After Release
 

Once their time has been serves they have complete the requisite training for a management position. :ok:

Cumguzzler

The US visa's are company sponsored L1A visa's. No individual pilot applied for a visa. All visa's where collectively applied for by the company and not as an individual. Actually, Canadian citizens with a Canadian residence do not need a US visa if employed by a foreign company, operating foreign registered aircraft, starting and ending their pairings in the US as long as they do not live in the US and commute from Canada. However, CX made it company policy to require a US visa because of US tax liability concerns. As you might have heard all Canadians with a US base file and pay income tax in Hong Kong, Canada and the US due to how CX approached the whole issue. All Americans with a Canadian base do not need a Canadian visa at the present time as there seem no tax implications for CX.

So do Mexicans also not need a US visa to be based in the US? How about Germans, or Yemenis?

Don't see a problem with Germans or Yemenis, but those darn Azerbaijanis and Armenians are a pain in the butt...

Well, now we know it was done right:D:D:D

Uh huh. And the FOIA enquiry will see if CX was 'honest' in their representations to the US Immigration authorities. What do you want to bet on that outcome??

One of those who has been issued a visa told me that some of the information on the application was most certainly misleading and untrue.

Could anyone confirm if any FOs had their visas approved?

Visas...
 

Do you have problems with DEGO' s AKA euro trash?

joejet, Friday has come and gone and you (as well as CX) are eerily quiet...

Next Friday...

Results were released from the 8th Floor to the 7th, it takes time to go all the way to the basement where we are.

Uhmmm, don't forget this is PPRune, not the BBC.

If it were BBC, it would be even less accurate with more bias...

Heard the new FTLs are a "rolling" 84 hours. If you fly 74 one month, they get you for 94 the next without EFP, etc.

I say no way to this ever! I don't care what base is at stake.

RUBBISH
 

the 84 hours is in your COS.....nothing to do with FTL's,

EFP has NEVER been part of the FTL's.

You'd be a little more credible if only you made sense cxorcist.

If the accuracy of your posts is anything to go by the BBC must be some sort of information guru.

Sorry guys. What I meant to say (had a couple rough long haul days) was that I heard a rumour the company was going to pursue, for the "new JFK base" or otherwise, a "rolling" credit hour concept as previously laid out. I realize that this has nothing to do with FTLs, but it could become part of an RP negotiation or "new contract" or "sign or be fired," etc. To clarify, I would be against such a change and understand it has nothing to do with FTLs except that new FTLs could be an impetus for new negotiations / contracts.

cxorcist, would you still be against such a change if it only applied to those on or wanting to go on a JFK base?

Just asking to be abused -

You have three weeks leave next month. How many hours do you think they'll roster this month? You'll spend most of your leave recovering from the 120hrs that CC would dump on you.

Without very specific wording, it won't just be limited to long haul either.

Why are they always pushing to make things worse in this place, nothing ever changes for the better, the AOA are nigh on useless. Every few years there is a major change to contracts or ftls, what will it be like in 10 years time, rolling hours, overtime at 120, 6 days off a month, min rest everywhere. Something has to give, greed has a limit, doesn't it?

Oval,

Yes, wouldn't you?

Seeing as how we are all on individual contracts though, I'm not sure there is much either of us could do about it. If someone is willing to agree to that as a precondition for the base, would we have recourse? On the basis of seniority and our existing contract, I hope the AOA could stop it but that did not happen when freighter commands on bases were first offered.

cxorcist,

Why would I be against something which would be beneficial to some pilots and not detrimental to others? I would NOT be against it.

What do you mean, "I hope the AOA could stop it?"

WE are the AOA. Why would the AOA want to stop it? "Normal" airlines have alls sorts of special rules to which the employees agreed, some of which benefit only certain groups but do not harm others.

Why would you want to see your fellow pilots not be able to get a base in JFK?