Cathay Pacific Terminates Pilot on Military Disability
 

A good friend just contacted me to tell me that he recieved a termination letter from Cathay Pacific. He's been a first officer flying the 747 for many years. He's also a US Navy Pilot. A few months back he was flying a broken F/A-18 and had to eject to save his life. He's been on the disabled list and recovering since. He was hoping to return to Cathay once medically fit. They caught him completely off guard with this. No warning and no reason was given for letting him go besides the standard corporate policy line.

Can Cathay terminate someone on US military disability? What recourse can an American Pilot take if he feels he's been wrongfully terminated by a company based in HK? Does he have legal rights? Any advice?

Sorry i can't help with advice but i hope your friend does have the law on his side and he takes them to the cleaners.
It's just a sad indication as to how little we mean to the accountants that run the show these days. I did hear a story a while ago that a certain large UK loco sent a letter terminating the employment of one of their pilots who was off with cancer. I was told he died the day the letter arrived. All in the name of profit no doubt!

He may or may not depending on what type contract he is on. Wouldn't be the first guy to have a sheriff put a lean on an a/c in lax or JFK

I would guess that U.S. law protecting a civilian job while on military leave has no force on a foreign carrier.

It may if he is based in the US.

There are some serious medical issues involved here. Ejecting might save your life but it causes severe spinal compression. A life of back pain is to be expected and the pilot would not be expected to ever be fit for fast jet duties.

Regaining fitness as a commercial pilot is possible but by no means certain and would take years rather than months. In the circumstances it is reasonable to assume that the pilot is medically unfit and unlikely to be employable for the foreseeable future.

There are, of course, questions which need to be asked about insurances and any employment contract provisions for medical retirement.

It also depends on whether he had written to the company asking permission to carry out this type of flying, if not then he has no recourse.

what are the facts , ejecting can cause spinal compression , but equally if all goes ok there is no problem and people resume fast jet flying.

I wish him the best but good luck suing Cathay.



Ask the 49er's how it worked out for them.

Does he have loss of licence insurance?

Much as I hate to defend Cathay, the fact is the US Navy broke him so I would suggest that it is up to the US Government to take care of him, not the airline.

Holding a pilot on the sick list costs Cathay money so why should Cathay pay when one of their pilots are injured on Military service for a foreign nation.

Would British Airways be expected to automatically retain a pilot who was a Taiwanese citizen with a UK right of abode and was disabled ejecting from a Taiwan Air Force jet ?

If he is on the disabled list, then the US Navy will provide benefits. Perhaps if this chap were injured during, say an actual mission into a war zone, rather than joy riding off the California or Florida coast, then perhaps CX may take a different view on subject.

What are the provisions within the contract between the Hornet chap and Cathay for non company flying? I would be my last rupee that CX truly does not care.

But then again, if there were a Sheriff's Lien put on one of CX's toys in JFK, then well... the outcome probably won't be too good.

In any event, hopefully the chap in question gets his FAA medical back and is able to get back into the air or find another position.

Key to success is finding a good attorney. The chap must be 'pre-eminent' in this kind of litigation. He'll be terribly expensive, but the initial meeting will probably be free, a discussion of the case and its merits. I'm not sure how to follow my advice but attorneys have access to their peers' qualifications and will share if he happens to be friends with one. Otherwise google for similar cases, which often name the attorneys, and then check them out.

Fun as the lien sounds, it's unlikely that Cathay will neglect to pay up if they lose.

Why would Cathay pay anything ?, he was injured working for Uncle Sam so Uncle Sam should pay the bills. From Cathay's POV he took time off and failed to return to work.

If he is a US base pilot the rules for Reservist and National Guards men would apply, doesn't matter if he worked for Cathay Delta or General Motors for that matter. Employers are required to return employees to previous position after military orders. And the US military vigorously defends these rules. Based overseas and all bets are off.

And why in the hell was he flying an F-18 in the first place? If you want to be a military pilot - stay in the military. If you want to be an airline pilot, then show up for work and you won't get fired!

Because he had the opportunity to do so you numpty!

Jealousy is a curse - and no I don't fly for the military.

Not an AOA member I guess:confused:

Something like 30% of US airline pilots are in the reserves or national guard, and I've heard around 2/3 of the US military are reservists and guardsmen. All these people are entitled to military leave anytime they are "called up" or scheduled, and the employers have to deal with it.

As far as I understand it, the US, employers and almost everyone strongly support the military. When someone goes away, whether a day or for months or even a year or more, they are guaranteed to get their job back when they return, along with lots of other guarantees. This is a major cost of doing business for most companies, and it is particularly hard on small ones.

I have no doubt that CX will soon be receiving a letter from the US Navy and will quickly find out just how easy it is for the US government to enforce their laws that protect their personnel. I assume CX got their legal advice from the same kind of experts who thought onshoring was a great idea...

When CX employ ex-US military chaps they are supposed to provide evidence they no longer have any military commitment.

Secondly the COS clearly states he must have written permission from CX to undertake any other form of flying.

Non-US airlines do not have the same requirement to honour National Guard or Reserve obligations - it only applies to US companies.

CX stops paying anybody on sick leave after 6 months, if I am not mistaken. So why did they terminate him if he doesn't cost anything? :confused:

[QUOTE][When CX employ ex-US military chaps they are supposed to provide evidence they no longer have any military commitment./QUOTE] asiamiles, not true

Ejection Injuries
 

Modern rocket ejection seats give a peak accelaration rate of some 18g, older ejection seats (cartridge) of 23g which is close to spinal limit.

It is not true that to use an ejection seat means disability or a lifetime of pain. There are enough members of the Martin Baker club in Cx to contradict this assertion.

CX never fails to disappoint it seems, if this is in fact true.

I'm sure he knows this already, but your buddy needs to contact the folks at ESGR and read up on the USERRA laws. USERRA

A cut and paste:

"USERRA also applies to foreign employers doing business in the United States. A foreign employer that has a physical location or branch in the United States (including U.S. territories and possessions) must comply with USERRA for any of its employees who are employed in the United States".

I don't know the specific details about his case but I'm guessing he lost his HKCAD medical, that's why CX terminated the employment..

Sorry for hijacking the thread, but is it true the JFK SO is no longer with the company as well??

Yes, apparently he was terminated about two weeks ago.

I'm guessing he lost his HKCAD medical
 

I think you're right CG. If the Docs don't think there is a likelihood of return to work within a certain period they look at your medical license. Don't know how long that would be but I know a couple of guys who were off for a couple of years but they were expected to make a full recovery and did so. Perhaps this poor guy isn't expected to recover for a long time.

So this JFK SO was terminated because he was found guilty of a criminal offense in court? or was it just because of the negative press (again)?

think there is a weight limit to which type of ac you have to declare, pretty sure a F-18 is under that weight category.

Imad,

The S/O has NOTbeen found guilty as the trial hasn't started yet. CX terminated his contract without a reason.:yuk:
Word on the street is that's the accuser is back at work. Can anyone confirm this?

''think there is a weight limit to which type of ac you have to declare, pretty sure a F-18 is under that weight category.''

It's 1600kg - and not for commercial flying or aerial work. The F18 doesn't figure on either count.

They don't normally bother to terminate people who are on sick leave.

After 3 months full pay and then 3 months half pay, you go on to zero pay. With no pay you even have to pay up-front for staff tickets. So the only cost to CX when you are in Medical Limbo, are your medical fees. I would assume that this Pilot is having his medical care covered by the USN/USMC Reserves etc. So there would be no real cost to CX.

However if they terminate him, they would have to cough up 3 months pay and also the full PFund.

The usual situation is that a Pilot, without Insurance and on zero pay, gets starved out and eventually resigns to get hold of his PFund.

Flying in your spare time is a grey area for Employees. You are not allowed to work for anyone other than CX, and this could be seen as a case of "working and being paid' as a Reserve Officer. All flying hours count against the maximum 900 hours per year permitted under the HK ANO, and therefore you need the permission of the DFO.

I would imagine that if this Pilot had been flying for another Employer in his spare time, and not declaring these flying hours (with regard to his monthly/annual limits), then there could be grounds for a D&G.

eatbush, I could've phrased it better, but that's exactly what I figured....CX has once again terminated someone purely because of some bad press, when he could've done nothing wrong?

(I'm not pretending I know the facts to this case) but the next time if one of us rubs a cabin crew the wrong way, all it takes for her is to catch you in a dark alley and shout rape, end up in some sensationalist paper and you'll lose your job?! That certainly wasn't the case with the Mumbai incident....Does someone here have anymore facts? Shouldn't we be more concerned about this? It seems to have just been kept under the radar....

I know a pilot who had two ACES II ejections and returned to flying fighters both times. I realize the Hornet has a different seat, but his injuries must have been quite severe if it was deemed he would never hold a HKCAD medical again.

I absolutely feel that the full extent of the USERRA laws should be explored and if possible a lawsuit filed. Regardless the outcome, a shameful termination from a shameless group of managers.

It might have nothing to do with the ejection, but rather the landing afterward.

Then again, worse injuries occur in skiers, motorcyclists, automobile drivers, house painters, tree climbers, scuba divers, people standing around waiting for the bus when the drunk driver plows into them, etc....

Clearly they did have a reason. Perhaps you meant "without (good) cause".

According to a cabin crew friend >Correct!

She is back at work and he gets fired without "good cause". The precedent is set and from now every cabin crew member can throw out an accusation in the US, the cockpit crew gets arrested/terminated and the cabin crew go on with their lives without any problem. What has the AOA done about this.