How bout this for your SCXTC
 

Spot the airline guy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GSYK2xyA138

Really you think that is correct only one year after retirement? That would be a great CAD rule. That is funny because Capt John Richardson who retired from BA is in his 70's and he is checking everyone including our BTC's. A lot of the Sim instructors still have a valid license and have been approached already.

Even those who have been expired for some time will be "re" validated. Once that is done they can step right in and take a well paying job out of the hands of those who are still actively flying. :=

Mon
Man, it was Dicks record company after all.

Previous AEX course preferred ( so retired IRE/TRE - STC/BTC). Otherwise a very long upgrade process.

My understanding is that they will not need a Class 1 medical, but will need to demonstrate and maintain proficiency through completing their own PC/RT etc.

I doubt they will be paid much extra. in addition an endless succession of PC and M3/M6 duties will undoubtably drive anyone completely insane after about six months. Oh, and guess who will be doing the red eye sim checks....

But there are over 13000 regulatory Sim sessions per year. If some Sim Instructors can cover some of those then the BTC/STC can fly more.

Safety. Phaaaa. It's all about keeping this circus on the road for a few more months.

J.R. is a representing CAD....

Ok, fine. Get on with it. They are not a long term solution. Over 65 trainers doing redeye sims will get sick and die off in short order. Actually, I feel sorry for them more than anything. They can have the job. It sucks. How many V1 cuts and EI patterns / approaches can one tolerate in a life time. I'd rather blow my brains out.

Get on with it? I think it's disgraceful if any of these former STC's volunteer to do checks in the sim. Our former colleagues that have had the best years of CX are now going to weaken our position against the company?

These sad individuals who have nothing better to do in their lives but sit inside a simulator are now actively working against us, it may have little effect but it is still against our interests and they should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Dead right! Sad, sad individuals. Nothing but contempt for their ilk. They were pr*cks when they were still flying and have confirmed as such with wanting to continue hanging around post retirement.

Should we show that contempt in the briefing or after they've signed our licence? Or should we take a PRA rather than be checked by them? I mean come on, none of us are hypocrites and we certainly have the moral fortitude to say something to someone's face rather than relying on an anonymous forum. :E

STP

This is what is being offered and done because of our actions. You didn't think the company was gonna do nothing and just say ok let's sweeten the offer did you????? Don't complain when upgrades are delayed 2-3 years.

Samsonite. Your evident weakness continues to depress me....:ugh:

Traf smarten up we are weak we had a vote that marginally failed which means we are divided half and half. Would you like me to speak slooooooower?

And never forget that a few of the "returnees" were members of the star chamber......

Samsonite,

The fear of the company's 'Plan B Bogeyman' by the more stupid amongst us was one of the factors which led me to vote NO.

It's absurd to suggest that a YES vote would somehow make the company play nice. They were always intending to supplement their anaemic training capacity with recycled STCs, sub-out part of the JF/O training to KA etc, regardless of which way the vote went. By all means exercise your democratic right to vote YES or NO as you see fit, but FFS, do it on the merits of the TA, not on what the company may or may not do.

And tell me - how has voting NO added 2-3 years to anyone's upgrade time? I don't see the huge (by Cathay standards .. ) delivery backlog between now and 2020 being delayed by a corresponding 2-3 years, therefore the upgrades have to happen.

Veruka and some others are spot on! The company recognized their weakness for current and future negotiations and decided to rectify it regardless of the outcome of the TA. However you voted please know that this action was inevitable.

Fact: one of my recently retired colleagues was asked by head of training to come back as a simulator STC, over a MONTH prior to the vote. Have NO doubt, the company had been planning and implementing this well in advance of the vote. They were doing this no matter how we voted. That should hopefully wake a few of you 'YES' voters up as to the nature of the beast. The only thing we have to move the terms of the debate in our direction is the current CC and TB. If we give that up without resolving any of the big issues, then no aspect of your 'career' will be safe from manipulation. Stay united and keep the pressure on. If any of you want to work for a company with any semblance of a proper contract, then we must see this through to the end. Dragon pilots took almost 4 years to effect the outcome they wanted. We've been going 19 months.

I would have thought that our careers were more safe with agreements locked in place now rather than gamble on getting more later? Everyone now seems to agree that the company will do their best to blunt the effects of the CC and TB and they are already well under way to achieve that. So will our negotiating position become stronger or weaker in the years that it will now take to get them back to the table? If our position is not stronger will the offer be better or worse?

CR, This is just business. If you remove the emotion and rhetoric then we must assess whether we will be better off or worse off from this decision? Will our industrial strength increase or decrease with time (as it has done each other time we have taken industrial action). Given two years with no pay rises and the HKPA not backdated, then who will really win? I thought RP's in the COS was the holy grail (regardless if it is not perfect)?

I keep reading all the apologists trying to reason that we 'will be worse' off , or our 'strength will erode'...etc, etc. The simple fact is that the majority of your colleagues decided that, even 'knowing the risks', they were not willing to accept a deeply flawed TA. History may prove we are worse off, but we were GUARANTEED a step backwards if we voted 'yes'. At least this way, we maintain our dignity, our industrial options and not least of all, the moral high ground. I would prefer to see the 'Beast' for it's true character, and by rejecting their high handed attempts at intimidation and blackmail, at least we can now start to see if they have any 'goodwill' of any sort, or that it was only empty words. Worst case, we all know that there really isn't a proper career here at CX, and we can all plan accordingly. Maintain our unity, maintain CC and the TB and see if there is any true leadership on the 9th floor. The ball is back in their court. Maybe this time they will play it straight.