CX Sponsoring Illegal Pilots
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really Tornado, it is a simple request, show me, provide me with a link, just anything to substantiate your claim!!!!
Tik Tok...still waiting for an answer to my previous question!!
Tik Tok...still waiting for an answer to my previous question!!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just told you that there are several basing newsletters stating categorically that they do not plan on onshoring the US. So you need to substantiate your claim. As for the other question, I don't even know what you are referring to. Why don't you copy the quote you are going on about and let me see it, k.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 9th Apr 2011 06:40
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How I transferred my Green card to full citizenship is no business of yours. The fact that this issue so incenses me should at least confirm that I do in fact now have legal status. It wouldn't make much sense for me to have such a vested interest in the issue otherwise, would it? But of course, why should you bother to debate the fact of the issue instead of worrying about my citizenship status?
tick tock....where is your documented proof to suggest they are onshoring USAB?
tick tock....where is your documented proof to suggest they are onshoring USAB?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado,
I've quickly re-read all the basing news letters that are available on intra cx and although I've quickly glanced it, I didn't see anything about not on-shoring USAB.
However what I did find was this
Future Taxation Status If On-Shoring AUS/NZ/US Were Carried Out AUS Base
NZ Base
US Base US residents
Non US residents
As you can clearly see on-shoring the US base was always in the plans.
I've quickly re-read all the basing news letters that are available on intra cx and although I've quickly glanced it, I didn't see anything about not on-shoring USAB.
However what I did find was this
Future Taxation Status If On-Shoring AUS/NZ/US Were Carried Out AUS Base
NZ Base
US Base US residents
Non US residents
As you can clearly see on-shoring the US base was always in the plans.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How I transferred my Green card to full citizenship is no business of yours.
why should you bother to debate the fact of the issue instead of worrying about my citizenship status?
Anyway good luck with your attempt at getting a base!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...you quickly read all the basings newsletters...in the past 5 minutes since my last post. Sure. The fact that I saw DL only two weeks ago and he confirmed that there are NO intentions to onshore the US (for many legal reasons), and there are several newsletter references to the same is at this point conclusive. Again, why don't you comment on the main thrust of my posts, which is the fact that the company is treating a group of pilots arbitrarily to the detriment of the rest of us? Go ahead, debate the facts for a change.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're unbelievable. Just keep making it up as you go along. I completed a legal process to obtain citizenship. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise. Any other unsupported assumptions you would like to make?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you've asked me to show you proof and I've provided it, to you. You on the other hand have not!
This isn't going anywhere so say what you have to say, have your last say and will end it!
This isn't going anywhere so say what you have to say, have your last say and will end it!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a generic text you refer to. The company has explicitly stated there are no plans to onshore the US. I'm sure you know that, but again, you aren't even debating the main issue I originally raised (and have continued to highlight). Your right, this isn't going anywhere, as you can't even seem to comment on the main issue.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado
I've just read all the newsletters put out by DL since he took over and I can't find anywhere that it states:
I also did a search on IntraCx for anything related to USAB and I still can't find anything that states categorically that the US base won't be on-shored. There was a reference in the 2010 Happy New Year letter from NR which said that there was less urgency but no categoric statement. So where are the:
If you've kept them and you've got a scanner you should be able to put this to bed (well, this particular point anyway) by posting a .pdf version. Failing that, if you don't want outsiders to see company information, just post the link and let IntraCx security do the rest.
STP
I've just read all the newsletters put out by DL since he took over and I can't find anywhere that it states:
The company has explicitly stated there are no plans to onshore the US
several basing newsletters stating categorically that they do not plan on onshoring the US
STP
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went through Tornado Ali's previous posts and came up with this
British
Posted September 2007
Hiring date of 1998
Posted 2008
Based in LAX
Conclusion:
Maybe the rumours are true; about a certain freighter training captain.
I too am appalled by the knee-jerk anti-americanism that far too many of our population parrot...without thinking about the facts of history. Something about Lenin's 'Usefull Idiots' comes to mind. Although I am not a fan of Tony Blair, I admire his ability to see through the obvious 'easy politics' that would have been his for the taking, and intstead stood up to the naieve sentiments of most of the UK population and his own party to do what will be seen in history as a brave, moral and principled stand
Posted September 2007
Having been with CX for almost 10 years, this has been their 'modus operendi' since I joined. Hopefully the guys will have the fortitude to 'just say no' to anything that is not acceptable...regardless of the inevitable threats and rumours.
Posted 2008
Last week, the only ticket I could get to travel from Florida to LA was over $400....one way. I was able to use a pass getting back home thankfully. With the NA carriers rapidly reducing domestic capacity and quickly raising prices, pretty soon we will not be able to travel to work without it costing us more than we earn
Conclusion:
Maybe the rumours are true; about a certain freighter training captain.
Last edited by GTC58; 9th Apr 2011 at 16:38.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole sorry thread gives ample demonstration (as if any were needed) of the enormous success of Cathay's "Divide and Rule" policy, instigated by Red Oddbod in the 1990s.
First implemented by Julius Caesar some 2,000 years ago in his Gallic Wars, it has been a winner with tyrranical management ever since.
The only answer is for a WHOLELY united body of pilots to demand change, in th strongest terms.
Bon chance mes amis!
First implemented by Julius Caesar some 2,000 years ago in his Gallic Wars, it has been a winner with tyrranical management ever since.
The only answer is for a WHOLELY united body of pilots to demand change, in th strongest terms.
Bon chance mes amis!
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC.
Regarding your comments, and your incorrect assumptions (in every instance):
British: wrong, I was just making a comment regarding Tony Blairs support for GWB and the invasion of Iraq (but of course, why would you and Steve the Pirate provide a full context to determine that?)
Join date 1998: wrong....and i'll let you figure out why.
LA based: wrong, have lived in Florida for many years....and even I go home on leave once in a while, via LA in this case.
Any other idiotic statements that you would like to make? While you're trying to think up some (shouldn't be difficult for you), why don't you actually offer some comment on the main point I was raising, which was that the company is once again treating a pilot group in an arbitrary manner, and to the detriment of another group of pilots. I would have thought that that would have been an issue that most of us could have agreed on. I think this debate demonstrates why CX will always be able to manipulate and divide this group...because people like you show that you would rather bicker than recognise the danger that this new policy presents to all of us.
Regarding your comments, and your incorrect assumptions (in every instance):
British: wrong, I was just making a comment regarding Tony Blairs support for GWB and the invasion of Iraq (but of course, why would you and Steve the Pirate provide a full context to determine that?)
Join date 1998: wrong....and i'll let you figure out why.
LA based: wrong, have lived in Florida for many years....and even I go home on leave once in a while, via LA in this case.
Any other idiotic statements that you would like to make? While you're trying to think up some (shouldn't be difficult for you), why don't you actually offer some comment on the main point I was raising, which was that the company is once again treating a pilot group in an arbitrary manner, and to the detriment of another group of pilots. I would have thought that that would have been an issue that most of us could have agreed on. I think this debate demonstrates why CX will always be able to manipulate and divide this group...because people like you show that you would rather bicker than recognise the danger that this new policy presents to all of us.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess we have to agree to disagree. You have your point of view and I have mine. I don't bicker at all, as I will have a US visa in a few months. You are the one who bickers.
Enough said, that's my last post.
Enough said, that's my last post.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that would explain why you wouldn't comment on the issue I was raising. You have PERFECTLY explained your point of view. Your earlier attempt at a crude 'scare tactic' is now a lot clearer as to it's true intent. As I said...this is only the first act of the play. And that's my last post as well.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benny, you are correct in this. The other additional problem regarding the Canadian crew will be when they go to file their first US tax return. It will be apparent that they are commuting back to Canada. This will be a violation of their visa requirements. You can't 'emigrate' to the US, and then not 'really' do so in practice. They will also find that their attempt to avoid Canadian taxation will not sit too well with their Canadian based colleagues. Should be an interesting debacle to witness.
I don't much mind if the Canadians obtain visa's. What I do find distasteful is Cathay acting in their time tested manner of ready, fire, aim. They will end up creating even more trouble, not only for themselves as a company, but for the individuals who are sucked in by their ill-conceived policies. This is no way to run a 'railroad'. It is also interesting to see how differently they are dealing with the Canadians vs their treatment of those that needed visa's when the UK went onshore. Where is the AOA on this contradiction. I predict this will not end well.
I don't much mind if the Canadians obtain visa's. What I do find distasteful is Cathay acting in their time tested manner of ready, fire, aim. They will end up creating even more trouble, not only for themselves as a company, but for the individuals who are sucked in by their ill-conceived policies. This is no way to run a 'railroad'. It is also interesting to see how differently they are dealing with the Canadians vs their treatment of those that needed visa's when the UK went onshore. Where is the AOA on this contradiction. I predict this will not end well.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tornado
Personally I couldn't give a rat's a*s (to use the American vernacular) where you come from but you can't deny it's bound to provoke interest considering the topic of this thread.
That aside, you seem quick to attack other peoples' assertions yet reluctant to provide contrary evidence. If you could answer my previous post then I could start to base (ha, ha) my point of view on this topic on fact rather than emotion. I have to say, I can't recall anything that states categorically that the US base won't be on-shored but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. To use a poker analogy, you can't declare that you've won the hand without showing your cards; to do otherwise is simply bluster.
As it's impossible to tell how long you've been around, given your last post, I'll assume it's been long enough for you to understand that there is one major driver behind decisions in this company, as in many others, and that is cost. As I stated in an earlier post, I should imagine that the cost of arranging visas for the Canadians based in the US will be cheaper than any alternative. The fact that you and your fellow aspiring US basees are "collateral damage" is unfortunate. Is the company acting immorally? Personally, I don't think so as they are considering the welfare of those already based under a set of rules that were in place at the time when the base was offered. That the rules changed after the event is not of the Canadians' doing and it could be argued that the company is being morally responsible towards them.
King Neptune
I think this would have happened regardless of the divide and rule dictum as, fundamentally, the majority of people in the western world these days are selfish.
STP
Personally I couldn't give a rat's a*s (to use the American vernacular) where you come from but you can't deny it's bound to provoke interest considering the topic of this thread.
That aside, you seem quick to attack other peoples' assertions yet reluctant to provide contrary evidence. If you could answer my previous post then I could start to base (ha, ha) my point of view on this topic on fact rather than emotion. I have to say, I can't recall anything that states categorically that the US base won't be on-shored but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. To use a poker analogy, you can't declare that you've won the hand without showing your cards; to do otherwise is simply bluster.
As it's impossible to tell how long you've been around, given your last post, I'll assume it's been long enough for you to understand that there is one major driver behind decisions in this company, as in many others, and that is cost. As I stated in an earlier post, I should imagine that the cost of arranging visas for the Canadians based in the US will be cheaper than any alternative. The fact that you and your fellow aspiring US basees are "collateral damage" is unfortunate. Is the company acting immorally? Personally, I don't think so as they are considering the welfare of those already based under a set of rules that were in place at the time when the base was offered. That the rules changed after the event is not of the Canadians' doing and it could be argued that the company is being morally responsible towards them.
King Neptune
I think this would have happened regardless of the divide and rule dictum as, fundamentally, the majority of people in the western world these days are selfish.
STP
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 322
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be apparent that they are commuting back to Canada. This will be a violation of their visa requirements.
L-1 Visa
This visa is given to a person who intends to expand his business in US or being transferred to the US branch of his employer. Canadians can get L-1 at the border itself by providing the necessary documents as per NAFTA treaty. It means that they need not send their application to USCIS. You can get a permanent Canadian Commuter status, and the 7-year-valid L-1 visa can be extended using this.
This visa is given to a person who intends to expand his business in US or being transferred to the US branch of his employer. Canadians can get L-1 at the border itself by providing the necessary documents as per NAFTA treaty. It means that they need not send their application to USCIS. You can get a permanent Canadian Commuter status, and the 7-year-valid L-1 visa can be extended using this.
the L-1A Intracompany Transferee Executive or Manager, claiming that the captains are in Management,
It is obvious that the interpretation and the rules are beyond the scope of our understanding via simple Google searches.
Tornado Ali,
I have to agree there has been nothing but contrary statements from you. Your hand has been caught in the cookie jar where you specifically stated you have been at CX for almost ten years, and then you claim you have been here much longer than that and are senior to the majority currently on a base. Which is it?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Benny
The nature of the ad hominem arguments against Tornado were inevitable as his own argument was never really based on the premise that he was trying to alert the Canadian US-based pilots to a potential legal issue, rather that he was planning to take action against his colleagues, possibly based on the fact they they are in possession of something that he wants.
Regardless of his nationality, background or location, one can't help but glean more than a hint of vindictiveness in his argument. At times he's tried to couch his argument in terms that he is trying to protect "the greater good" of the pilot body as a whole but, too often in my opinion, that thin veneer barely covers what appears to be nothing other than contempt. I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling when people start talking of writing to law makers and visiting consulates. As OCD says, this will not end well.
STP
The nature of the ad hominem arguments against Tornado were inevitable as his own argument was never really based on the premise that he was trying to alert the Canadian US-based pilots to a potential legal issue, rather that he was planning to take action against his colleagues, possibly based on the fact they they are in possession of something that he wants.
Regardless of his nationality, background or location, one can't help but glean more than a hint of vindictiveness in his argument. At times he's tried to couch his argument in terms that he is trying to protect "the greater good" of the pilot body as a whole but, too often in my opinion, that thin veneer barely covers what appears to be nothing other than contempt. I might be wrong, and I hope I am, but I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling when people start talking of writing to law makers and visiting consulates. As OCD says, this will not end well.
STP