Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

Young Adelaide Instructors win against CX

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

Young Adelaide Instructors win against CX

Old 5th Apr 2012, 13:34
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: hk
Age: 63
Posts: 153
Young Adelaide Instructors win against CX

Rumour has it that the Adelaide Instructors that were screwed by CX out of their seniority and expat pay have had a win. The 3 CX fathers that took their cause on, have had a BIG win against the DFO and CX. They are just about to start a course in Adelaide and will be in CX soon. They were back paid 3 years salary and their seniority was also back dated to the day they went to Adelaide as instructors 3 years ago. Well done to the 3 Dads on getting things done. Looks as though they will join as expat F/O's. This has cost CX big bucks..millions
PanZa-Lead is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 14:19
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 191
While, if this is true, I'm happy these guys got what they had originally agreed to, I don't see how 3 years' seniority buys them an F/O slot. Upgrades are running at 4 years plus at the moment.
ron burgandy is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 15:10
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,426
So if a LEP joins CX check and training does he get expat terms after 3 years?
SMOC is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 16:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1,945
Three cheers to the young men for standing against the company to get what they are contractually entitled to! Perhaps our pilot group can do the same???

We have this little portion of our CoS that addresses positioning on CPA aircraft and boarding priority 1B/F. I'm pretty sure sitting on the freighter does not satisfy that requirement, yet many of us are rostered to do it regularly.

Will we learn from our 3 newest pilots or stick with what hasn't been working?
cxorcist is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 17:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Brexitland
Posts: 1,122
Absolutely disgraceful, cowardly and plainly dishonest behaviour by our DFO and his cohorts (otherwise known as 'the CX Family'). These young men were misled outrageously and any fair minded person, let alone their ultimate Boss, would not have allowed this to happen at all - let alone get this far.
Well done to the Dads.
Arfur Dent is online now  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 21:23
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 164
And why did their dads have to take care of it?

Wasn't it something the AOA should have been doing?

Anyway, good for them!
fly123456 is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 21:30
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1,945
Were / are they in the AOA? Honest question.

That might help explain some of it...
cxorcist is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2012, 23:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 677
At least they now know what CX is like. Better they know and make the decision to get out now, rather than join and only after a while realise the kind of company this is!
geh065 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 03:23
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 49
Shame

Isn't it a shame that before the guys even start their career proper, their employer is out to screw them over.

Why would you even join. I'd just flip 'em the bird and go elsewhere.

CX really are a disgraceful company.

Fcuk CX. I hope that low a55 RH rots in hell.

Screw them for all you can get and move on.
larrikan larry is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 04:28
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 234
Wasn't it something the AOA should have been doing?

yes it was and the AOA did. the three and several others are members.
AnAmusedReader is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 05:12
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 55
Absolutely disgraceful colonial white expat racism paid for by A scale daddies,I know the local ex Adelaide cadets know the instructor ruse in a flying school is a joke.All of whom are not HK Chinese is clearly racist.I got expat terms when I came here with 8000+ hours and 6 years jet command time, not a few circuits in a bloody flying school!
NOT ORANGE is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 08:08
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: HKG 'visitor'
Posts: 291
Well done to the Young Chaps and the "Experienced" helpers!

RH/TT et al: invertebrates... honouring a Contract, requires errr... Honour.
spleener is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 08:56
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 4
Two Dads, PB & BS are NOT members of the AOA.
Plover is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 15:42
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 39
May I ask which court did they win their case?

If this is true, then can I file a case against the company for the breach of my contract? If CX gave instructor cadets seniority when they are still an instructor in ADL, and not operating a CX aircraft, not being pay by CX, not on CX payroll, not even working for CX. Then these instructors are clearly violating our seniority system.

So if above is true, then CX will have breach my contract with regards to:

1) Violation of our seniority system. (ie: How seniority are assigned? Assigning seniority to pilot not on CX payroll, and not being pay by CX, and not even working for CX)
2) Method of Entry to become a CX pilot? (DEFO, DESO, Cadet)
3) CX crew operating CX aircraft, so if they are CX crew, then clearly they are not operating CX aircraft while they are training for a third party organization with no shareholdings relations to CX?

Anyway, I am at a cross road here, I am extremely happy that these instructor cadets won their case. I think it is about time someone stuck up for themselves against the company. So good for them.

However, by hiring them and assigning them seniority out of order, they pretty much by-pass 3 years worth of CX pilots (real S/O) in terms of seniority. And these are our junior S/O who are actually working in a CX aircraft, while these instructors are doing something that our contract does not allow them to do (ie: Earning a CX seniority but not flying CX aircraft and not on CX payroll and not officially employ by CX). This is a much bigger deal as than just some instructor cadets, this is about a violation of our seniority system.

So just a thought for everyone who is cheering! I am at a cross road here, I don't know if you guys can see my point of view here.
cxhk is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 16:03
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 43
Posts: 982
They did in fact get seniority numbers when they signed the contract with CX that also entitled them to expat terms. CX a while later said sorry, no longer the deal, local terms and no seniority until you join as a Cadet SO. They had already been instructing in ADL for some time. Yes it is an odd situation but there was a route to join CX this way, which they did. CX then changed the terms after the fact.

I got my seniority number in ADL, whilst flying FTA aircraft, one month before stepping foot in HKG.
SloppyJoe is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2012, 20:58
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: hong kong
Posts: 194
The more factual events are......CX in typical style attempted to use the Racial Discrimination Ordinance to welch out of the commitment given to approx a dozen instructors employed in a period when retaining instructors in Adelaide was near impossible. A special deal was created to give the College some stability and to reward the instructors for their 3 year commitment to Adelaide with seniority and DOJ dates relating to their start dates in ADL. Some of the instructors were actually on CX courses and opted for the more generous expat terms being offered which made sense at the time and delayed their move to HKG. Had they stayed on those courses they probably would have been FO's now.

Some time after being entrenched in the instructing job and very vunerable CX attempted to back peddle on the deal removing significant signed agreements. What is important is the contracts were signed in Australia and not HKG with its weak industrial protection of which CX has enjoyed forever. A few but not the majority of these instructors did have fathers who were pilots in CX. Some of them lobbied very strongly to the DFO and CEO about the injustices of what CX was attempting.

Previous offers by CX to fix the issue have been far short of the mark and at the end of the day the Instructors should get every single item promised including , seniority and DOJ. My understanding is they would have to do a certain amount of SO time to complete particular modules as an SO even if they did have FO seniority when they eventually arrive.

Many of , if not all of the group of instructors all joined the AOA (unlike some of the fathers which I will never understand) and the AOA has been in constant contact with the instructors on a weekly basis and a lot of effort has been given to them in turning this back around.

There has not been a court case win as such however some sort of settlement has been offered and I know the instructors are being very tight lipped about it, and details are scant. I would hope the AOA publishes an update to detail the latest information on this issue.
CYRILJGROOVE is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2012, 09:38
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Pole
Age: 89
Posts: 110
I may be wrong and events since then may have changed, but I believe they did not get the full win they wanted. While their seniority has been recognised, they will not be on expat terms.
MrClaus is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2012, 10:34
  #18 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,957
I heard that the solution the SK replacement is proposing is to employ them in HKG, once in HKG give them 12 weeks pay and a termination letter.
swh is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2012, 15:22
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 43
Posts: 982
Well if that happens I hope that everyone has the balls to stand behind them.
SloppyJoe is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2012, 15:28
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 39
They did in fact get seniority numbers when they signed the contract with CX that also entitled them to expat terms. CX a while later said sorry, no longer the deal, local terms and no seniority until you join as a Cadet SO. They had already been instructing in ADL for some time. Yes it is an odd situation but there was a route to join CX this way, which they did. CX then changed the terms after the fact.

I got my seniority number in ADL, whilst flying FTA aircraft, one month before stepping foot in HKG.
Yes, all DESO get our seniority while we are in ADL because we are hired as DESO and we have officially sign our contract with CX before heading down to ADL. We are sent down to ADL for our conversion course, which is allowed under our contract. (Contractually, CX can send anyone anywhere for training purposes, if they are under going training for CX operational needs, look under company policy for training and contact details on training.)

However the difference between instructors cadets and DESO are the fact that they are cadets. If you talk to any cadets (I have talk to a few of them), they do not get their seniority until they return to Hong Kong. So by giving seniority to instructor cadets while they are still in ADL, they are by-passing other CX pilot who are genuinely operating a CX aircraft under the HK AOC. Also, these instructors cadet are not on CX payroll, so if they are given seniority while they are instructing in ADL, they are breaching the contract of every cadets and DESO and DEFO who joined CX while these instructors are still instructing in ADL. So is this fair to those cadets entry pilot, DESO or DEFO? I don't think so.


To make it clear for everyone, if you read our contract:

Under Section 3: Terms of Employment

3.1
  • An Officer will serve the Company by operating any aircraft as defined in the Company’s Air Operator’s Certificate in any part of the world and on any of the routes served by the Company, including the operation of special or chartered flights as required by the Company, and perform such other duties in the air and/or on the ground that relate to the Company’s flight operations.
So unless I am mistaken, when did our AOC allow our pilot to operate aircraft own and registers by Flight Training Adelaide? Once these Instructors Cadets are hired as Instructors in ADL, they are no longer under CX training in Adelaide. They are working as instructors, so they are no longer the CX trainee. They are an employee of Flight Training Adelaide.




As for sending our pilots to work at another company, there is an exception: Under 3.2


3.2


  • Notwithstanding 3.1 and subject to mutual agreement between the Company and the Officer, the Company may require a Company designated Check and Training Officer to serve in a Check and Training capacity with any associated company or other airline and the Officer will serve such associated company or other airline save that the Company will remain responsible to the Officer for such payments as he or she may be entitled to in respect of his or her service whether rendered to the Company or to any associated company or other airline. The Salary, allowances, benefits and Conditions of Service of such an Officer will be in accordance with the existing provisions of the agreement between the Officer and the Company. The Company will remain responsible to the Officer for an ongoing Risk Assessment of the Flying Standards of the associated company or other airline for the duration of the Check and Training Assignment.
So unless they are Check and Training Officer, the company can send them to another company to work for training purposes, however, there is a catch, they must to be under CX payroll.



But as we all know, these instructors cadets are NOT under CX payroll, CX are not paying them under contractual terms in our COS. Flight Training Adelaide is paying their payroll. So hence, they can not be officially hired by the company, or else they are in breach of our contract.

Also, if CX would like to argue that they are consider Check and Trainer at CX. Then it open a big cans of worms, there are HKCAD requirements to be met, company training requirements in HK, CAD approval etc. Therefore, I don't think CX will attempt to call the instructors cadet, CX Check and Training Officer.



Finally as for seniority, if you read Section 5 of our contact and Appendix 2 of our contract regarding "The Aircrew Seniority List", it spell out very clearly on how seniority can be assigned, and they DO NOT include entry via instructor cadets and it DOES NOT allow such by-pass of seniority in the contract promised to them by CX.

  • 5.1. The Aircrew Seniority List was established in accordance with the terms and conditions as set out in Appendix 2 of these Conditions of Service.


Appendix 2:

THE AIRCREW SENIORITY LIST
With effect from 1st December 1998, a common seniority list for all pilots (“the Aircrew Seniority List”) was established as follows:
  1. All Senior Captains, Captains and Captains on Probation were assigned a seniority number equivalent to their position on the Aircrew Seniority List - Captains.
  2. All Senior First Officers, First Officers and Junior First Officers were assigned a seniority number at the end of the list in 1 above equivalent to their position on the Aircrew Command Seniority List.
  3. All Direct Entry Second Officers, and Second Officers who joined the Company through the Cadet Pilot Programme and who have completed a minimum of eighteen (18) months’ service, were assigned a seniority number at the end of the list in 2 above equivalent to their position on the Second Officer Seniority List.
  4. Second Officers who joined the Company through the Cadet Pilot Programme and who had not completed eighteen (18) months’ service on 1st December 1998 will be assigned a seniority number after completing eighteen (18) months’ service. Where such Officers have the same date of joining the older Officer will receive the more senior number.
Thereafter, seniority of Officers joining the Company will be established in accordance with 5.3 of these Conditions of Service.




So this is why I am at a cross road, I feel sorry for these instructors cadets because the company take advantaged of them, but I also feel sorry for the normal cadets entry pilot, DESO and even DEFO who are being cheated by these instructors cadets by-passing their seniority, and all the while HKAOA is not doing anything about it. In fact the HKAOA is helping these instructors cadets (who are not eligible to be a HKAOA member), instead of protecting our own pilot seniority system as per our contact.

These instructors cadets shouldn't be hired in their current form in the first place, but the company without consulting with anyone unilaterally hired them, and then cancelled their benefits. So should we and the HKAOA correct what was originally wrong to being with? If we correct this and give these instructors cadets their original contracted seniority, then we are probably breaching the contract / seniority of about 3-400 CX pilots (cadets entry, DEFO [probably no DESO at that point]).

So I hope everyone will understand why I am at a cross road here.
cxhk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.