CX Sponsoring Illegal Pilots
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
For those Americans that had the opportunity and seniority to leave in the past they could have done so. The fact that the bases are full shouldn't require a whole set of new rules or a rebidding effort to accommodate one individual that is throwing a hissy fit because of the time and expense spent acquiring the Green card. There are some very senior Captains that will not be able to be based because their respective bases are full. Does that mean the rules should be changed to continually allow a senior pilot to bump out the most junior pilot from a base??
Despite what you think I also believe that there was nothing illegal in the previous setup, if you can show me anything to the contrary I will happily accept it.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference is that I spent 7 years, and thousands of dollars to obtain LEGAL residence. I am now an American citizen...so I don't have to apologise for any of my opinions. I also intend to actually LIVE in the US, unlike most of the Captains/FO's that are simply going to continue to commute. The bases are being filled by people that don't have legal residence, but the company is doing a special deal to help out a group of people against the interests of the nationals of that nation. It defies belief that the simple unfairness of what is being done is lost on you lot. Of course, flying with many of you I realise that I shouldn't be that surprised.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Flap10 is offline Report Post
FYI, I spoke at length with someone at the immigration dept several years ago. What you say above is correct. The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US. That is the distinction, and that is why it is now being DISALLOWED. It is being disallowed because it has been determined that what CX was doing was never actually LEGAL, and they have been told to sort it out. In other words, the underlying basis for the Canadians being staffed in US ports was NEVER LEGAL. That being the case, CX needs to provide extra slots for them back in Canada, not now engage in a one-off deal to lock the base slots up and keep actual AMERICAN CITIZENS out of their own base for up to the next 20YRS!! Again, if it was reversed, and it was Americans in Canada.....would you be so quick to defend the situation? I think not.
Flap10 is offline Report Post
FYI, I spoke at length with someone at the immigration dept several years ago. What you say above is correct. The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US. That is the distinction, and that is why it is now being DISALLOWED. It is being disallowed because it has been determined that what CX was doing was never actually LEGAL, and they have been told to sort it out. In other words, the underlying basis for the Canadians being staffed in US ports was NEVER LEGAL. That being the case, CX needs to provide extra slots for them back in Canada, not now engage in a one-off deal to lock the base slots up and keep actual AMERICAN CITIZENS out of their own base for up to the next 20YRS!! Again, if it was reversed, and it was Americans in Canada.....would you be so quick to defend the situation? I think not.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee Steve, perhaps you would provide the FULL context of my comments...? What exactly was I replying too...perhaps my comments were justified based on the original comments I was responding to. You should apply for the Corporate Communication Department with that sort of hatchet job....you have all the skills necessary. 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado
You can't deny that you made the comments regardless of the context. Indeed, one was a question rather than a response and that was the one which, to my mind, undermined your case more than any and that was the post regarding taxation matters should you be based in Canada and commute to the US.
Clearly you were considering taking a Canadian base and commuting to the US, otherwise why ask the question in the first place? Now, some years later to be so vehement in your attack on those who are doing what you clearly, at the very least, considered doing strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.
As far as "hatchet jobs" go I disagree. I was simply exposing a weakness in your argument using views that you had expressed publicly on this forum. There was no subterfuge on my part and I have no personal axe (or should that now be ax as you're a US citizen?) to grind. What I find distasteful, however, is the way in which you seem to be trying to claim the moral high ground when history might suggest that you have no right to do so.
STP
You can't deny that you made the comments regardless of the context. Indeed, one was a question rather than a response and that was the one which, to my mind, undermined your case more than any and that was the post regarding taxation matters should you be based in Canada and commute to the US.
Clearly you were considering taking a Canadian base and commuting to the US, otherwise why ask the question in the first place? Now, some years later to be so vehement in your attack on those who are doing what you clearly, at the very least, considered doing strikes me as somewhat hypocritical.
As far as "hatchet jobs" go I disagree. I was simply exposing a weakness in your argument using views that you had expressed publicly on this forum. There was no subterfuge on my part and I have no personal axe (or should that now be ax as you're a US citizen?) to grind. What I find distasteful, however, is the way in which you seem to be trying to claim the moral high ground when history might suggest that you have no right to do so.
STP
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the facts support my position, not undermine it. I did indeed look at the implications of living in Canada and commuting. After extensive research, it was clear that it would not be a sustainable situation (as has proved to be the case, hence the current panic to get legal status). I therefore spent considerable time and effort to obtain my US documents, and eventual citizenship. The company has played fast and loose with all sorts of shady arrangements for 16 years, and now they find that they have been violating the law all that time (as I was told by a top immigration official). I did it the right way, and it has been costly and time consuming. Myself and dozens of other AMERICANS are incensed that the company is going to treat a small group of pilots in an arbitrarily favorable manner at the expense of our expectatons. As I have said on several occasions now, would ANY OTHER base area's national pilot group accept that a large percentage of their precious base slots be occupied by people who aren't even from there, and furthermore probably won't live there but commute back to their actual homes and families? Rhetorical isn't it..?
As for my quoted comments, without the full context they are meaningless. Don't need to explain that further.
As for my quoted comments, without the full context they are meaningless. Don't need to explain that further.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI, I spoke at length with someone at the immigration dept several years ago. What you say above is correct. The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US.
and keep actual AMERICAN CITIZENS out of their own base for up to the next 20YRS!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh, 2cents, what do you mean 'backstabbing'. I happen to disagree with the company's efforts on behalf of a single group of pilots. In case it's missed your attention, the fracturing of condtions over the past 16 years has created one of the most messed up set of conditions of service in the airline industry. This latest arbitrary act is yet again affecting a single group against the interests of the whole. I have a right to an opinion about it, and I can express it as I wish. That does not make me a 'backstabber'. The Immigration Office I spoke to was based at the Immigration headquarters in Washington....so, yes, my information on this subject is verified at the highest level. As for seniority, i'm probably senior to all of them.
Why don't you focus on the simple fact that the company's treatment of different groups in different ways at different times is the REASON that nearly ALL of us are unhappy with this company and our career prospects? Don't shoot the messenger....just my 2cents worth?
Why don't you focus on the simple fact that the company's treatment of different groups in different ways at different times is the REASON that nearly ALL of us are unhappy with this company and our career prospects? Don't shoot the messenger....just my 2cents worth?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aluminum tube
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, Kansas Boy (Tornado Ali)
Before you wind your self up into a heart attack.
I don't Know how long you have been with Cathay, But your PPrune date of 1998 does show to all of us. If you have been here since then, you may have forgotten some of our history.
The short version, Cathay will do what it wants (Within some of the laws). (It fired 49 pilots on one day, has put new contracts in mail boxes with sign or your fired letters, Etc, Etc, Etc and some more Etc).
May I suggest the next course of action for you is to march up the DFO's office and pound your fist on his desk and inform him how you will no longer accept this injustice.
please let us how that goes.
I don't Know how long you have been with Cathay, But your PPrune date of 1998 does show to all of us. If you have been here since then, you may have forgotten some of our history.
The short version, Cathay will do what it wants (Within some of the laws). (It fired 49 pilots on one day, has put new contracts in mail boxes with sign or your fired letters, Etc, Etc, Etc and some more Etc).
May I suggest the next course of action for you is to march up the DFO's office and pound your fist on his desk and inform him how you will no longer accept this injustice.
please let us how that goes.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Immigration Office I spoke to was based at the Immigration headquarters in Washington....so, yes, my information on this subject is verified at the highest level.
The difference is that CX actually BASED the pilots in the US.
Your comments just don't add up! In order to have obtained citizenship through a Green Card you have to have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years I believe. How did you manage to not be based in the US and yet claimed US permanent residency to the Immigration officials. Could it be that you were telling them fibs, in which case you were violating immigration laws to serve your self interests.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's 'bull', then why is CX now going through the panic of trying to get visa's...? As for my being in Washington visiting the Immigration HQ, why is that 'so' hard to believe? I made an appointment, and interviewed. I was explicitly told that you could not be 'based' in the US without documentation. You can only transit into the US to pick up an aircraft for operational reasons. It can not be a 'permanent' condition of your employment. Why don't YOU go and visit Washington and find out the same. If "there is absolutely no stipulation to how many times a HKG based Canadian is allowed to cross the border for the purposes of operating a foreign registered airplane" as you say, then why is CX rushing around to get them visa's? The fact that CX is now rushing around trying to clean it up would suggest that I do in fact know what i'm talking about. The fact that you just can't seem to acknowledge it is your problem.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado,
I'm not shooting the messenger, it's just obvious what your motivations are.
Let me ask you this. If CX decided tomorrow to provide all possible immigration/visa assistance to ANY pilot in ANY base area, would this make you happy? Honestly, would it? I doubt it as it would not help you get your US base. Seniority, plain and simple. That's the way it works, and that's the way it SHOULD work.
One more question. If you think you are senior to all of them, then why aren't you there? Could it be....let me see...because you took a freighter command? So, you essentially took a command WAY out of seniority on crap conditions, and now all of a sudden you are claiming the moral high ground and are concerned about the "interests of the whole"? That's a little rich to say the least...
I'm not shooting the messenger, it's just obvious what your motivations are.
Let me ask you this. If CX decided tomorrow to provide all possible immigration/visa assistance to ANY pilot in ANY base area, would this make you happy? Honestly, would it? I doubt it as it would not help you get your US base. Seniority, plain and simple. That's the way it works, and that's the way it SHOULD work.
One more question. If you think you are senior to all of them, then why aren't you there? Could it be....let me see...because you took a freighter command? So, you essentially took a command WAY out of seniority on crap conditions, and now all of a sudden you are claiming the moral high ground and are concerned about the "interests of the whole"? That's a little rich to say the least...
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Svengali, your 'assumption' about my prune joining date shows your lack of intellectual rigor. You imply i've been at CX since 98...or later. I hope you don't make other incorrect assumptions in other areas of your life... As for a 'history' lesson, i've been here many years longer than you, so save it. I take it you just don't care that CX is once again acting in an arbitrary manner?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2cents, you seem to insist on making incorrect assumption after incorrect assumption. I have been in the company MANY years more than you...and am senior to nearly all the US based pilots in question. Let me ask you a simple question: are you happy with the company acting in an arbitrary manner, and favoring a few to the exclusion of the many? Try and be honest and to the point...I realise that may be difficult for you.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was explicitly told that you could not be 'based' in the US without documentation.
then why is CX rushing around to get them visa's?
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US base is NOT being onshored. USAB is a HK based entity, NOT a US based entity. Get your facts straight. You obviously don't really know what you're talking about.
Last edited by Tornado Ali; 9th Apr 2011 at 07:45.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US base is NOT being onshored. USAB is a HK based entity, NOT US!! Get your facts straight.
Still waiting how you've managed to tell the officials you were a resident of the US when you claim you were never based there???