COS 99 extensions- seniority is over
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly incorrect as anyone doing law 101 will tell you. No one is being forced to retire, they are just contracted to employment with Cathay until Age 55. You can be on contract for any length of time, and this one finishes at age 55. You can go fly for anyone else in Hong Kong after your contract with CX ends, you aren’t forced into retirement.
Not sure why guys are hanging onto this ridiculous notion.
My little birdie tells me that the immigration department is cracking down on issuing work visas when qualified permanent residents who wish to do the job are available.
Yep, no one is being forced to retire, just the company may be forced to retain or rehire.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 11th Jul 2019 at 15:18.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Asia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Anyone else” or CX.
My little birdie tells me that the immigration department is cracking down on issuing work visas when qualified permanent residents who wish to do the job are available.
Yep, no one is being forced to retire, just the company may be forced to retain or rehire.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 53
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So your basically saying: the union is useless, and all the pilots will sell themselves and others out for a few$$$. But somehow market and regulatory forces will keep giving the pilots little wins here and there, that they will celebrate this like the victory they should have had if everyone was United. It's kinda sad really. But hey, whatever floats your boat!
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HK-CRoC
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: hongkong
Posts: 398
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if I’m wrong but weren’t ALL pilots offered age 65 retirement years ago? The catch was that A scalers had to accept B scale terms post 55 to continue the extra 10 years. Pretty much all the older captains were on top tier pay scales so it wasn’t that much of a drop. Now the ‘I’ll never sign’ guys ..most of whom were ‘forced’ to retire at 55 up until now...are being offered new crap terms to continue to 65!! Talk about kicking an own goal. The company thinks they can’t really go anywhere at that age so they’re sticking the boot in. Inertia is a great thing for employers.
i guess we really showed ‘em again!!
i guess we really showed ‘em again!!
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Asia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ironic that the (recently back in the GC) person who ranted about voting down the payrise is now ranting about the lack of payrise.
All water under the bridge, 4 years of 6% payrise but who’s counting.
Last edited by Pickuptruck; 12th Jul 2019 at 00:57.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blunderbus;
A quick look at aviation websites lists literally 30-50 positions available for captains with a starting age of 58 or younger . Some of them are paying really good salaries so at this time you are not stuck
A quick look at aviation websites lists literally 30-50 positions available for captains with a starting age of 58 or younger . Some of them are paying really good salaries so at this time you are not stuck
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Asia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
actually it is. 15 days on 15 days off for pretty average pay. Or 20 on 10 off for better or max cash is 48 on 12off. The problem is CX pilots want full time pay for minimal work. If none of those options suit then maybe doing something else at 55 is the best option. Surely guys looked at this before they elected to leave at 55?
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is wholly incorrect; CX pilots don't mind putting in the work for adequate compensation.
Problem is CX wants to be able to put people on a string for POTENTIAL work -- 'on call' or 'standby' or whatever you want to call it -- and not pay for it. And also be able to switch around trips (without penalty) without any input from the operating pilot. As to minimize THEIR costs with no guarantee, compensation, or recourse by the crew it affects.
This has served no one well. The company continues to collapse their own rosters and has no idea how to flow out or long term allocation of resources for maximum productivity at minimum cost. You have an hours driven process; not a days driven process. It's not a standard office job. Ideally the company pays for 900 hours per year (within FTL and contractural constraints). The major problem is there is no penalty for holding someone on a string (used or not) and for completely collapsing what should be a stable, planned, 'owned' roster. It's a one way street. In time, this breaks the assets you need to operate the machinery. And makes other leave for greener pastures.
The net result is wild swings into overtime, unfit crew, increased costs, and decreased productivity.
It's an old adage that some of the most expensive things are 'free' and that by being a cheap bastage you often wind up paying a great deal more than you otherwise would need to.
Problem is CX wants to be able to put people on a string for POTENTIAL work -- 'on call' or 'standby' or whatever you want to call it -- and not pay for it. And also be able to switch around trips (without penalty) without any input from the operating pilot. As to minimize THEIR costs with no guarantee, compensation, or recourse by the crew it affects.
This has served no one well. The company continues to collapse their own rosters and has no idea how to flow out or long term allocation of resources for maximum productivity at minimum cost. You have an hours driven process; not a days driven process. It's not a standard office job. Ideally the company pays for 900 hours per year (within FTL and contractural constraints). The major problem is there is no penalty for holding someone on a string (used or not) and for completely collapsing what should be a stable, planned, 'owned' roster. It's a one way street. In time, this breaks the assets you need to operate the machinery. And makes other leave for greener pastures.
The net result is wild swings into overtime, unfit crew, increased costs, and decreased productivity.
It's an old adage that some of the most expensive things are 'free' and that by being a cheap bastage you often wind up paying a great deal more than you otherwise would need to.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Asia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is wholly incorrect; CX pilots don't mind putting in the work for adequate compensation.
Problem is CX wants to be able to put people on a string for POTENTIAL work -- 'on call' or 'standby' or whatever you want to call it -- and not pay for it. And also be able to switch around trips (without penalty) without any input from the operating pilot. As to minimize THEIR costs with no guarantee, compensation, or recourse by the crew it affects.
This has served no one well. The company continues to collapse their own rosters and has no idea how to flow out or long term allocation of resources for maximum productivity at minimum cost. You have an hours driven process; not a days driven process. It's not a standard office job. Ideally the company pays for 900 hours per year (within FTL and contractural constraints). The major problem is there is no penalty for holding someone on a string (used or not) and for completely collapsing what should be a stable, planned, 'owned' roster. It's a one way street. In time, this breaks the assets you need to operate the machinery. And makes other leave for greener pastures.
The net result is wild swings into overtime, unfit crew, increased costs, and decreased productivity.
It's an old adage that some of the most expensive things are 'free' and that by being a cheap bastage you often wind up paying a great deal more than you otherwise would need to.
Problem is CX wants to be able to put people on a string for POTENTIAL work -- 'on call' or 'standby' or whatever you want to call it -- and not pay for it. And also be able to switch around trips (without penalty) without any input from the operating pilot. As to minimize THEIR costs with no guarantee, compensation, or recourse by the crew it affects.
This has served no one well. The company continues to collapse their own rosters and has no idea how to flow out or long term allocation of resources for maximum productivity at minimum cost. You have an hours driven process; not a days driven process. It's not a standard office job. Ideally the company pays for 900 hours per year (within FTL and contractural constraints). The major problem is there is no penalty for holding someone on a string (used or not) and for completely collapsing what should be a stable, planned, 'owned' roster. It's a one way street. In time, this breaks the assets you need to operate the machinery. And makes other leave for greener pastures.
The net result is wild swings into overtime, unfit crew, increased costs, and decreased productivity.
It's an old adage that some of the most expensive things are 'free' and that by being a cheap bastage you often wind up paying a great deal more than you otherwise would need to.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know many colleagues who have moved on and are in aviation in 2019. Without exception they ARE happy and none have regretted the decision.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. I don’t know a single pilot who has left CX that regrets it. Is this just confirmation bias or reality? There’s no way to know for sure. My sense is that it’s a bit of both. Money isn’t everything; and once a pilot fully embraces the lifestyle options available at many other airlines, that fact becomes tangible.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree. I don’t know a single pilot who has left CX that regrets it. Is this just confirmation bias or reality? There’s no way to know for sure. My sense is that it’s a bit of both. Money isn’t everything; and once a pilot fully embraces the lifestyle options available at many other airlines, that fact becomes tangible.
actually it is. 15 days on 15 days off for pretty average pay. Or 20 on 10 off for better or max cash is 48 on 12off. The problem is CX pilots want full time pay for minimal work. If none of those options suit then maybe doing something else at 55 is the best option. Surely guys looked at this before they elected to leave at 55?
last time I got my calculator out 15 days was 2 weeks.
so, some of us don’t want or can’t be away from HOME for that long....for shit money.
ok.
I agree. I don’t know a single pilot who has left CX that regrets it. Is this just confirmation bias or reality? There’s no way to know for sure. My sense is that it’s a bit of both. Money isn’t everything; and once a pilot fully embraces the lifestyle options available at many other airlines, that fact becomes tangible.
I know one TC off the 777 that every time he sees a CX 777 kicks himself for leaving at 43 yo...
life after CX for some isn’t all that fantastic....
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my experience commuting is the problem. Just because it is technically possible ( barely mostly) doesn't mean it is a good long-term strategy.
You can mess up any pilot job in the world with the decision to commute.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 13th Jul 2019 at 08:28.
