SLS Mk II
 

As the world global financial crisis, nay, catastrophe envelops all industries over next few years and really intensifies, bet your left one CX will have their hand out for another round of SLS.

Any takers??

Maybe the Captains can do it- minus 10%

:hmm:

I suspect we (the AOA) have a lot of rectifying the contract to do before I would even consider another round of SLS. To start with:

- freighter positioning
- proper finalization of 25 year housing
- real consultation on new FTLs
- new and improved RPs based on PBS
- new basing policy to open more positions

Anyone care to add to the wish list...

First it was Direct Entry Captains are coming, now it's a new thread saying SLS is coming? Exactly what are you trying to incite?

At least you've named yourself well Larry. :ok:

No. And I doubt anyone else will until
KA & CX lay off all the icadets first

hahahaha. I haven't kept up with inflation for SIXTEEN YEARS....and just received the first miserable payrise in nearly a decade. There is NO chance I will ever again agree to SLS. There is much catching up to do before I start going backwards again.

First things first... There is 3000+ hrs of overtime in the published October roster. No sls just yet!

Surely you mean SLS Mk 3 - I guess you may be fairly new here!

I'd sign up again in a heartbeat. Both Mk 1 and 2 resulted in me loaning the company a few weeks pay in exchange for a few weeks extra leave. Admittedly if I'd been a captain for Mk 2 it would have cost me a small amount of money for the extra leave but if they were selling extra leave at that rate now then there'd be a long queue I reckon.

You assume SLS MK 3 will be the same, the Capt shafting was a test to see where MK 3 could go, so sign if you want but don't bitch and moan when it's not like MK 1/2.

Loopdeloop is right! Loan the company a few weeks and get it back PLUS the few weeks are extra paid leave! Where are the mathmeticians here? I think it's a great deal!

Why not get a few concessions from the company for that ever elusive AOA recommendation like during the SLS Mk2?

Agree with above post that all icadets would have to be made redundant first. Would like to add that when they come back, they (or their replacements) are on full expat terms.

Separate note - hear there are some managers trying to run a coup against the DFO over this whole icadet mess...

Et tu, brute!

I would LOVE to have some more SLS, or a part time scheme. That would be the cat's meow, I do say indeed!!!

Box

Legally, the Company can no longer hire anybody on expat terms without having the RDO trigger full expat terms for all our 300+ local pilots.

Can we still manage to recruit experienced and suitable pilots to Hong Kong on anything less than full expat conditions? Probably not. Can we recruit unlimited quantities of suitable iCadets? Of course.

Flight Ops is therefore instructed to only recruit on local conditions. Period.

sorry, but that is not correct, however some people want us to believe exactly that ...

Ask any of your non-pilot expat friends what is going on in their companies, banks etc. They are hiring on expat terms - completely legal - without triggering expat terms for any of the locally hired employees in similar positions.

If the company agrees to something like 25 years housing in exchange then I would probably take sls. :hmm:

Anyone know why this is still not yet in writing? Mine still says

Of course they can pay housing...
 

...just ask any expat BC who has been hired recently... They all get a shared flat for two years and then they get an allowance enough for a place in TC.

Anyone believes that the company "has" to hire pilots on local terms should think again...

If the company had received legal advise to the effect they could hire expats without triggering and end to local contracts, they most certainly would. Believe me. We'd have proper DESO contracts again, as well as DEJFOs. We might even see DEFOs on the bases again, who after serving their time could return to HK in expat conditions, something they can not legaly offer without invalidating local contracts.

Upper management is convinced that they can't legally get aorund this, and Finance is therfore instructing Flight Ops to not hire anybody on expat terms. This puts a lot of pressure on company-loyal flight-ops managers who don't agree with this decision from an operational perspective. In fact, most will tell you over a beer that the Cadet program only works when mixed with experienced crews. The HKPA is a (failed) attempt at recruting experienced pilots without triggering a RDO claim, and is a compromise of sorts between Finance and Flight Ops.

So I say again, you've got it wrong. The company would prefer that they could hire expats without triiggering a landslide at the same time.

Have a look at HSBC. They already dealt with this issue by putting everybody on the same benefits scale to avoid this mess.

They're bringing with them language and culture skills which can't be obtained locally. For that, you are allowed to discriminate.

For pilots.?

quadspeed

What planet are you living on? CX are laughing all the way to the bank not having to pay expat terms to new pilots. The reality is they are using the RDO as an excuse not to pay expat terms. I don’t know how many times I have to say this but the RDO doesn’t even apply as cadets were never employed based on race. Prior to the iCadet scheme cadets were employed because they had the right to live in Hong Kong, not because of their race. Even though most cadets were Hong Kong Chinese, many weren’t. This on its own is all the evidence that is required cadets weren’t employed based on their race but on their right of abode in Hong Kong and therefore demonstrating the RDO doesn’t apply. They were discriminated based on their employment stream, not their race and the RDO doesn’t cover discrimination based on employment stream.

Even if the RDO did apply which I believe it doesn’t, section 13 “Exception for employment of person with special skills, knowledge or experience”, still allows employers in Hong Kong to pay expat terms and conditions to new employees if they bring special skills, knowledge or experience to Hong Kong that aren’t readily available in Hong Kong. Pilots with any depth of experience, i.e. DESO/FO’s definitely aren’t readily available here. Based on this any new pilots that would have qualified for the DESO/FO employment stream would still be allowed expat terms under the RDO section 13.

I find it more than a coincidence that the moment 90 or so cadets a few years ago joined the AOA on mass and pushed the AOA GC to fight for expat terms and conditions based on the RDO, the company withdrew all expat terms and conditions for all new hire pilots. The reality was they were barking up the wrong tree because even if the RDO was applicable, section 14 “Exception for existing employment on local and overseas terms of employment”, allowed the company to continue to discriminate against any employee employed before 10th July 2009.

RACE DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE

Once any cadet has been checked to line as an FO, SFO, Captain or STC he most certainly fits the "with any depth of experience" description. Doing the same job, with the same qualifications and skill set but receiving a lower wage because he or she happened to be born a Hong Kong Resident is discrimination. In fact, the RDO specifically mentions discrimination based on "national origin" as falling within the scope of the RDO. (8.1.a)

CX is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hire on expat terms and pay the penalty, or hire cheaply on local terms and hope it stays afloat. CX is not hiding behind the RDO. If they wanted to end all expat terms and conditions, they could have done so at any point in the past 30 years. But they knew they couldn't get the crew they wanted, and continued to offer 'the package.'


'Not having to pay expat terms to new pilots' has a direct impact on the calibre of recruitment. I can assure you many in Flight Ops are not "laughing all the way to the bank", but are genuinly concerned where this will take us 10 years down the road. Which I believe was the reference which started this discussion.

Quadspeed

That is where you are sadly wrong they do NOT receive a LOWER wage they receive exactly the SAME wage, they just do not receive EXPAT BENEFITS.

Unfortunately they were employed WITHOUT this "depth of experience" and only GAINED it after their employment / training with CX, so there is NO discrimination.

quadspeed
You fail to understand the clock starts at the point of offer and acceptance, not when they arrive in Hong Kong. The point of offer for employment is after interview with a condition of passing their training in Adelaide.
Expats and locals actually receive the same wage. Cadets don't receive all the expat allowances. Cadets also may have been born with a right of residency else ware but gained it because their parents moved here for work.Let’s look at what Section 8 “Meaning of “race”, “on the ground of race”, “racial group” and comparison of cases of persons or different racial groups” paragraph 1a says:
For this section to be applicable to the original cadets, one has to ascertain if these cadets were employed on any of these grounds. Were they employed by CX because of their:

a. RACE: No
b. COLOUR: No
c. DESCENT OR NATIONAL OR ETHNIC ORIGIN: No
d. RIGHT OF ABODE IN HONG KONG: Yes

Race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin had no basis for the employment of these cadets. They were employed solely on their right to live in Hong Kong. Just because a large proportion of them are of a particular race is a consequence of requiring a right of abode in Hong Kong.
Flight ops management aren’t the ones pulling the strings here. This is a corporate directive from board level. I have no doubt that some management in FOP’s are concerned the direction the company is taking. Unfortunately none of them are prepared to take their concerns to the board. To do that unfortunately would be a career ender because it would involve punching above most of their pay grade, treading on toes along the way and probably telling them something that they don’t want to hear anyway.

By now, it should be clear to all, that since the mid-nineties, we have been sliding down the proverbial slippery slope. A cockpit crewed by experienced and seasoned pilots is no longer a priority.....in fact, in some circles it is seen as a financial burden. Rather than seek the best, most seasoned, most capable crews, the industry, as a whole, is experimenting......how low an experience level can they tolerate paying for? If you can risk your head exploding, google multi-crew licence for an example of the insanity that is allowed to pervade our industry these days.

It's sad really. No senior pilot seems able or willing to explain the cost/risk analysis of inexperienced pilots to the cost conscious members of any airline board......

Yes, we were all inexperienced at one time. And yes, we all had 300 hours at one time. But the industry standard then was to pair us with more experienced pilots, or limited us to flying smaller planes, or planes with ejection seats, until we gathered enough experience to cope with the challenge of more risk/responsibility...and then we moved up. Each and every other industry/profession on the planet follows this time tested principle.

The following article states the case better than I can:

Cockpit crisis - World - Macleans.ca