Staff Travel Change
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DPA have no regard for Cx AOA members
I recall the "integration" talks of 08.
The DPA position was integrated seniority on basis of DOJ, however Dragon Air aircraft were to be "ring fenced" so only Dragon Air FO's could upgrade on Dragon Air aircraft. of Course CX aircraft were open to anyone, no "ring fencing" there.
The CX boys should be watching their backs right now. DPA would grab any chance at integrated seniority with both hands with scant regard for the CX crew.
The DPA position was integrated seniority on basis of DOJ, however Dragon Air aircraft were to be "ring fenced" so only Dragon Air FO's could upgrade on Dragon Air aircraft. of Course CX aircraft were open to anyone, no "ring fencing" there.
The CX boys should be watching their backs right now. DPA would grab any chance at integrated seniority with both hands with scant regard for the CX crew.
If you're referring to someone on KA using a PRI 11 but the CX person using PRI 25 then you aren't comparing apples are you!?
So again the people with high DOJ will not be able to get on flights because of quick commands at KA.
As an apple that has been offloaded by PRI11 already, I am speaking from experience. The experience is going to get worse as now there are an additional 10,000+ PRI11 sectors as it applies to the whole family, not just the crew-member.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the land of smog
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall the "integration" talks of 08.
The DPA position was integrated seniority on basis of DOJ, however Dragon Air aircraft were to be "ring fenced" so only Dragon Air FO's could upgrade on Dragon Air aircraft. of Course CX aircraft were open to anyone, no "ring fencing" there.
The CX boys should be watching their backs right now. DPA would grab any chance at integrated seniority with both hands with scant regard for the CX crew.
The DPA position was integrated seniority on basis of DOJ, however Dragon Air aircraft were to be "ring fenced" so only Dragon Air FO's could upgrade on Dragon Air aircraft. of Course CX aircraft were open to anyone, no "ring fencing" there.
The CX boys should be watching their backs right now. DPA would grab any chance at integrated seniority with both hands with scant regard for the CX crew.
You might find a few people interested in flying a 777 here, but the majority are happy where they are at KA. No one here is trying to take your command slot, you've likely worked hard for it, however it was time to stop a cleaner with 6 months seniority bumping a 30 year captain, or even a post 08 captain.. IMHO.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: hongkers
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWH.
I think you missed the gist of my post. The scenario I painted was one where CX pilots will be screwed over. I was putting forward a plan to avoid that scenario and have a United pilot group. Unfortunately the conspiracy theorists jump on this each time as a KA pilots attempt to steal CX commands.
You say we are "undermining our peers". I'm not sure if you have been reading this thread but there are 9 pages of CX pilot comments saying we aren't your peers. That we are are a lowly separate entity not worthy of being your peers. Thats hardly the sort of language to inspire people to fight for a common cause.
Out.
I think you missed the gist of my post. The scenario I painted was one where CX pilots will be screwed over. I was putting forward a plan to avoid that scenario and have a United pilot group. Unfortunately the conspiracy theorists jump on this each time as a KA pilots attempt to steal CX commands.
You say we are "undermining our peers". I'm not sure if you have been reading this thread but there are 9 pages of CX pilot comments saying we aren't your peers. That we are are a lowly separate entity not worthy of being your peers. Thats hardly the sort of language to inspire people to fight for a common cause.
Out.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giggerty,
Can we please stop with the manufactured bending of the truth to suit your argument. No one is saying you are the bastard child (at least no one with a brain anyway), but that there should be some common sense in the system whereby seniority within your company structure is the overriding factor, not a system based on which seat you sit in as the time to move from the Right to the Left hand side of the cockpit in KA is dramatically less. This muted change holds no water by international standard.
The sooner we all realise that working together is in our best interests the sooner we can protect ourselves from the 7th floor wallahs and the lunatic fringe that fortunately forms only a small part of both CX and KA's populous.
Can we please stop with the manufactured bending of the truth to suit your argument. No one is saying you are the bastard child (at least no one with a brain anyway), but that there should be some common sense in the system whereby seniority within your company structure is the overriding factor, not a system based on which seat you sit in as the time to move from the Right to the Left hand side of the cockpit in KA is dramatically less. This muted change holds no water by international standard.
The sooner we all realise that working together is in our best interests the sooner we can protect ourselves from the 7th floor wallahs and the lunatic fringe that fortunately forms only a small part of both CX and KA's populous.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: hong kong
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire wall:
"Can we please stop with the manufactured bending of the truth to suit your argument.
This muted change holds no water by international standard."
Fire wall: What is the international standard and do you know the Hong Kong standard?
"Can we please stop with the manufactured bending of the truth to suit your argument.
This muted change holds no water by international standard."
Fire wall: What is the international standard and do you know the Hong Kong standard?
Last edited by tsimbeit; 14th Feb 2016 at 05:22.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hongkong
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
giggerty,
We are not merged airlines. We are separate airlines in a Group. No-one is, nor should be calling KA inferior or lesser, or anything else. The amount one airline adds to the Group profit is also irrelevant. I know I fly my aircraft as efficiently as I can whether it is full or empty. Others are charged with getting it full of paying passengers/freight or not, and they do a good job doing so these days, however that is done.
Staff travel should be an airline benefit - your own airline before those from another - and that is an industry 'standard practice'.
Whatever management has promised you in the past is not my concern. They've promised me a lot as well and not delivered. Taking it from someone else doesn't make it right.
We are not merged airlines. We are separate airlines in a Group. No-one is, nor should be calling KA inferior or lesser, or anything else. The amount one airline adds to the Group profit is also irrelevant. I know I fly my aircraft as efficiently as I can whether it is full or empty. Others are charged with getting it full of paying passengers/freight or not, and they do a good job doing so these days, however that is done.
Staff travel should be an airline benefit - your own airline before those from another - and that is an industry 'standard practice'.
Whatever management has promised you in the past is not my concern. They've promised me a lot as well and not delivered. Taking it from someone else doesn't make it right.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: hong kong
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guria:
"Staff travel should be an airline benefit."
Yes, SHOULD not SHALL.
"Whatever management has promised you in the past is not my concern. They've promised me a lot as well and not delivered. Taking it from someone else doesn't make it right."
Yes, they can GIVE or TAKE, what's new?
You think it has been any different in the past - and that is an 'industry standard practise'.
"Staff travel should be an airline benefit."
Yes, SHOULD not SHALL.
"Whatever management has promised you in the past is not my concern. They've promised me a lot as well and not delivered. Taking it from someone else doesn't make it right."
Yes, they can GIVE or TAKE, what's new?
You think it has been any different in the past - and that is an 'industry standard practise'.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same Airline.
Pacific and Dragon are quite clearly parts of the same Cathay/Swire airline. The minimal separation is a myth perpetuated by their perceived need to try and hang on to two AOCs. I don't think that they will manage to do this for much longer so it would be a good idea for the two pilots' associations to have meaningful discussions as to how the ASLs should be merged. Staff travel is only the start.
You say we are "undermining our peers". I'm not sure if you have been reading this thread but there are 9 pages of CX pilot comments saying we aren't your peers. That we are are a lowly separate entity not worthy of being your peers. Thats hardly the sort of language to inspire people to fight for a common cause.
Being a peer does not make you a co-worker. All pilots on the CX ASL are co-workers, all pilots on the KA ASL are co-workers. KA pilots are no co-workers of CX pilots, different airlines. As I said before it is fundamentally wrong that KA pilots that commute on their own metal should get priority on their own airline over other airlines. Ex-KA staff that are now employed by CX should not be getting priority over those staff that stayed at KA. To me it is fundamentally wrong to have a bet each way.
As it is been pointed out previously, when CX crew DT on a KA flight, being operated by KA or CX metal, we get sent down the back to economy because KA is a different airline.
Pacific and Dragon are quite clearly parts of the same Cathay/Swire airline. The minimal separation is a myth perpetuated by their perceived need to try and hang on to two AOCs.
Fact of the matter remains that air traffic rights and slots are tied to AOCs, CX cannot just close down the KA AOC and consolidate the operation without the loss of those rights. Every flight out of Hong Kong is an international flight and is bound by bi-lateral arrangements between countries.
Its different on the freighter side as bi-lateral agreements are less restrictive. For example no Hong Kong flagged carrier can get additional landing slots into the major Australian ports (SYD/MEL/BNE/PER) as the maximum frequency has been reached for direct passenger flights. Additional freighter flights are permitted to SYD/MEL/BNE/PER, as well as passenger flights to secondary airports (ADL/CBR/CNS/DRW/OOL etc).
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: hong kong
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the times they are a changin'
Cathay Pacific and Dragon are quite clearly parts of the same Cathay/Swire airline. The minimal separation is a myth perpetuated by their perceived need to try and hang on to two AOCs.
swh:
"That is the sort of throw away line that KA pilots will use to justify their stance of taking away what is not theirs".
“As it is been pointed out previously, when CX crew DT on a KA flight, being operated by KA or CX metal, we get sent down the back to economy because KA is a different airline”.
“For example no Hong Kong flagged carrier can get additional landing slots into the major Australian ports (SYD/MEL/BNE/PER) as the maximum frequency has been reached for direct passenger flights
SWH you are truly stuck in the past, that’s all history, the world is rapidly changing and our owners/directors are busy planning for the future.
Do you know their plans?
swh:
"That is the sort of throw away line that KA pilots will use to justify their stance of taking away what is not theirs".
“As it is been pointed out previously, when CX crew DT on a KA flight, being operated by KA or CX metal, we get sent down the back to economy because KA is a different airline”.
“For example no Hong Kong flagged carrier can get additional landing slots into the major Australian ports (SYD/MEL/BNE/PER) as the maximum frequency has been reached for direct passenger flights
SWH you are truly stuck in the past, that’s all history, the world is rapidly changing and our owners/directors are busy planning for the future.
Do you know their plans?
Last edited by tsimbeit; 14th Feb 2016 at 15:52.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we get an amendment to staff travel so it shows how many of those ahead of us are KA staff so we can get an idea how often we're getting f*cked over and booted off our airline.
Originally Posted by GMEDX
Look it up!
swh you to$$er. Look up what class of duty travel CX get on KA. It changed on 1st Feb!
swh you to$$er. Look up what class of duty travel CX get on KA. It changed on 1st Feb!
There has been no NTC, no change to the COS, and no change to OPS-A 14.12 ? IntraSux says last update to the duty travel policy was 2014.
The associated FAQ with the staff travel change said ....
"17. Will the interline agreements between CX and KA be combined?
No. As CX and KA are still separate airlines, we will continue to treat them as such in that other airlines will maintain an individual interline agreement with CX and KA."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: www
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A wonderful way for our management to show us how much they respect and value us: give employees (and their uncounted family members) of ANOTHER airline the ability to bump us off of our own. Brilliant. Another spectacular 'own goal' in staff management. Can't understand why everyone is so angry around this place?? 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hongkong
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Selective recollection?
TSIO540.
The old, "I have not recollection of that" defence.
Not only was that an initial negotiating position of the DPA I can even recall the individual in the DPA that put that "concept" forward.
I stand by my statement.
The DPA is out for its own membership and doesn't give a toss about the AOA members. Hey maybe that is the right position for a pilot union? I'm not necessarily knocking it, I'm just highlighting to AOA members that the DPA doesn't have their best wishes at heart.
The old, "I have not recollection of that" defence.
Not only was that an initial negotiating position of the DPA I can even recall the individual in the DPA that put that "concept" forward.
I stand by my statement.
The DPA is out for its own membership and doesn't give a toss about the AOA members. Hey maybe that is the right position for a pilot union? I'm not necessarily knocking it, I'm just highlighting to AOA members that the DPA doesn't have their best wishes at heart.
The DPA is out for its own membership and doesn't give a toss about the AOA members.
Ill informed statements like this lead to greater resentment from both sides!