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

Staff Travel Change

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.

Staff Travel Change

Old 9th Feb 2016, 02:38
  #121 (permalink)  

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,977
What differance of opinion ?

You don't work for CX, you work for KA.

Your COS is still with KA, and that had provisions in it that already compensated you for not working for an airline that can take you to your home port. Your COS never gave you boarding priority with CX.

The DPA push with the threat to go into contract compliance over something that is not in your contract is inexcusable. It has significant ramifications for CX employees.

I don't give a crap about travelling on KA and I have no sympathy for the CX staff who want to. CX staff don't work for KA, KA staff should have priority on their own airline, just like CX staff should have priority over every other airline when travelling on CX.
swh is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 05:32
  #122 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Asia
Posts: 95
Despite my misspelled handle I work for CX and I want to voice my support for swh et al. Same boarding priority is BS. It p1sses me off that Dragonair staff can bump me off my airline as well as receiving a long list of other conditions better than mine. Not only that, but they get a choice! Where's my choice? That travel fund and FOCs and the same boarding priority is ridiculous.

What, may I ask, has the AOA done about this farce? Nothing... There's a surprise.

And I get told how fair it is. On what possible grounds could Dragonair staff justify asking for (and threatening tantrums over) receiving a higher boarding priority on (as someone else said) an airline they don't work for?

One upside: At least everyone in CX now knows that Dragonair pilots get paid more than CX pilots!
Bangaluru is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 05:43
  #123 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: home
Posts: 372
L O bloody L, I've gone though 2 bags of popcorn and a 10 pack of jack and cokes reading this dribble, thanks guys
airdualbleedfault is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 06:21
  #124 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not in a Bus
Posts: 325
swh - if you really are gonna continue in this vein, believing you are fighting for, or in any way acting as the voice of 'most' CX Flightcrew, please would you mind sodding off from this thread and use PMs to the other protagonists. If on the other hand you are doing it to amaze people with your prose and boost your Ego then, newsflash, you're making a prick of yourself, irrespective of the scattered truisms which I do recognise are amongst the ranting. You have the diplomacy skills of Combover Trump - IMHO.
White None is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 06:42
  #125 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: HKG
Posts: 12
Does the DPA really influence group policy

I find it less than credible that Swire/CX directors were awaiting the outcome of the DPA meeting before implementing a group wide policy the next morning.

To imagine that they were "scared" of upsetting 500 employees vs 23,000 doesn't seem their style.
S22 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 06:58
  #126 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 230
Just to recap.

Having worked for Cathay for twenty years when I check in to fly rebated travel on the airline for which I work, I can be off loaded by staff from ANOTHER airline?

In what universe can anyone, including Management , say that this is fair?
kenfoggo is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 07:29
  #127 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Southern China
Posts: 30

/ɡruːp/ noun

1: A collection of individuals who have regular contact and frequent interaction, mutual influence, common feeling of camaraderie, and who work together to achieve a common set of goals (businessdictionary.com)

Note: degrees of camaraderie may vary between individuals

2: When more than 2 people engage in sexual activity, this can include straight, lesbian, and gay groups. Also, abbreviated as "GS" (urbandictionary.com)

I'm 'thinking' it's definition 1 that applies but I can't be sure, especially if you live in DB.

Last edited by Terrain Terrain; 9th Feb 2016 at 07:42.
Terrain Terrain is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 07:30
  #128 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,825
Yep, and it's only the Dragonair crew that could possibly try and justify this decision.......
ACMS is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 07:45
  #129 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 48
Posts: 10
I am not transferring to the CX scheme.

I would rather keep all the travel allowance and choose flights that are a near certainty of getting on, pay full fare for other flights.

The total sectors are reduced to 48 for all family in your travel pool. That is sectors not return trips.

I am not 100% sure of these items just yet, but reading the info it seems to be the case. I actually think the KA scheme is better than CX.
whatsforlunch is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 09:17
  #130 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 230
Terrain Terrain- what are you? 12? Grow up and realise what is happening, not just to CX but also to KA.
kenfoggo is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 11:05
  #131 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at home
Posts: 90
Ok so it's quite clear that the Australian Cx Pilots in particular are all against this change and I can understand why, how about some useful ideas on what is a fair compromise for all demographic groups.
JY9024 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 12:14
  #132 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: S.H.
Posts: 9
Oh, so it's a compromise you want now?

A compromise was what was offered to the AOA years ago. DOJ or DOM, whichever came later. "Go shove your head up a dead bears bum" was the response, or words to that effect.

That horse has bolted. Though if this change is the requisite kick up the arse to get some cooperation between the two groups happening then I'm all for it.

By it's very nature, compromise requires some individuals to make sacrifices so that the greater group can prosper. This is something your side of the fence has had great difficulty with to date. And looking at the current levels of non-compliance with contract compliance, still do.
Epic 76 is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 15:38
  #133 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Eden Valley
Posts: 1,802
And I get told how fair it is. On what possible grounds could Dragonair staff justify asking for (and threatening tantrums over) receiving a higher boarding priority on (as someone else said) an airline they don't work for?
You haven't the facts and it's pretty grey in a lot of areas.

Out of the blue we were offered staff travel improvements including access to our own airline for ID freight and increased nominees.

And the back drop to all this is the AOA attitude, in whatever shape or form it was on the day, telling us to f%%$ off. A strategic blunder and the negligible demographic effects were made very clear to the AOA. And on reflection, considering the very high attrition of KA expatriate pilots in the contract compliance period up to and following CX's buy out of KA, some of your union leadership should be shot at dawn.

Not forgetting of course, the bellows from the B scale drinking holes from Staunton St to the DB Plaza that "It's a f#[email protected]&%$ take-over , not a merger "- all the while KA staff were being re-positioned into the group with their DOJ at KA back to May 1985 for staff travel.

And what we have now is the "Cathay Staff Travel Scheme". Blamed by one dwindling expatriate group on another dwindling expatriate group.

And back to your original question. I was promised out of the blue, ID freight on CX and KA, and I'd positioned myself with a few rows of vines in Chianti and an organic market garden market in Ranau on the foothills of BKI to nourish the family, and was pretty upset at the broken promise and was happy to pursue the industrial option.

Last edited by Gnadenburg; 9th Feb 2016 at 15:52.
Gnadenburg is online now  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 21:23
  #134 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 464
A couple of points if I may:
1. The AOA did not tell the DPA to $£@k off, or anything approaching such. I should know as I was on the CX Gen Committee at the time so just because some muppet told you this in the bar does not make it fact.
2. Most of my mates at KA will not be taking this crap deal because it financially disadvantages them.
3. Both KA and CX staff need to recognise that this is the first shot in a war which will adversely affect both flight crew demographics. I foresee the next "alignment" being a common seniority list as a way for the 7 th floor residents to get around the CX scope clause, and I strongly suggest you have a read of the scope clause in your COS for this very reason.
This will then allow training by KA staff of Cx crews on the A330 (how I do not know as all my KA trainer mates are flat out as it is) and eventually CX FO's will be offered KA commands to elleviate the lack of viable and experienced KA FO's to move seats. Those of you that do not recognise the push for this "upgrade" to be on local terms don't belong behind the wheel of a car let alone an aircraft.

Please digest the above and recognise we (both KA and Cx) are all under attack and how best we can prevent this shredding of our careers.

Ive been here long enough for this new staff travel change to have little if any effect on me however I still do not think it right, and for the hot headed amongst you nor do ALL of my KA mates.

I wise person would be casting an eye on the end game.

Last edited by fire wall; 9th Feb 2016 at 22:45.
fire wall is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 21:32
  #135 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 2
Fire Wall. Great post. You are correct in your assessment of the situation. CX management have long ago crossed the line of morality and integrity. Their main goal is to divide and weaken all groups, and on present evidence they are succeeding. I don't dislike my KA colleagues. I do dislike a management who has no other goal other than to destroy our profession and enrich their small circle of self-absorbed and self righteous brethren. We need to calmly enact a strategy that quietly and slowly strangles them. We need to unite, identify a common strategy and then engage the real enemy. Fighting amongst ourselves will surely advance the overall destruction of ALL our careers. I would point out for the benefit of the KA staff, CX management will surely take far more away from you than they are deceptively offering. Fact.
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2016, 22:33
  #136 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 61
Good posts

Good posts fire wall and mngmt mole.

This is exactly what is going on.

Whilst we squabble, they sit around sipping cognac and laughing their butts off.
Some How I'm Tired is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 00:50
  #137 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: CYYZ
Posts: 69
There's been on and off talk about "seconding" the local cadets to KA until they are qualified to move back as F/Os.
Sea Eggs is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 03:45
  #138 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49

Just to recap.

Having worked for Cathay for twenty years when I check in to fly rebated travel on the airline for which I work, I can be off loaded by staff from ANOTHER airline?
Yep. Except it's worse. There are people that haven't even joined Dragonair yet that are going to bump you. Imagine in a few years time you're in SYD standing by for J class trying to get back to HK. A new KA captain, been in the company say 3 years, shows up with his wife and kids and his waitlisted PRI 11 FOC's. His kids are going to bump you out of J class, and maybe off the flight. Thanks for your 25 years of service.

This is not personal. I also have lots of Dragonair friends and understand the crap they've been through in recent years, however there is no denying this whole thing is grossly unfair to CX staff.
2 cents is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 05:58
  #139 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 4,733
The AOA did not tell the DPA to $£@k off, or anything approaching such. I should know as I was on the CX Gen Committee at the time so just because some muppet told you this in the bar does not make it fact
However, it is true that in recent years, the AOA have not been willing to enter dialogue with the DPA committee. They seemed to have been giving the impression that there was little of interest to their members going on in KA. How wrong they were. They have known about the group staff travel scheme since it was first offered.
Dan Winterland is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2016, 06:53
  #140 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 43
Well, with the tone of this thread regaining some sense of civility, as a KA pilot, I would like to add that this pri 25 issue isn’t due to be introduced until Jan 2017. It’s been presented to us as a group travel scheme to replace our KA scheme. Is that not enough time for the DPA and AOA to get together and modify it into a ‘variation on a theme’ that is mutually acceptable to all? Put “that” option to the company with both pilot groups behind it and, by default, present it in a united front that can also be used to battle the bigger issues “together” that are no doubt hidden behind the corner? As a number of other KA blokes have said here, the pri 25 item has never been on my personal wish list. If the flight is full, it’s full. Plus, I have some empathy for the perspective of the CX chaps here. Besides, I value the generous JS approvals provided by my CX colleagues far more highly than pri 25.
Weary traveller 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.