BA Direct Entry Roadshows
Nearly all went back to BA (edited after Dan's post below) and they had been on full CX B Scale with reasonable housing, etc. Says it all, really.
The funniest thing was the frantic bidding by some of our cabin crew for 'Second Officer futures on the Bombay stock market'; many a young British lad left HKG with an Indian missus after having been very aggressively targeted!
The funniest thing was the frantic bidding by some of our cabin crew for 'Second Officer futures on the Bombay stock market'; many a young British lad left HKG with an Indian missus after having been very aggressively targeted!
Last edited by Captain Dart; 29th Nov 2015 at 07:13.
Sorry, little bit confused here, are you guys saying living in GB is better than HKG......pricelessss. I thought QF dudes won the whinginging Oscars but you guys truly take the cake
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA over CX hands down!!
If you stick around CX, they will attempt to make you sign a new contract to take or keep a base. This does not mean that they are always successful.
If you watch what is happening in the US right now, you will understand. All officers are 'required' to sign a contract by December 4th in order to keep their base.... clearly in contravention to good faith bargaining under the Railway Labor Act in the USA. The kicker and divider is this. Most US based pilots do not have the right to work or live in the US. If any of them returned to HK, they would never get a North American base (judging by their seniority numbers). Therefore, those suckers will sign the dotted line, and complain that a gun was pointed at their head. What these individuals do not know (but should), is that CX wants them to validate their paycut in 2008, and sign the contract. After Dec 4th, CX will be make it mandatory to prove the right to work in the US, and if that condition is not met, these officers will have to return to HK anyway as of Jan 1st; hence the Dec 4th deadline.
Now do you see why they can't open a NYC base???
Once you understand how CX operates, BA looks pretty good!! Eventually, you can fly the trunk routes to destinations throughout the commonwealth, and live in a civilized country.
Just a rumor of course, but that is what this board is all about.
If you stick around CX, they will attempt to make you sign a new contract to take or keep a base. This does not mean that they are always successful.
If you watch what is happening in the US right now, you will understand. All officers are 'required' to sign a contract by December 4th in order to keep their base.... clearly in contravention to good faith bargaining under the Railway Labor Act in the USA. The kicker and divider is this. Most US based pilots do not have the right to work or live in the US. If any of them returned to HK, they would never get a North American base (judging by their seniority numbers). Therefore, those suckers will sign the dotted line, and complain that a gun was pointed at their head. What these individuals do not know (but should), is that CX wants them to validate their paycut in 2008, and sign the contract. After Dec 4th, CX will be make it mandatory to prove the right to work in the US, and if that condition is not met, these officers will have to return to HK anyway as of Jan 1st; hence the Dec 4th deadline.
Now do you see why they can't open a NYC base???
Once you understand how CX operates, BA looks pretty good!! Eventually, you can fly the trunk routes to destinations throughout the commonwealth, and live in a civilized country.
Just a rumor of course, but that is what this board is all about.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't there an Agreement (and hasn't there always been) between the US and Canadian Govts that states as aircrew you can work out of either country as citizen of either country and basically live anywhere. Which means that all along Canadians and Americans have had the right to legally bid on bases in either country.
I think AOAC are currently "confirming" this agreement via lawyers in an attempt to get Cathay to understand that perhaps an agreement in US and Canadian law should be considered alongside our COS.
I think AOAC are currently "confirming" this agreement via lawyers in an attempt to get Cathay to understand that perhaps an agreement in US and Canadian law should be considered alongside our COS.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, there is not. Just because someone says it, does not make it true. The same goes for this board, so feel free to post the relevant agreement you are referring to.
Mexicans are also not legally allowed to work in the USA without marrying a fat woman, or having a green card. Why would any other nationality be different?
Mexicans are also not legally allowed to work in the USA without marrying a fat woman, or having a green card. Why would any other nationality be different?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another day. There is NO such agreement between the US and Canada. Unless you are an illiterate, non-english speaking brown skinned skill-less vagrant who stumbles across the Rio Grande with your belongings in a plastic shopping bag, you are not welcome. If you fall under the above mentioned category you will be supported by numerous illegal alien support groups and eventually be given a green card. Canadians however are NOT welcome.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: the world
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait...what does filling out an I-9 have to do with opening a JFK base?
The only reason they are not opening any bases, giving out base slots is that they do NOT have enough people to man HonG Kong much less let anyone go on a base.
It will be years before CX awards more than 1 or 2 guys to go on a base. They keep dangling the carrot so we won't leave.
Many of us have or are resigned to being career F/O's on a base. Cat A and Easily senior enough to be hkg based captain, there is no chance I would ever go back to Hong Kong. Did my time.
Sad thing is, when I joined there was a JFK base on the 74 pax and freighter. One could expect to eventually be a captain on a base...no more. Ah well. It is what it is.
Make ones bed now lie in it.
The only reason they are not opening any bases, giving out base slots is that they do NOT have enough people to man HonG Kong much less let anyone go on a base.
It will be years before CX awards more than 1 or 2 guys to go on a base. They keep dangling the carrot so we won't leave.
Many of us have or are resigned to being career F/O's on a base. Cat A and Easily senior enough to be hkg based captain, there is no chance I would ever go back to Hong Kong. Did my time.
Sad thing is, when I joined there was a JFK base on the 74 pax and freighter. One could expect to eventually be a captain on a base...no more. Ah well. It is what it is.
Make ones bed now lie in it.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airplaneridesrfun
you are very misinformed and clearly you have no clue what is going on in regards of the US on-shoring.
1. The deadline is Dec 8th.
2. USAOA lawyers determined that it is legal for the company to impose first contract
3. Actually most pilots on the US bases have to right to live and work in the USA.
There are only approx. 10 Canadian Senior FO's left on US bases. And they have the right to work for CX on a US base, but not the right to live in the US. Every officer on the US bases filled out the I-9 form. Nobody will have to return to HKG.
4. Most Canadians on a US base are very senior as they are captains or could hold a command in HKG. There is only a handful officers left with 8-9 years seniority.
5. No-one signed a new contract, just a transfer letter to the new US company, as per USAOA recommendation.
6. Only B-scale FO's could potentially take a pay-cut, however pay is protected until the first negotiated CBA. Most US FO's receive B-scale pay, so a pay-cut for them in CBA negotiations will be a hard sell in the current environment.
You wrote:
"What these individuals do not know (but should), is that CX wants them to validate their paycut in 2008, and sign the contract."
Are you for real? You absolutely have no clue what you are talking about.
And if they ever open up a JFK base, the majority of JFK Commands will go to some very Senior Freighter Captains and very Senior CAT A'd FO's who are already on a US base. Many US based FO's turned down their Command in HKG and are waiting for a Command on a US base. If AOAC wins their grievance/arbitration there might be some Canadian Captains and FO's bidding for it too. As for FO slots, the only way to fill all of them is to hire DEFO again, directly onto the base.
you are very misinformed and clearly you have no clue what is going on in regards of the US on-shoring.
1. The deadline is Dec 8th.
2. USAOA lawyers determined that it is legal for the company to impose first contract
3. Actually most pilots on the US bases have to right to live and work in the USA.
There are only approx. 10 Canadian Senior FO's left on US bases. And they have the right to work for CX on a US base, but not the right to live in the US. Every officer on the US bases filled out the I-9 form. Nobody will have to return to HKG.
4. Most Canadians on a US base are very senior as they are captains or could hold a command in HKG. There is only a handful officers left with 8-9 years seniority.
5. No-one signed a new contract, just a transfer letter to the new US company, as per USAOA recommendation.
6. Only B-scale FO's could potentially take a pay-cut, however pay is protected until the first negotiated CBA. Most US FO's receive B-scale pay, so a pay-cut for them in CBA negotiations will be a hard sell in the current environment.
You wrote:
"What these individuals do not know (but should), is that CX wants them to validate their paycut in 2008, and sign the contract."
Are you for real? You absolutely have no clue what you are talking about.
And if they ever open up a JFK base, the majority of JFK Commands will go to some very Senior Freighter Captains and very Senior CAT A'd FO's who are already on a US base. Many US based FO's turned down their Command in HKG and are waiting for a Command on a US base. If AOAC wins their grievance/arbitration there might be some Canadian Captains and FO's bidding for it too. As for FO slots, the only way to fill all of them is to hire DEFO again, directly onto the base.
Last edited by GTC58; 4th Dec 2015 at 17:06.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the I-9 form - do you need to have the right to work in the USA?
apparently I am misinformed, and you know it all.
COS 08 was a pay cut, and also should have been temporary (if you believe NR). Any COS 99 officers will also have to accept retirement past 55, and lose BPP - not to mention the paycut you mentioned. The benefit of going to CX was to take a command at a younger age, and be able to retire before 55..... now that BPP is being taken away, the goal posts have moved again.
Seniority matters for whom can hold command in the junior base (HKG), but as for basings CX obviously has to follow the law of the land.... and can impose any policy they wish in order to remain compliant to the laws of any sovereign country.
All USAB officers on COS '99 should just take a HKG base, with housing, CEA, and 13th month, and keep their BPP.
apparently I am misinformed, and you know it all.
COS 08 was a pay cut, and also should have been temporary (if you believe NR). Any COS 99 officers will also have to accept retirement past 55, and lose BPP - not to mention the paycut you mentioned. The benefit of going to CX was to take a command at a younger age, and be able to retire before 55..... now that BPP is being taken away, the goal posts have moved again.
Seniority matters for whom can hold command in the junior base (HKG), but as for basings CX obviously has to follow the law of the land.... and can impose any policy they wish in order to remain compliant to the laws of any sovereign country.
All USAB officers on COS '99 should just take a HKG base, with housing, CEA, and 13th month, and keep their BPP.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read the I-9 application. How can anybody without the right to live or work in the USA can fill out an I-9 without the legal means to work in the USA? Perjury is the only option I see; but then again I'm out of the loop. I would be happy to hear an explanation using government laws and documents, and quoting the applicable legislation.
Why does it matter that we fly foreign registered aircraft? The individuals on a US base are employed in the USA, for a HK company. Some of them could do continuous patterns on the freighter without leaving the USA. Unless you have a greencard, are a USA citizen, or marry a fat american woman/man.... then you are out of luck working in the USA without a work visa (not possible for FO's). Fortunately, there are plenty of fatty's to go around, and vegas is close to SFO and LAX, so that option is available.
What grievance is the AOAC filing? I am definitely out of the loop on that one, as I'm not in the AOAC.
Why does it matter that we fly foreign registered aircraft? The individuals on a US base are employed in the USA, for a HK company. Some of them could do continuous patterns on the freighter without leaving the USA. Unless you have a greencard, are a USA citizen, or marry a fat american woman/man.... then you are out of luck working in the USA without a work visa (not possible for FO's). Fortunately, there are plenty of fatty's to go around, and vegas is close to SFO and LAX, so that option is available.
What grievance is the AOAC filing? I am definitely out of the loop on that one, as I'm not in the AOAC.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian Senior Captain was successful bidding last LAX bid, however didn't get the base as he is Canadian, no US visa. Basings agreement does not say anything about visa requirements for a base, only residence. As the basings agreement is part of the Canadian CBA he grieved it.
Fact is that the new CX USA is still a HKG company, a foreign entity with a US business licence. As such a Canadian can be employed with CX USA, operate foreign registered aircraft from a US base as long as that officer is a US non-resident entering on a C1/D1 visa. The I-9 is no problem in this case with proper documentation.
All these conspiracy theories that CX or the officers are breaking the law in this regard are wrong. The US immigration department, the US IRS are fully aware for many many years that all these Canadians are on US bases even before the on-shoring.
Fact is that the new CX USA is still a HKG company, a foreign entity with a US business licence. As such a Canadian can be employed with CX USA, operate foreign registered aircraft from a US base as long as that officer is a US non-resident entering on a C1/D1 visa. The I-9 is no problem in this case with proper documentation.
All these conspiracy theories that CX or the officers are breaking the law in this regard are wrong. The US immigration department, the US IRS are fully aware for many many years that all these Canadians are on US bases even before the on-shoring.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC58,
“No-one signed a new contract, just a transfer letter to the new US Company as per USAOA recommendation.”
This from a US based friend who sees matters very differently.
Really? I know that is how USAOA is trying to market this to us, however COS16 is not COS08 and it is certainly not COS99. COS16 has 3 major changes;
1. COS16 is retirement age 65. FO BPP is lost for those on COS99. We have to sign it away. BPP will have to be defended in the Courts and is no longer contractual as it was with COS99 - a major change.
2. We are agreeing that Rostering is in accordance with Company Policy. This sets us apart from HK and the UK who maintain that RP07 lives on.
3. Our new contract is interpreted in accordance with Californian law.
We are not being employed by a “new US Company”, it’s actually a new HK Company.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. COS16, looks like a new contract, has changes like a new contract, we have a new employer, it’s a new contract.
Some guys are in denial and the only way they can rationalize this is to call it a transfer. If that’s what it takes to get them through the day, fair enough I guess.... but they are deluding themselves.
“No-one signed a new contract, just a transfer letter to the new US Company as per USAOA recommendation.”
This from a US based friend who sees matters very differently.
Really? I know that is how USAOA is trying to market this to us, however COS16 is not COS08 and it is certainly not COS99. COS16 has 3 major changes;
1. COS16 is retirement age 65. FO BPP is lost for those on COS99. We have to sign it away. BPP will have to be defended in the Courts and is no longer contractual as it was with COS99 - a major change.
2. We are agreeing that Rostering is in accordance with Company Policy. This sets us apart from HK and the UK who maintain that RP07 lives on.
3. Our new contract is interpreted in accordance with Californian law.
We are not being employed by a “new US Company”, it’s actually a new HK Company.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. COS16, looks like a new contract, has changes like a new contract, we have a new employer, it’s a new contract.
Some guys are in denial and the only way they can rationalize this is to call it a transfer. If that’s what it takes to get them through the day, fair enough I guess.... but they are deluding themselves.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Immigration authorities are fully aware this is happening? If that is the case, then I would challenge all illegal officers to tell the US immigration guy that they are coming to the US to work.
If CX has a US business license, then they have to follow US rules. Even if they base people in the USA without a US business license - CX still has to follow the law. This is a waste of the AOAC's funds, as they do not have the ability to circumvent laws.
If CX has a US business license, then they have to follow US rules. Even if they base people in the USA without a US business license - CX still has to follow the law. This is a waste of the AOAC's funds, as they do not have the ability to circumvent laws.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Liam
if you read my post again I said no-one signed a new contract, but a transfer letter. CX imposed a new contract - COS16. As the contract was imposed no-one is agreeing to anything and all US officers retain their legal right to challenge pay-scales, BPP and RP's. Some of this will be binding arbitration, some issues might end up in court and some disputes will be handled by the EEOC. Read the USAOA letter in regards of the contract and it explains it all. Of course negotiations for the CBA already started, so maybe some issues will be solved via negotiation.
airplaneridesrfun
Yes, Canadian officers telling the US immigration guy that they are commuting to the US to work. You would be foolish not to tell the truth. That's why they get stamped a B1/C1 or D1 visa in their passport. No-one is illegal regardless what you think. Maybe hire an immigration lawyer like CX and some of the Canadian officers did to get a legal opinion. Every US based Canadian officer completed an I-9, well if you would be right those officers will be denied employment with the new CX USA.
The Canadian grievance has nothing to do with US laws but with a breach of their CBA.
if you read my post again I said no-one signed a new contract, but a transfer letter. CX imposed a new contract - COS16. As the contract was imposed no-one is agreeing to anything and all US officers retain their legal right to challenge pay-scales, BPP and RP's. Some of this will be binding arbitration, some issues might end up in court and some disputes will be handled by the EEOC. Read the USAOA letter in regards of the contract and it explains it all. Of course negotiations for the CBA already started, so maybe some issues will be solved via negotiation.
airplaneridesrfun
Yes, Canadian officers telling the US immigration guy that they are commuting to the US to work. You would be foolish not to tell the truth. That's why they get stamped a B1/C1 or D1 visa in their passport. No-one is illegal regardless what you think. Maybe hire an immigration lawyer like CX and some of the Canadian officers did to get a legal opinion. Every US based Canadian officer completed an I-9, well if you would be right those officers will be denied employment with the new CX USA.
The Canadian grievance has nothing to do with US laws but with a breach of their CBA.
Last edited by GTC58; 5th Dec 2015 at 02:42.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AOAC CBA cannot contravene laws of another country! I guess we will see what happens, but I have a pretty good idea that CX does not want to pay immigration fines, and deal with the other consequences (it would be hard to make AT a sim instructor with her experience);and it is for more than 10 FO's, btw.
Long story short, go to BA if you have the chance, otherwise deal with this bunch of baboons the rest of your career (and I mean the pilots who think they are above the law). Hopefully, this diatribe has proven it is time to move on if you have the opportunity, and that bases are used solely to degrade COS's.
Long story short, go to BA if you have the chance, otherwise deal with this bunch of baboons the rest of your career (and I mean the pilots who think they are above the law). Hopefully, this diatribe has proven it is time to move on if you have the opportunity, and that bases are used solely to degrade COS's.
