May 31st
CX does not want to pay for 'good' employees. Just cheap, mediocre ones will do.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 1st Jun 2016 at 22:05.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the end, the marked will rule. Regardless of what anyone considers fair, the company will only react when it cannot place the required amount of drivers in the seats. The facts speak for themselves; CX pilots are not leaving for greener pastures because, frankly, there are no greener pastures.
There are several options available to the company to solve the immediate crewing problems, all made possible by weak scope clauses and a lack of solidarity between the various Cathay associations. Noting the AOAs own history of failing to unite, it seems less than likely that the employees themselves will be able to block creative reorganisations of the group's aircraft, crew and contracts.
Without the industrial strength afforded to Western airline unions through a regulatory framework, AOA pilots are, at the end if the day, subject to marked forces alone. While the company once was willing to pay a premium for attracting a certain quality of aircrew, those days are over and policy now dictates that a licence and some form of rating is the only requirement. That may be very hard to accept for some, but nevertheless true.
Whatever changes now come about, I will wager that the resulting further fractioning of crewmember's interests and lack of any significant rise in attrition levels makes it a safe and necessary move by management.
Those who choose to spend their lives with this outfit have already chosen dollars over lifestyle, fresh air, cabins by the lake and western labour protections. And it's not as if Hong Kong is getting more democratic as we approach the end of the 50 year transition.
When - and only when - crews are leaving in droves for BA, United, Emirates, Korean and Ethiad will any significant changes come about. And then only enough to stem the flow to an acceptable level.
It's hard to obtain sympathy when you're King of the hill. And unless people start resigning in any meaningful numbers, it's hard to argue against that being the case.
There are several options available to the company to solve the immediate crewing problems, all made possible by weak scope clauses and a lack of solidarity between the various Cathay associations. Noting the AOAs own history of failing to unite, it seems less than likely that the employees themselves will be able to block creative reorganisations of the group's aircraft, crew and contracts.
Without the industrial strength afforded to Western airline unions through a regulatory framework, AOA pilots are, at the end if the day, subject to marked forces alone. While the company once was willing to pay a premium for attracting a certain quality of aircrew, those days are over and policy now dictates that a licence and some form of rating is the only requirement. That may be very hard to accept for some, but nevertheless true.
Whatever changes now come about, I will wager that the resulting further fractioning of crewmember's interests and lack of any significant rise in attrition levels makes it a safe and necessary move by management.
Those who choose to spend their lives with this outfit have already chosen dollars over lifestyle, fresh air, cabins by the lake and western labour protections. And it's not as if Hong Kong is getting more democratic as we approach the end of the 50 year transition.
When - and only when - crews are leaving in droves for BA, United, Emirates, Korean and Ethiad will any significant changes come about. And then only enough to stem the flow to an acceptable level.
It's hard to obtain sympathy when you're King of the hill. And unless people start resigning in any meaningful numbers, it's hard to argue against that being the case.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HONG KONG
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPSept15
What a toss pot you are. All trainers in CX want people to pass their respective course and encourage personal style.
Come prepared with common sense and you will pass a command check.
Has your common sense been personally been destroyed PPSept? Means you have lost confidence in yourself. Lots of people excel.
What a toss pot you are. All trainers in CX want people to pass their respective course and encourage personal style.
Come prepared with common sense and you will pass a command check.
Has your common sense been personally been destroyed PPSept? Means you have lost confidence in yourself. Lots of people excel.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Toe knee tiler
Our command trainees come from the same background as those of every other legacy carrier out there but our pass rate for the course is 19 times worse.
You make no sense.
Our command trainees come from the same background as those of every other legacy carrier out there but our pass rate for the course is 19 times worse.
You make no sense.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When 747 commands were stopped in 2012-13, about 30 pilots upgraded on the Airbus (alongside many Junior drafted Captains). I think 2 failed, and 1 of those, needlessly so.
Simply, there are too many Australians training on the airbus, teaching how to grasp the non-essentials which does not help in command training!
Simply, there are too many Australians training on the airbus, teaching how to grasp the non-essentials which does not help in command training!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fourspeed.
You said:
I have two issues with that statement.
Firstly, people are leaving, maybe not in droves, but they are leaving. Some young guys are finding other places to go, greener or not; and older guys are leaving before their retirement age. That alone should be sending the willies up the mangement (sic).
Secondly, I know of at least 5 recently retired Air Force pilots - who would have in the past made CX a natural first choice - have all chosen to go other airlines. A couple to Tiger (2 weeks off for Reserve duties every month) and the others to China Southern. 4 crew to Aus and more money.
These places might not seem to be "greener" to you or me, but to them they are. To a man they did not even consider joining the (once) magnificent CX.
So I guess people NOT joining can have the same effect as people leaving.
You said:
CX pilots are not leaving for greener pastures because, frankly, there are no greener pastures.
Firstly, people are leaving, maybe not in droves, but they are leaving. Some young guys are finding other places to go, greener or not; and older guys are leaving before their retirement age. That alone should be sending the willies up the mangement (sic).
Secondly, I know of at least 5 recently retired Air Force pilots - who would have in the past made CX a natural first choice - have all chosen to go other airlines. A couple to Tiger (2 weeks off for Reserve duties every month) and the others to China Southern. 4 crew to Aus and more money.
These places might not seem to be "greener" to you or me, but to them they are. To a man they did not even consider joining the (once) magnificent CX.
So I guess people NOT joining can have the same effect as people leaving.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: crewbag
Age: 51
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have two issues with that statement.
Firstly, people are leaving, maybe not in droves, but they are leaving. Some young guys are finding other places to go, greener or not; and older guys are leaving before their retirement age. That alone should be sending the willies up the mangement (sic).
Firstly, people are leaving, maybe not in droves, but they are leaving. Some young guys are finding other places to go, greener or not; and older guys are leaving before their retirement age. That alone should be sending the willies up the mangement (sic).
Secondly, I know of at least 5 recently retired Air Force pilots - who would have in the past made CX a natural first choice - have all chosen to go other airlines. A couple to Tiger (2 weeks off for Reserve duties every month) and the others to China Southern. 4 crew to Aus and more money.
So I guess people NOT joining can have the same effect as people leaving.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right. As someone else said, they don't want expensive, good pilots when mediocre, cheap ones might do.
The question remains whether they have enough pilots - of all abilities - for their expansion, sorry I mean't consolidation, plans.
The question remains whether they have enough pilots - of all abilities - for their expansion, sorry I mean't consolidation, plans.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quadspeed. At first I was offended by your comments, but then on reflection, I realised you were absolutely correct. I am fortunate that i'm at the end of my career, so not much of this matters anymore (other than on principle). The real salient point is for the younger amongst us (40 and below). For them, they need to reasise that they have no 'career' possibility here. All they have is a guaranteed miserable existence of ever degrading conditions. They are the ones who need to heed your comments. Leave now and at least have a chance of a proper career in an area of the world where you can raise a family and enjoy your time off. Staying in HK, with this airline will SURELY lead to desperation and unhappiness.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess blame technology rather than corporate greed. Eventually robots will be able to perform triple bypass surgery rendering heart surgeons obsolete. What a wonderful world where precious human skills are being replaced by modern technology. SIGH!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quad, Trafalgar, spot on. Whether it's short term profits and a 'cash out' by those not really interested in looking forward and building an institution of the future or over reliance on automation (including training 'human robots' who blindly follow written guidance) really doesn't matter. The idea is to replace experience, flying skill, and judgment (which costs money) with low-cost button pushers who buy their goods from the 'company store' -- ingeniously recovering a large chunk of the money they are paid by other HK financial interests. Getting the piece of paper certifying the button pushers isn't really that hard when you can change the criteria for the piece of paper.
We've seen this with a decline of conditions as well as an increase in SOP. The idea being that procedures and directives take the place of judgment and training. Might work pretty well right up to the point someone actually has to FLY and do what pilots are trained and paid to do (and we've seen this creeping along too with the restrictions on hand and manual flying). But maybe the idea is to create so many conditionals that this window doesn't happen all that much--and 99.9% of everything is done by some "IF-THEN-ELSE" logic tree.
Does it work ? Guess that depends on your viewpoint. If you don't mind having a scrape and/or losing a couple of jets from time to time I guess it does. We've seen this in plenty of OTHER low cost carriers when the man-machine interface breaks down. Then again, to most they seem safe enough with a few isolated high visibility incidents and as long as they don't happen TOO often some might view this as acceptable losses. And you can always change the brand or paint scheme.
The trap here I think is this puts CX in the same category of every other low-cost carrier which historically (unless in a protected market--and these are ever shrinking globally) have had trouble making money. I guess you could kinda make up for this with polish, paint, and service in the back--but these take money too. AND our cost structure really doesn't support it and won't anytime soon.
Not to mention the fact that at the end of the day you get what you pay for. Happy people who are part of a team moving forward are WAYYYYYYY productive. Those just showing up for a job not so much. Eventually the newness wears off and if there's no core incentive and motivation to contribute people don't. The operation kinda muddles through with lots of baggage and high costs but not particularly productive people. Productivity is always a two-way street. People who haven't developed the experience, skill, and judgment aren't particularly good at finding creative solutions to make things better, nor can you do this with a top-down process (especially if you have a know-it-all perspective which doesn't encourage thinking outside of the box).
What does this mean to me ? Exactly what has been said. If you are looking for a long term career you might want to keep looking. If you're young and having fun beaming around the world have at it--just realize that your perspective might change down the road and airlines are a seniority driven animal. If you're looking for a long-term career (and are in the building stages) realize that things have changed to make this more like a regional airline--a stepping stone/short term job--and if you get trapped in the pond you might get screwed (so have an out). If you're older and not really having fun anymore, do what you can to alter your paradigm and either make it fun or jump ship and do something you like. The WORST thing one could do is sacrifice the truly important things in life (wife, husband, family, unrecoverable time) and dedicate oneself toward an entity that really hasn't much cared over the long run. So take it as it comes, make yourself happy, stay balanced (and if that means taking time off to stay well and stay fit by all means do so), and don't put a lot of time or effort into fixing something that doesn't want to be fixed.
SO
Aviation operates in some areas of black and white, but a huge grey area of judgment as well. Commander's discretion (especially in the way we are rostering now) or accepting last minute changes involves some level of increased risk. Granted, most of the time we use it it's not that much (otherwise we wouldn't use it). Ask yourself if it's worth it.
IF it's for a genuine humanitarian issue -- something wholly unexpected, totally unforeseeable, and objectively the 'right' thing to do (toward the passengers and crew) it may well be worth it.
IF it's simply to get the mission done, I'd submit it probably isn't. You might get a thanks and a self-made gold star for your personal love me folder, but what else have you accomplished (other than enabling bad behaviour on the part of an entity that's trying to do more with less) ?
We've seen this with a decline of conditions as well as an increase in SOP. The idea being that procedures and directives take the place of judgment and training. Might work pretty well right up to the point someone actually has to FLY and do what pilots are trained and paid to do (and we've seen this creeping along too with the restrictions on hand and manual flying). But maybe the idea is to create so many conditionals that this window doesn't happen all that much--and 99.9% of everything is done by some "IF-THEN-ELSE" logic tree.
Does it work ? Guess that depends on your viewpoint. If you don't mind having a scrape and/or losing a couple of jets from time to time I guess it does. We've seen this in plenty of OTHER low cost carriers when the man-machine interface breaks down. Then again, to most they seem safe enough with a few isolated high visibility incidents and as long as they don't happen TOO often some might view this as acceptable losses. And you can always change the brand or paint scheme.
The trap here I think is this puts CX in the same category of every other low-cost carrier which historically (unless in a protected market--and these are ever shrinking globally) have had trouble making money. I guess you could kinda make up for this with polish, paint, and service in the back--but these take money too. AND our cost structure really doesn't support it and won't anytime soon.
Not to mention the fact that at the end of the day you get what you pay for. Happy people who are part of a team moving forward are WAYYYYYYY productive. Those just showing up for a job not so much. Eventually the newness wears off and if there's no core incentive and motivation to contribute people don't. The operation kinda muddles through with lots of baggage and high costs but not particularly productive people. Productivity is always a two-way street. People who haven't developed the experience, skill, and judgment aren't particularly good at finding creative solutions to make things better, nor can you do this with a top-down process (especially if you have a know-it-all perspective which doesn't encourage thinking outside of the box).
What does this mean to me ? Exactly what has been said. If you are looking for a long term career you might want to keep looking. If you're young and having fun beaming around the world have at it--just realize that your perspective might change down the road and airlines are a seniority driven animal. If you're looking for a long-term career (and are in the building stages) realize that things have changed to make this more like a regional airline--a stepping stone/short term job--and if you get trapped in the pond you might get screwed (so have an out). If you're older and not really having fun anymore, do what you can to alter your paradigm and either make it fun or jump ship and do something you like. The WORST thing one could do is sacrifice the truly important things in life (wife, husband, family, unrecoverable time) and dedicate oneself toward an entity that really hasn't much cared over the long run. So take it as it comes, make yourself happy, stay balanced (and if that means taking time off to stay well and stay fit by all means do so), and don't put a lot of time or effort into fixing something that doesn't want to be fixed.
SO
Aviation operates in some areas of black and white, but a huge grey area of judgment as well. Commander's discretion (especially in the way we are rostering now) or accepting last minute changes involves some level of increased risk. Granted, most of the time we use it it's not that much (otherwise we wouldn't use it). Ask yourself if it's worth it.
IF it's for a genuine humanitarian issue -- something wholly unexpected, totally unforeseeable, and objectively the 'right' thing to do (toward the passengers and crew) it may well be worth it.
IF it's simply to get the mission done, I'd submit it probably isn't. You might get a thanks and a self-made gold star for your personal love me folder, but what else have you accomplished (other than enabling bad behaviour on the part of an entity that's trying to do more with less) ?
Last edited by Shep69; 2nd Jun 2016 at 14:56.