CX Sponsoring Illegal Pilots
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point: If I was an American on a Sydney base, and the Aus govt now came along and said only Aussies or documented workers allowed....it is highly likely CX would NOT go and get a visa for me. They are only trying to do this because they have a bigger problem on the US bases, because they allowed so many non-americans on the base. I don't think this issue will go quietly....as there are too many Americans who are being marginalised by this decision. Effectively, CX is helping a small group of employees 'steal' a very valuable asset from people who should rightfully have an expectation of moving themselves and their families back home. It would be nice to be able to have my children live near their grandparents back in Denver....but apparently CX thinks that not only should Canadians take up the Canadian bases....they should also lock up all the American ones too. Yea, I think i'll just roll over and let that happen without a fight. Letters and visits to certain politicians/labor leaders offices will be the order of the day going forward. I sincerely hope CX has represented ALL the true and relevant facts to the authorities...because you can be certain they will soon be in possession of a wealth of facts to consider. The best solution, in light of the new residency requirements on a base is to reset the clock, and make room in Canada for Canadians, and the US for Americans. Any other solution is going to lead to a very unpleasant time....
Last edited by Tornado Ali; 7th Apr 2011 at 17:39.
One has to worry about the state of mind of those who repeat themselves
If grandfather rights don't matter then maybe CX should sack everybody who hasn't got a right of abode in HKG at this time.
If grandfather rights don't matter then maybe CX should sack everybody who hasn't got a right of abode in HKG at this time.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't 'grandfather' nearly an entire base to citizens of another country, just because of an anomaly in the way it was originally staffed. Why are you incapable of seeing that CX is bending the rules for a single base, to the exclusion of the rights of the now 100+ legal citizens of that country already employed? Again, it would be fair if they did this for all pilots requesting basing in all bases. To do this in this one instance is highly prejudicial to the Americans employed by CX. Nearly 80% (!) of the base is staffed by non-americans. What exactly is fair about that? I suppose you would be happy to see 80% of the Canadian base staffed by Americans....? btw, most of the Canadians staffed in the US commute back to Canada...so save me your platitudes about 'disrupting their families...! They either need to move to the Canadian bases, or back to HK. They should no longer be able to live with THEIR families in Canada, and also block OUR base from those who really DO want to live with OUR families in the US (where we are from!).
(and as for repeating myself, some of you are so thick and obstinate that it needs repeating until the simple fact of the matter sinks in....)
(and as for repeating myself, some of you are so thick and obstinate that it needs repeating until the simple fact of the matter sinks in....)
Last edited by Tornado Ali; 7th Apr 2011 at 18:43.
Tornado, ( I could have sworn the last post was posted by Air Profit!!!)
Glad to hear you double posted above deliberately and not because you've totally lost all sense of reason.
Not being Canadian or American I have no axe to grind. I do suspect the aggressive attacks on those who originally took bases in good faith will end up being counterproductive.
Out of interest, which base is 80% foreign crewed apart from HK?
Glad to hear you double posted above deliberately and not because you've totally lost all sense of reason.
Not being Canadian or American I have no axe to grind. I do suspect the aggressive attacks on those who originally took bases in good faith will end up being counterproductive.
Out of interest, which base is 80% foreign crewed apart from HK?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....?? what you on?
Trying to compare HK to the outports is basically showing the weakness of your argument. And, if you aren't a yank or canadian, why WOULDN'T you be worried by this development?? If you are in HK, then one day YOUR base might be locked out by someone who really isn't entitled. If you are on another base...then your really are a smug and arrogant p*ick to not really care about how this affects many of us.
Trying to compare HK to the outports is basically showing the weakness of your argument. And, if you aren't a yank or canadian, why WOULDN'T you be worried by this development?? If you are in HK, then one day YOUR base might be locked out by someone who really isn't entitled. If you are on another base...then your really are a smug and arrogant p*ick to not really care about how this affects many of us.
Grow up,
I'm not making any argument just stating an opinion and asking a question.
No, I'm not on a base and my requested base has been given to someone 13 yrs junior to me.
"smug and arrogant p*ick" imo applies to those who post like you
I'm not making any argument just stating an opinion and asking a question.
No, I'm not on a base and my requested base has been given to someone 13 yrs junior to me.
"smug and arrogant p*ick" imo applies to those who post like you
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What you seem to be missing is this: when we ALL had the opportunity to bid to ANY base...I didn't have a problem. With the stroke of a pen, DL restricted all of us (except the Canadians apparently) to ONLY the base area from which we are citizens. Because of THAT, I am incensed by the attempt by the company to go the extra mile to help lock out most of our base to citizens of another country, especially when most of them will continue to live and commute back to Canada. If you can't figure our why this is such a travesty, I can't be bothered to explain it to you further. Time will tell how this all plays out, but do you really expect most of the Americans to sit by and watch this happen without a fight?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Busy, as you said you are neither Canadian or American, would you be satisfied if the company obtained visas for nationals of another country who then staffed nearly 3/4 of your base....permanently? If that is ok with you, then you and I are wasting our time debating this further.
ps. I retract the 'p*ick' comment....that was uncalled for....sorry.
ps. I retract the 'p*ick' comment....that was uncalled for....sorry.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just goes to show how the entire basings concept has been screwed up from the start. The big difference in Euroland is that everyone has the RIGHT to live or work in any given EU nation.....much different than the situation in Canada/US.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado Ali
Get your facts straight. There are 247 Capt and FO based in the US. 55 are Canadians. That's actually 77% Americans and 23% Canadians.
So it is actually exactly the opposite of your claims. But hey who cares about the truth.
Get your facts straight. There are 247 Capt and FO based in the US. 55 are Canadians. That's actually 77% Americans and 23% Canadians.
So it is actually exactly the opposite of your claims. But hey who cares about the truth.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: vancouver
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tonado Ali,
You are confusing me, you said "when we all had the opportunity to bid any base... I didn't have a problem". What has changed with the Canadians in the US, ALL the Canadians that have a base in the US bid under the old system, the same system you said you didn't have a problem with. Now we all have lost the ability to take bases outside our own country you think the rules should be retroactively changed to allow you to get a base your seniority couldn't hold before the changes, how convenient for you this has all been. You also said that with a stroke of the pen everything has changed (except for the Canadians), one again please enlighten me how the Canadians have been treated differently than every other pilot group, please tell me one pilot who has been kicked off her or his base since these changes.... I'm waiting. What about the Americans in Canada, you don't here a bunch of Canadians whining about losing there base to Americans or do you think they should be sent back to Hong Kong as well. I will support your position for any new Canadian pilots wanting a base in the US as the rules HAVE changed. To me this is just like one of my children having a fit after losing a game and saying they didn't understand the rules when they started playing the game.
You are confusing me, you said "when we all had the opportunity to bid any base... I didn't have a problem". What has changed with the Canadians in the US, ALL the Canadians that have a base in the US bid under the old system, the same system you said you didn't have a problem with. Now we all have lost the ability to take bases outside our own country you think the rules should be retroactively changed to allow you to get a base your seniority couldn't hold before the changes, how convenient for you this has all been. You also said that with a stroke of the pen everything has changed (except for the Canadians), one again please enlighten me how the Canadians have been treated differently than every other pilot group, please tell me one pilot who has been kicked off her or his base since these changes.... I'm waiting. What about the Americans in Canada, you don't here a bunch of Canadians whining about losing there base to Americans or do you think they should be sent back to Hong Kong as well. I will support your position for any new Canadian pilots wanting a base in the US as the rules HAVE changed. To me this is just like one of my children having a fit after losing a game and saying they didn't understand the rules when they started playing the game.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: cupertino
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
please tell me one pilot who has been kicked off her or his base since these changes.... I'm waiting.
Just because you have been working illegally in the US for 10 years, doesn't give you the right to continue to do so. Thats called amnesty. They wont do it for the Mexicans who have been living there illegally for decades, im sure they wont do it for you.
If you cant see the unfairness of this, as Tornado Ali eloquently described, then there is no room for further discussion. I understand you dont want your situation to change, it is after all a nice deal, but by keeping a US base, you are denying many others their only opportunity to live outside HK.
EVERY other nationality at CX has the ability to get a base in their home country without having a foreign incumbency already in place. American's are the ONLY group being discriminated against. Since the company doesnt appear to be doing anything about it, and the AOA is playing dumb as usual, then the only recourse American's have is to deal with it through their own justice system. I now spend my layovers drafting letters to my Representatives and US ALPA to have a look into this matter. I suggest ALL American pilots do the same to ensure YOUR and your family's future.
So, you've been in CX 10 mins and already you want his basing!!!!!!!!!!!
See this is why Pilots as a group worldwide are farked
You cannot expect anyone that went on a base 10+ years ago under the rules of the time to just leave now.
This is yet again a right royal ****up by CX, so don't screw the individual.
See this is why Pilots as a group worldwide are farked
You cannot expect anyone that went on a base 10+ years ago under the rules of the time to just leave now.
This is yet again a right royal ****up by CX, so don't screw the individual.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apple
Good luck with that. If the company is not able to get visas they just might base all of the US based Canadians in Canada, reduce the US base slots and PT the then Canadian based Canadians to LAX and SFO to operate flights. This is an absolute legal solution and way cheaper for the company than forcing everyone back to Hong Kong. Case solved.
Good luck with that. If the company is not able to get visas they just might base all of the US based Canadians in Canada, reduce the US base slots and PT the then Canadian based Canadians to LAX and SFO to operate flights. This is an absolute legal solution and way cheaper for the company than forcing everyone back to Hong Kong. Case solved.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: vancouver
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see pilots are still the self serving bunch they have always been. Thanks apple for the incentive, my mom is American and I've have never bothered before but I will contact a lawyer tomorrow to achieve a green card to ensure a long term base in LAX. I hope you and your family enjoy your long term expat life.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC.... by your theory, the company has the bases for the convenience of Canadians; not for operational considerations when people get sick, break a leg, etc... at the last minute.
Multiply Canada's GDP by 10, and you will arrive at the US GDP. I have a feeling US destinations will be more important in the near future for expansion; especially with our newly appointed American CEO. I wonder what JS would think if he knew CX was illegally employing Canadians in the US? How fast would heads roll in FOP - and who would he start with?
How do these issues fare for illegal Canadians on bases? Not very well. I'm not sure CX would enjoy being told that they will not be able to fly to CHI, SEA, BOS, etc... because of CX's shoddy employment practices.
Multiply Canada's GDP by 10, and you will arrive at the US GDP. I have a feeling US destinations will be more important in the near future for expansion; especially with our newly appointed American CEO. I wonder what JS would think if he knew CX was illegally employing Canadians in the US? How fast would heads roll in FOP - and who would he start with?
How do these issues fare for illegal Canadians on bases? Not very well. I'm not sure CX would enjoy being told that they will not be able to fly to CHI, SEA, BOS, etc... because of CX's shoddy employment practices.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: cupertino
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC, thanks for the well wishes. I have been hard at work and starting to get responses. A great place to start for anyone interested in making their opinion heard is the American Consulate. They are the final word and decision making body in all of this. The USCIS is just an administrative exercise.
Seems as though DL(who interestingly enough is Canadian...) tried to apply for H-1B Specialty Occupation visas for his countrymen, which is the appropriate visa for pilots seeking employment in the US, but it was denied based on merit. So they are trying to back-door it with the L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager, claiming that the captains are in Management, and specifically required for the operation. Also they havent told the USCIS that these "Canadian Managers" will not be living in the US working at the US based office, but instead commuting in and out of this supposed US based job. The deceit just gets deeper and deeper. Grab your popcorn gentlemen.
Seems as though DL(who interestingly enough is Canadian...) tried to apply for H-1B Specialty Occupation visas for his countrymen, which is the appropriate visa for pilots seeking employment in the US, but it was denied based on merit. So they are trying to back-door it with the L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager, claiming that the captains are in Management, and specifically required for the operation. Also they havent told the USCIS that these "Canadian Managers" will not be living in the US working at the US based office, but instead commuting in and out of this supposed US based job. The deceit just gets deeper and deeper. Grab your popcorn gentlemen.
An I-797 Notice of Action showing the approval of the visa petition does not guarantee that a visa will be issued at the U.S. consulate or embassy, but L-1 visas are normally approved if the consular officer concludes that the individual is qualified and that both the U.S. company and the foreign parent, subsidiary, affiliate or branch are legitimate.
Basis for visa denial: A consular officer may deny the issuance of an L-1 visa in cases where the officer determines the U.S. company that filed the L-1 petition may not be qualified, or that the parent, subsidiary, affiliate or branch outside the United States is not qualified or does not intend to continue in business after L-1 visa issuance, or that USCIS approved the petition based on a fraud committed by the company or the visa applicant, or that the applicant is ineligible for that class of visa under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In addition, the consular officer may request that the underlying petition be reconsidered by USCIS.
Basis for visa denial: A consular officer may deny the issuance of an L-1 visa in cases where the officer determines the U.S. company that filed the L-1 petition may not be qualified, or that the parent, subsidiary, affiliate or branch outside the United States is not qualified or does not intend to continue in business after L-1 visa issuance, or that USCIS approved the petition based on a fraud committed by the company or the visa applicant, or that the applicant is ineligible for that class of visa under section 212(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act. In addition, the consular officer may request that the underlying petition be reconsidered by USCIS.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC. I have no problem with that solution. CX will adjust the size of any base relevant to the task required. As long as the bases are staffed by people who are legally entitled to be there, and the policy to determine that is EQUITABLE amongst ALL crew. At the moment, CX is engaged in yet another bout of arbitrary madness to plug yet another hole in the dike. As for the ratio of Canadians/Americans on the US base, my numbers were reflecting the pax base crew, not the freighter crew. The pax base was the one first implemented, and was filled by Canadians. These are the most sought after base slots, and therefore are the most contentious. At the very least, there are many freighter captains just waiting for their chance at a pax slot in LAX/SFO. The company's method to solve their problem will lead to a far greater problem when it starts to come under the scrutiny of different agencies and groups. This play is only in the first act...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airplaneridesrfun
No, I don't think we have bases for the convenience of the Canadians. It's pure financials. Let's assume there is 55 Canadians on US bases, over 40 are captains. Let's assume they all have to return to Hong Kong. Let's assume all these positions will be up for bid. I guarantee you that there are not 40 Americans who have the seniority to hold a pax command. Let's be generous and say 10 captain positions will be filled, half from HKG based Americans and half from already based FOs. That leaves 20 FO spots open. can they be filled internally? Probably not, but who cares for the matter of this exercise. That means not counting the FOs a net increase of 35 captains returning to Hong Kong at USD 100k/year plus. That's USD 3.5 million/year. Assume there will be hardly any Canadian base slots for Captains available in the next ten years, plus you need around 22 years seniority to hold a spot as it stands at the moment, these captains will stay min. 10 years in Hong Kong. The result a cost of USD 35 million, not including all other expatriate benefits, 13th month and the cost of FOs.
That's why CX will do whatever it takes to keep the Canadians on the base. And if you think that all your actions against the company in this matter will remain unpunished you are kidding yourself. If the company feels that you guys f__ked this up, they will take action against individuals if known or as a group in some form or another.
No, I don't think we have bases for the convenience of the Canadians. It's pure financials. Let's assume there is 55 Canadians on US bases, over 40 are captains. Let's assume they all have to return to Hong Kong. Let's assume all these positions will be up for bid. I guarantee you that there are not 40 Americans who have the seniority to hold a pax command. Let's be generous and say 10 captain positions will be filled, half from HKG based Americans and half from already based FOs. That leaves 20 FO spots open. can they be filled internally? Probably not, but who cares for the matter of this exercise. That means not counting the FOs a net increase of 35 captains returning to Hong Kong at USD 100k/year plus. That's USD 3.5 million/year. Assume there will be hardly any Canadian base slots for Captains available in the next ten years, plus you need around 22 years seniority to hold a spot as it stands at the moment, these captains will stay min. 10 years in Hong Kong. The result a cost of USD 35 million, not including all other expatriate benefits, 13th month and the cost of FOs.
That's why CX will do whatever it takes to keep the Canadians on the base. And if you think that all your actions against the company in this matter will remain unpunished you are kidding yourself. If the company feels that you guys f__ked this up, they will take action against individuals if known or as a group in some form or another.