CX Sponsoring Illegal Pilots
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ooohhhh, i'm so scared...!!! If there are not enough US pilots to staff the base, then they either upgrade/train, or they leave the slots open until they can be filled. At the most, they can be temporarily filled until the next American is trained who can hold it. Many base slots in the UK and Aus stay unfilled because there are not enough volunteers (certainly that was the case until recently). The company didn't go an apply for visas to fill those slots. I don't really care what CX wants to do. I am waiting for a slot in the US....and I will NOT see those slots filled for the next decade or so by people that aren't even LIVING there, but commuting back to their homes and families in Canada. CX goes down this road at their peril.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado Ali
Most US freighter captains don't have the seniority to hold a pax command. Well, MB and a couple of other captains that's it. Most Ex-ASL captains have a seniority not even qualifying them for a US base pax FO slot.
Most US freighter captains don't have the seniority to hold a pax command. Well, MB and a couple of other captains that's it. Most Ex-ASL captains have a seniority not even qualifying them for a US base pax FO slot.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC. You're missing the point. The most senior pilots who have the legal right to live in a respective base area must get those slots. Otherwise, see my other solutions mentioned in my earlier post. Since CX decided that you couldn't bid for any base slot UNLESS you had the right to live and work, the slots therefore must now go to legal residents. I can't apply for a Melbourne slot can I....but I would like one...? Unless CX are willing to sponsor all pilots for all bases, how can they justify just doing it in the US? Is that fair?
Another point is this: Why should an entire base be majority occupied by foreign nationals for the next decade or so, just because of an anomaly with the original formation of basings. Such a situation would not be tolerated on any other base, so why the US ?
Another point is this: Why should an entire base be majority occupied by foreign nationals for the next decade or so, just because of an anomaly with the original formation of basings. Such a situation would not be tolerated on any other base, so why the US ?
Last edited by Tornado Ali; 8th Apr 2011 at 02:25.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado Ali
You don't understand how the captain bidding system works at Cathay.
All commands are awarded in seniority in HKG. So at the moment guys with a seniority # in the high 900s can hold a pax command. If you are already a pax captain you can bid a pax command vacancy or if you started your command course in HKG you can bid a Pax base vacancy. If you are a freighter captain and you have fulfilled your freighter commitment and you have the seniority to hold a pax command you can bid a pax base vacancy.
So if all the US based Canadian captain spots become available you would need presently an approx. seniority # between 970 and 1020 or below, plus US citizenship or the right to live and work in the US. If nobody wants the US slots or there is no US citizens in the above seniority # range these positions either stay vacant and flights will be crewed with HKG crew or CX will close these vacancies and flights also will be crewed by HKG captains.
That's how the new system works.
You don't understand how the captain bidding system works at Cathay.
All commands are awarded in seniority in HKG. So at the moment guys with a seniority # in the high 900s can hold a pax command. If you are already a pax captain you can bid a pax command vacancy or if you started your command course in HKG you can bid a Pax base vacancy. If you are a freighter captain and you have fulfilled your freighter commitment and you have the seniority to hold a pax command you can bid a pax base vacancy.
So if all the US based Canadian captain spots become available you would need presently an approx. seniority # between 970 and 1020 or below, plus US citizenship or the right to live and work in the US. If nobody wants the US slots or there is no US citizens in the above seniority # range these positions either stay vacant and flights will be crewed with HKG crew or CX will close these vacancies and flights also will be crewed by HKG captains.
That's how the new system works.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have absolutely no problem with what you describe. They can leave the slots vacant and crew them from HK. What is not acceptable is to give special treatment to a group of crew thereby blocking the base slots for many years to come. No other base, nor pilot group is being treated in such a manner. I should have the expectation of bidding into a US slot when I am able. I shouldn't have to see those slots occupied by people who not only are filling the slots in their own country, but are now (with CX's help!) filling the slots in MY country. To further add insult to injury, most of them are still living in Canada and commuting in and out of the US, thereby getting their cake and eating it to. Meanwhile, all of us yanks stuck in HK see years of basing unavailability in our home port. CX needs to completely revamp the basings concept, and rebid all slots based on seniority and residency....you know, like a company would do if they actually cared about following proper laws and being fair to all staff. As a person can only bid for a base in their home country, the base slots in each country are far more valuable than previously, and therefore MUST be reserved for legal residents of that country. No exceptions. CX need to allow all US based canadians to be based back in Canada....much as they did with the extra freighter slots. It's their screw up, started back in 1994. If you refuse to plan properly and try to cut corners, you eventually end up with the fiasco we are presently dealing with.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair enough.
Please do me a favor then. If you want it all fair can you please also write to the Canadian authorities while you are at it to remove all Americans from their Canadian bases. I would greatly appreciate if they also have to be forced back to Hong Kong as you desire for us Canadians.
( I am sarcastic here, of course I don't agree with your sentiment)
Please do me a favor then. If you want it all fair can you please also write to the Canadian authorities while you are at it to remove all Americans from their Canadian bases. I would greatly appreciate if they also have to be forced back to Hong Kong as you desire for us Canadians.
( I am sarcastic here, of course I don't agree with your sentiment)
Last edited by GTC58; 8th Apr 2011 at 11:41.
Tornado Ali, There is 1 DE FO on a Mel base that CX did apparently help to sponsor to live in Aus. Previously the person lived in an Indian Ocean Island country.
The partner came out too.
The partner came out too.
Benny, you know ( or should know ) that the reason CX is not opening up more bases ( part from SYD FO's ) is because they have been instructed to hold off by Swires until they sort out the mess they created.
Once this is fixed ( and it will be ) bases will open up again.
CX just save way too much money to not do it.
Once this is fixed ( and it will be ) bases will open up again.
CX just save way too much money to not do it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if all the US based Canadian captain spots become available you would need presently an approx. seniority # between 970 and 1020 or below, plus US citizenship or the right to live and work in the US. If nobody wants the US slots or there is no US citizens in the above seniority # range these positions either stay vacant and flights will be crewed with HKG crew or CX will close these vacancies and flights also will be crewed by HKG captains.
That's how the new system works.
That's how the new system works.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apple314
You keep repeating the above as though you are sure of yourself. For one thing there was nothing illegal about it. You keep forgetting the all important fact that Cathay is NOT a US registered company. You refer to the base as though it was always a US registered entity, which it never was. For all intents and purposes outside of Cathay there never really was a base in the eyes of the US authorities. Please explain to me the difference to a HK based Canadian pilot operating to LAX on a long layover and then the pilot making arrangements to fly to Canada and back again as a pax to visit family? Are you telling me that the pilot reentering the US to operate LAX-HKG is entering the US illegally?? Or a foreign cargo ship that docks in LAX and takes on an entirely new crew for the return journey. Are you telling me that these non US nationals employed by a foreign company, operating a foreign registered ship are entering the US illegally???
Tornado Ali
You keep using Sydney as an example, but you do realize that there are a few Kiwis based in Sydney and commute to Auckland. Yes yes I know that Kiwis do not require any VISAs, but by your analogy they are essentially preventing an Australian national from taking a Sydney base. The fact that one requires a VISA and one that does not is really semantics from your point of argument.
Just because you have been working illegally in the US for 10 years, doesn't give you the right to continue to do so.
Tornado Ali
You keep using Sydney as an example, but you do realize that there are a few Kiwis based in Sydney and commute to Auckland. Yes yes I know that Kiwis do not require any VISAs, but by your analogy they are essentially preventing an Australian national from taking a Sydney base. The fact that one requires a VISA and one that does not is really semantics from your point of argument.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flap .10
Why don't you give a bit more thought before posting? Your comments regarding the Canadians in the US are invalid. They are invalid because the US has now insisted that ANY pilots BASED in the US MUST have a VISA. Therefore your mental gymnastics trying to justify them being there as 'visitors' or 'transients' are meaningless. They have to be legal....next question??
As for the Kiwi/Aus issue, BOTH (i'll repeat....BOTH) groups have equal rights in each others respective countries. No group has an advantage over the other. Again, very different from the Can/US issue, where ONE group is obtaining a special benefit at the expense of the other (until the authorities and politicians and labor groups are made well aware of what's REALLY going on
)
Why don't you give a bit more thought before posting? Your comments regarding the Canadians in the US are invalid. They are invalid because the US has now insisted that ANY pilots BASED in the US MUST have a VISA. Therefore your mental gymnastics trying to justify them being there as 'visitors' or 'transients' are meaningless. They have to be legal....next question??
As for the Kiwi/Aus issue, BOTH (i'll repeat....BOTH) groups have equal rights in each others respective countries. No group has an advantage over the other. Again, very different from the Can/US issue, where ONE group is obtaining a special benefit at the expense of the other (until the authorities and politicians and labor groups are made well aware of what's REALLY going on
)
Last edited by Tornado Ali; 8th Apr 2011 at 17:24.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that CX is looking at getting visas for the US based Canadians for reasons other than spite? Perhaps they could be looking at it from a morals point of view (unlikely I know) in that some of these people have been based for a number of years. Forcing them to return to HKG due to a change in US government requirements (if that's the case as Ali points out) is just wrong if there's something relatively simple that can be done.
The second possible (probable) reason is cost. It's cheaper to provide visas to the Canadians on US bases than to "repatriate" them to HKG or run the risk of them resigning over a forced return. Let's assume that all Canadians are forced to return to Hong Kong - are there enough US citizens to replace them on the US bases? If not, the net increase in expatriate benefits would far outweigh the cost a few visas. Let's assume that, having been forced to return to Hong Kong, all (or even some) Canadians resign - how are those pilots going to be replaced? I would hazard a guess that Tornado Ali's answer to both questions would be "Don't care" and "Don't care".
STP
PS. This wouldn't be the first time CX has sponsored pilots to work in a country other than their own - I think even US citizens needed a work visa when they came to Hong Kong.
The second possible (probable) reason is cost. It's cheaper to provide visas to the Canadians on US bases than to "repatriate" them to HKG or run the risk of them resigning over a forced return. Let's assume that all Canadians are forced to return to Hong Kong - are there enough US citizens to replace them on the US bases? If not, the net increase in expatriate benefits would far outweigh the cost a few visas. Let's assume that, having been forced to return to Hong Kong, all (or even some) Canadians resign - how are those pilots going to be replaced? I would hazard a guess that Tornado Ali's answer to both questions would be "Don't care" and "Don't care".
STP
PS. This wouldn't be the first time CX has sponsored pilots to work in a country other than their own - I think even US citizens needed a work visa when they came to Hong Kong.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado Ali
An expert team from Swire has been put together to tackle the complex issues facing the on-shoring, but you and Apple seem to know everything...**** they should have consulted you two.
What makes you think the US is insisting VISAs for these pilots? Are you personally involved with all the details of the on-shoring? These VISAs may stem from the fact that CX is attempting to on-shore the US bases, in which case there is a fundamental change in that now you have a US registered entity, but certainly not because unknown to CX they were illegal for all these years.
From the US immigration point of view there was nothing illegal about Canadians flying to JFK, SFO, LAX, etc. to operate a foreign registered aircraft. Some of us in the past have actually consulted immigration lawyers, so fair to say that I can speak with a bit more credibility than you. For the past 14 years or so we've had Canadians from different embarkation points in Canada (where you clear US immigration) fly into the US, and not once were crews being whisked away and denied entry.
You obviously don't see the holes in your argument. These pilots were LEGALLY there long before they actually disadvantaged anyone. No different than the Kiwi on the Australian base.
They are invalid because the US has now insisted that ANY pilots BASED in the US MUST have a VISA.
What makes you think the US is insisting VISAs for these pilots? Are you personally involved with all the details of the on-shoring? These VISAs may stem from the fact that CX is attempting to on-shore the US bases, in which case there is a fundamental change in that now you have a US registered entity, but certainly not because unknown to CX they were illegal for all these years.
From the US immigration point of view there was nothing illegal about Canadians flying to JFK, SFO, LAX, etc. to operate a foreign registered aircraft. Some of us in the past have actually consulted immigration lawyers, so fair to say that I can speak with a bit more credibility than you. For the past 14 years or so we've had Canadians from different embarkation points in Canada (where you clear US immigration) fly into the US, and not once were crews being whisked away and denied entry.
As for the Kiwi/Aus issue, BOTH (i'll repeat....BOTH) groups have equal rights in each others respective countries. No group has an advantage over the other.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, bringing a knife to a gunfight again F10. Firstly, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green Card (so, considering the utter inept way that CX has handled the basings from the start, yes, I probably DO know more than they do...). Second, you just don't see to get the main point to you? That is that because CX has arbitrarily CHANGED the criteria for staffing a base, the main point NOW being that you must have legal residence status, the value of each nations basing slots is 10 fold what it used to be, because the ONLY base we can bid on is the one in our own country. Most of the Canadians based in the US commute anyway. Why should they be allowed to not only lock up the slots for many many years, but at the same time not even live in the country. Imagine if a large percentage of the Canadian base was staffed by Americans, and they all lived back in the US, but only commuted into work....meanwhile hundreds of Canadians and their families are stuck in HK because they CAN'T bid onto their own base?? I'm sure that would seem fair huh...? If you can't see that the new base rules require a wholesale rebidding effort, instead of this singular attempt to favor a particular subset of pilots, and consequently disadvantaging many other pilots, then you really are drinking the koolaid. As for the Aus/NZ example, I clearly explained why it is a different case in an earlier thread....but no surprise, you didn't understand that either. I can't be bothered to continue this debate further, because if you can't see the obvious you aren't worth arguing with.
ps. your last comment: they weren't 'there' legally earlier. They were moving in and out of the US as a subterfuge......and it worked for many years. Now the game is over.....but why recognise the truth eh?
ps. your last comment: they weren't 'there' legally earlier. They were moving in and out of the US as a subterfuge......and it worked for many years. Now the game is over.....but why recognise the truth eh?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado Ali
Let me ask you are you a Captain now? Because I certainly know a few American Captains that had the opportunity to take a base, but decided to stay in HKG for just a few more years to capitalize on the housing allowance or the property market. If you happen to be one of the above, aren't you trying to have your cake and eat it to?? Be careful how you criticize.
To further add insult to injury, most of them are still living in Canada and commuting in and out of the US, thereby getting their cake and eating it to. Meanwhile, all of us yanks stuck in HK see years of basing unavailability in our home port
Last edited by Flap10; 9th Apr 2011 at 02:24.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado
If you're a "yank", as you so delicately put it, why would you need a Green Card?
STP
Meanwhile, all of us yanks stuck in HK see years of basing unavailability in our home port.
Firstly, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green Card
STP
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
, I have had several consultations with a top immigration lawyer over the past few years, the purpose of which was to obtain my Green Card
FYI an immigration lawyer was consulted to the issue at hand, ie. the legality of a Canadian crossing the border to operate a foreign registered aircraft. not about how to get a Green Card, so please put away the Pez pistol.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado,
Uh, it's called SENIORITY!! They are SENIOR to you. Next question.
If they were SENIOR to me, YES, of course that's fair - DUH!. That is how seniority works. Next question.
Most of the Canadians based in the US commute anyway. Why should they be allowed to not only lock up the slots for many many years, but at the same time not even live in the country.
Imagine if a large percentage of the Canadian base was staffed by Americans, and they all lived back in the US, but only commuted into work....meanwhile hundreds of Canadians and their families are stuck in HK because they CAN'T bid onto their own base?? I'm sure that would seem fair huh...?
Last edited by 2 cents; 9th Apr 2011 at 02:45.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado Ali
This from you a couple of years ago:
So, even though perhaps you're not based, you can't deny that you were thinking at some stage of doing exactly what you're accusing the US-based Canadians of doing.
It's also obvious that you don't like Canadians based on the following quotes, once again from a few years back:
And this would point to your heritage:
Pot calling kettle black, people who live in glasshouses and suchlike are proverbs that spring to mind.
STP
This from you a couple of years ago:
Can anyone answer a question: If you are based in Canada, but live in the US, how will taxes be handled (withholding etc). Thanks.
It's also obvious that you don't like Canadians based on the following quotes, once again from a few years back:
please tell me that you don't represent the educational level of the average Canadian..?
....typical canadian response. You have a pathetic domestic industry, and you have been responsible for a worldwide downgrade of pilot conditions. enough said.
I don't agree with everything the USA does, but sitting here in Blighty
STP