public would see it. Hong Kong based CEP's should get housing assistance.
Dragon…..why must you resort to sarcasm and ridicule when making your arguments. It only serves to discredit you. You come across as a bully. Some of the points you make are sound, but your personal attacks personally turn me off. Stop it.
The CEP’s should be able to count on all of our support. Maybe they’re making too strong a point by arguing discrimination, but shouldn’t we, especially us senior crew, try to guide and help steer them straight?
This is one battle they are poised to win!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what the basic premise of the ineligibility discussion is:
I had to go through hell and highwater, therefore you have to as well before I consider you worthy of what I get, regardless of whether or not we do the same job.
Don't ask me to help you climb the same mountain. Get your own carabiners, your own bungees. See you at the top suckas.
I had to go through hell and highwater, therefore you have to as well before I consider you worthy of what I get, regardless of whether or not we do the same job.
Don't ask me to help you climb the same mountain. Get your own carabiners, your own bungees. See you at the top suckas.
To follow on from what 69 said "never let the truth get in the way of a good story...."
What we are saying is NOT "screw the CEP's cause I had to go through Hell to get here...." so stop sensationalizing...
What we are saying is that Housing was never part of the contract that they signed, so therefor it is a useless arguement, legally and otherwise!!!!
Call it "Lifestyle Improvement", call it "Benefits Enhancement"...call it whatever you like, but to be pleading to me, the Company, the Courts, and John Q Public, that " I am hard done by cause Bobby gets something that I now want, even though I knew that I was never entitled to it IN THE CONTRACT THAT I ACCEPTED", is both futile, and possibly harmful to the whole Pilot body!!!
Nobody is saying that we don't want to see the CEP's get some sort of compensation for housing....NOBODY!!!!
Simply have the AOA re-think the way that they are selling this thing, and you might stand a chance....with the current tactic=NADA!!!
I will not, however, be made to feel guilty for accepting a contact that was based on Market Value at the time, which included housing, for experienced expat applicants, so get
!!!!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mullah Lite,
This is being seen as a cheap unsolicited attack on the expat community by the CEPs. Crap comments such as "we should put all the expats at the Gold Coast..." or "owns two yachts..." , etc, proves the above point. The AoA started something and for obvious reasons every CEP has jumped on the bandwagon without giving any thought to the consequences. What of those CEPs that earn 'A' scale??? Do you hear any 'B' scale expats berate them??? What of those on bases having to pay 35-45% income tax, should their salary be adjusted accordingly because your take home pay is significantly more??? As I've said right from the start, this is amounting to nothing more than envy, and the expats have been made an easy target, so pardon us if we don't have any sympathy to what is being seen as an unreasonable demand.
Just wanted to add;
Instead of wanting the expat benefits to close the gap, why not fight for what the 'A' scale CEP CNs have..ie 'A" scale with $24k special allowance. As a CEP, wouldn't you have more of discriminatory case if you compared yourself with another CEP on better conditions???
This is being seen as a cheap unsolicited attack on the expat community by the CEPs. Crap comments such as "we should put all the expats at the Gold Coast..." or "owns two yachts..." , etc, proves the above point. The AoA started something and for obvious reasons every CEP has jumped on the bandwagon without giving any thought to the consequences. What of those CEPs that earn 'A' scale??? Do you hear any 'B' scale expats berate them??? What of those on bases having to pay 35-45% income tax, should their salary be adjusted accordingly because your take home pay is significantly more??? As I've said right from the start, this is amounting to nothing more than envy, and the expats have been made an easy target, so pardon us if we don't have any sympathy to what is being seen as an unreasonable demand.
Just wanted to add;
Instead of wanting the expat benefits to close the gap, why not fight for what the 'A' scale CEP CNs have..ie 'A" scale with $24k special allowance. As a CEP, wouldn't you have more of discriminatory case if you compared yourself with another CEP on better conditions???
Last edited by Dragon69; 13th Feb 2010 at 03:37.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Casbah
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timbits
As long as I get ****ed by my significant other, good times. By you, not so much. And my post wasn't directed at you accepting your contract. In fact, none of the CEP arguments are about targeting the expat contracts at all. That remark is insidiously being raised by the DFO himself....get with the program. There's no need to fly off the handle especially when the premise of your handle is incorrect perception of what I was trying to put forward, nobody is trying to make you feel guilty for signing up to anything. And there are points that you made in your less expletively suffixed post that I agree with, particularly that part about "Now, once we have made those choices, that is not to say that we don't want to protect what we have, and strive for better, but we have to do so wisely, and within reason." So that to me is an acceptance that the CEPs have a right to fight for better conditions, but understandably you are concerned about the potential consequences to yourself and as I've said before, if it's truly a concern, raise it with the AOA, because in all honestly the last thing the CEPs want to do is piss you off to the point where you actually take the company's stance.
"Would I love to have been making A scale salaries, complete with travel funds etc all these years??? Of course I would, but I do not begrudge the guy next to me who has, because that was what was on offer for him."
CEPs are not begrudging anyone because of what people signed up for in the past...where does that come from?
69er
It's disconcerting to hear that the direction of the CEP argument is being taken as an attack on the expat community. I can say with all honestly that the central tenet of the CEP strategy is not an attack on any of the other pilots, but you do raise a legitimate concern by definition of perception and so this consideration must be incorporated into the debate. As I've said before, it is not the intention of the CEPs (certainly not mine!), it would not only serve no purpose but be a two step backwards solution by increasing the already too apparent divide between CEPs and expat notions. Though I still cannot agree with you on the envy part, I still personally feel it is about bringing local T&Cs to a standard, but you and I have respectfully disagreed on this perception before, and there it shall remain till.
Not sure that the income tax argument really works. If you live where you live, you have to pay that tax, that being a geographical distinction. Actually my family get taxed by two different countries at the moment....but I'm not asking for an increase in pay to cover those costs because I'm back here in HKG.
Your suggestion about the A scale with allowance is interesting, but delicate. If CEPs are entitled to the A scale which is a basic payscale, then by the same token so should everyone else. That would be nice, but that would truly open up an already widening Pandora's box from the company's standpoint, and as such, would be flatly turned down as a possible alternative to the gap closing solution. Still open to ideas though, of course.
As long as I get ****ed by my significant other, good times. By you, not so much. And my post wasn't directed at you accepting your contract. In fact, none of the CEP arguments are about targeting the expat contracts at all. That remark is insidiously being raised by the DFO himself....get with the program. There's no need to fly off the handle especially when the premise of your handle is incorrect perception of what I was trying to put forward, nobody is trying to make you feel guilty for signing up to anything. And there are points that you made in your less expletively suffixed post that I agree with, particularly that part about "Now, once we have made those choices, that is not to say that we don't want to protect what we have, and strive for better, but we have to do so wisely, and within reason." So that to me is an acceptance that the CEPs have a right to fight for better conditions, but understandably you are concerned about the potential consequences to yourself and as I've said before, if it's truly a concern, raise it with the AOA, because in all honestly the last thing the CEPs want to do is piss you off to the point where you actually take the company's stance.
"Would I love to have been making A scale salaries, complete with travel funds etc all these years??? Of course I would, but I do not begrudge the guy next to me who has, because that was what was on offer for him."
CEPs are not begrudging anyone because of what people signed up for in the past...where does that come from?
69er
It's disconcerting to hear that the direction of the CEP argument is being taken as an attack on the expat community. I can say with all honestly that the central tenet of the CEP strategy is not an attack on any of the other pilots, but you do raise a legitimate concern by definition of perception and so this consideration must be incorporated into the debate. As I've said before, it is not the intention of the CEPs (certainly not mine!), it would not only serve no purpose but be a two step backwards solution by increasing the already too apparent divide between CEPs and expat notions. Though I still cannot agree with you on the envy part, I still personally feel it is about bringing local T&Cs to a standard, but you and I have respectfully disagreed on this perception before, and there it shall remain till.
Not sure that the income tax argument really works. If you live where you live, you have to pay that tax, that being a geographical distinction. Actually my family get taxed by two different countries at the moment....but I'm not asking for an increase in pay to cover those costs because I'm back here in HKG.
Your suggestion about the A scale with allowance is interesting, but delicate. If CEPs are entitled to the A scale which is a basic payscale, then by the same token so should everyone else. That would be nice, but that would truly open up an already widening Pandora's box from the company's standpoint, and as such, would be flatly turned down as a possible alternative to the gap closing solution. Still open to ideas though, of course.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In case you hadn't noticed we are all on the same payscale,
What of those CEPs that earn 'A' scale??? Do you hear any 'B' scale expats berate them???
and the expats have been made an easy target, so pardon us if we don't have any sympathy to what is being seen as an unreasonable demand.
The argument that the company has trained these people from scratch and therefore indebted to this wonderful company for life is absolute rubbish. How are expats any different? It is claimed that locals are given a wonderful opportunity and that is absolutely correct, but how about expats? They are not given a wonderful opportunity? Most people joining these days build their hours flying pieces of crap in countries with few opportunities for quick access to jet airliners (nevermind widebodies). By your own admission it has been tough with a low income. So, along comes this company who is willing to employ you as a foreigner, pay you an expat package, send your kids to good schools, pay for a mortgage to a property which can make you millions when you leave Hong Kong and somehow you are not grateful for this great opportunity? They allow you to fly shiny jets and have a decent life instead of not even being able to afford gas for your car, or your electricity bill but somehow this same company which has given an opportunity to a different group of people would be wrong for rewarding those people with a bit more than they receive even though it is still miles away from what expats receive? Can you pull your head out of your bottom for long enough to see?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Real World
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply put
When you joined you knew you were not getting housing allowance and that you would never get housing allowance - yet you still joined CX = so you do not have a leg to stand on.
As a similar example - those that joined without receiving a "travel fund" still joined CX. I rarely hear any complaints about the lack of travel fund and I have NEVER heard the AOA try to get a travel fund for those who do not receive this remuneration.
The AOA should be fighting for a general "salary increase", and not for an allowance for a small segment who knew what they were getting into when they joined.
As a similar example - those that joined without receiving a "travel fund" still joined CX. I rarely hear any complaints about the lack of travel fund and I have NEVER heard the AOA try to get a travel fund for those who do not receive this remuneration.
The AOA should be fighting for a general "salary increase", and not for an allowance for a small segment who knew what they were getting into when they joined.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: high on a hill
Age: 53
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some of the comments on this board are utterly disgraceful. I suspect there are those who have always rather liked the fact that there is another group of pilots who are on considerably worse terms - perhaps it makes them feel superior in some way. Pathetic.
Pilots who live and work in Hong Kong should be paid Hong Kong allowances.
Once a CEP has completed his apprenticeship, paid off the training cost and is QL, it is his LICENCE that has the value. How that LICENCE came to be acquired is irrelevant.
Pilots who live and work in Hong Kong should be paid Hong Kong allowances.
Once a CEP has completed his apprenticeship, paid off the training cost and is QL, it is his LICENCE that has the value. How that LICENCE came to be acquired is irrelevant.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely Katana. At the end of the day, all the company wants is for someone to fly their planes from A to B at the required standard. Lets not talk about who is better than who after all we all just fly a plane from A to B. CEPs, expats who cares. We all operate to the required standard otherwise we would not be here. End of story.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Out of the pollution.
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe how ignorant some of you are.
As Expats, we want our local colleagues to GET everything we have
If they cost the same as we do, then our place is secure.. IF we let this new class C cadet system go forward, with no housing / CEP for expat cadets, and keep the locals out of the benefits, WE ALL LOSE.
Swire loves divide and conquer.
One Base, One pay package. Simple.
Don't let them win.
As Expats, we want our local colleagues to GET everything we have
If they cost the same as we do, then our place is secure.. IF we let this new class C cadet system go forward, with no housing / CEP for expat cadets, and keep the locals out of the benefits, WE ALL LOSE.
Swire loves divide and conquer.
One Base, One pay package. Simple.
Don't let them win.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Shagland
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is the idea of equality creating such a divide? For every base there should be one re-numeration package. This means the take home pay, or taxable income, is the same for everyone doing the same job. Taxable income is whatever financial reward given to you by the company. This is the sum of salary plus whatever allowance and bonus.
Are the expats so dispise of the CEPs that they don’t want to be seen as equal to them? If IlovePX had his/her way, all CEPs have to seat at the back of the crew bus and walk behind the expats.
A “local” captain getting a lower re-numeration package than a junior expat F/O is simply wrong. Even Stevie Wonder can see the in-justice in that and so will the public. You think BA or QF cadets have to put with same double standards throughout their careers?
Are the expats so dispise of the CEPs that they don’t want to be seen as equal to them? If IlovePX had his/her way, all CEPs have to seat at the back of the crew bus and walk behind the expats.
A “local” captain getting a lower re-numeration package than a junior expat F/O is simply wrong. Even Stevie Wonder can see the in-justice in that and so will the public. You think BA or QF cadets have to put with same double standards throughout their careers?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Nuclear Dust City
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As has been posted before numerous times before, please discuss this on the AOA site. That is if you have access.
If not maybe you should think about applying for it.
If not maybe you should think about applying for it.
In reality, you would have to pay back the cost of training and quit your job, and then hope to be rehired by a good enough airline after spending probably several years struggling. It's easy to just say you would pay back your training cost but keep the job!
On another note, the latest DFO update does mention talks regarding a little allowance for LEPs upon reaching FO.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Nuclear Dust City
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
firefly2008,
When you joined you knew what your mouthly salary, the amount of housing allowance, your retirement age, your p-fund contribution and that you should NEVER EVER want any increase or improvement in any areas of your condition - yet you still joined CX = so you do not have a leg to stand on next time you ask the AOA to negotiate with the company for a better deal.
When you joined you knew you were not getting housing allowance and that you would never get housing allowance - yet you still joined CX = so you do not have a leg to stand on.