Could this by any chance have anything to do with an idea the company was kicking around a few years ago, about having remote based A300, B767/B757 freighters feeding SE Asia into Hong Kong?

That's when they were so careful to stipulate twin-isle widebody when we had the big dust-up over scope clauses.

Hmmmmm! I smell a fat rat.

Squak7700. Just a quick question for you.

What was the first date that you read this ad. in your local paper please?

Thank-you.

I must say that the KUL F/O deal almost makes ASL palatable!....my how our standards fall!

Okay, I read KB's letter on the AOA web site.
I don't totally understand the value of recruiting F/O's in KUL for flight time limitation reasons. Who will they fly with? Don't they need to have a Captain?

So, the bigger question is where will the Captains come from? Will they post a KUL Captain vacancy for bid and then when no one bids it recruit direct-entry KUL Captains?

And, the final question is that if the Freighter pay scales (just approved) are negotiated, then the KUL payscales will have to be negotiated and approved by the AOA won't they? I don't see the AOA agreeing to payscales lower than the current Freighter scales


Remain Calm - but be prepared to ACT!

Guys, I can confirm the offending ad was printed on the 24th March in a local english daily.

I must state that it's causing a lot of stir here among the local fraternity, but let me just quote the juicy bits from the ad :

"DIRECT ENTRY F/O FREIGHTER FLEET BASED IN KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA

Successful applicants will initially be based in KUL to operate CX freighter 744 & will receive on year one RM163,848.00 salary per annum.Includes concessionary travel & medical benefits.RIGHT OF ABODE, IMMIGRATION & TAX AFFAIRS ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OFFICER.

Future oppurtunities will exist for successful candidates after 3 years in KUL to upgrade to pax fleet based in HKG & receive a full expat pax fleet F/O package (year 4 F/O eff. 01/07/01 810,780.00 per annum).

All F/O applicants must meet the following requirements:

1)ICAO ATPL

2)A min time of 1000 hours in ONE of the following categories:
a)Airline Jet Transport
b)Command Turbo Prop (MAUW more than 20,000 kgs)
c)Command Corporate Jet
d)High Performance Military Jet
e)Military Flying Instructor (fixed wing)

Unquote.

While not adding salt to our brethren's wound in HKG, I have to say that the renumeration offered is nearly on par (minus a few thousand ringgits & the perks) with MAS starting widebody commander.This is very enticing for the junior F/O's & F50 commanders in MAS as they are quite down the seniority file.Not to mention the ex Air Force, G/A guys plus the local airlines (Pelangi, Air Asia & Berjaya).

Couldn't imagine CX taking non locals as the current labour law prevents them from taking expats if the position could be filled by qualified locals.The mandatory Employee Provident Fund (EPF) is very generous too with a min of nearly 22% goes to the fund & the employee only forks out 9% to 12% of their basic pay towards EPF.Tax here is 29% max (which btw is the rate paid if your annual income exceeds RM100,000.00).

Again would appreciate some feedbacks for us.It's nice to know what we're actually worth in the open market.Hmmmmm, I wonder if MAS will now pay more to keep us in?

Safe Flying All,

http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif
PILOST

Here's a question.

Did the (alleged) advert come out before the AOA were informed or after?

It occurred to a few of us last night that ASL C&T's may be 'directed' to train them if our guys won't. My understanding is that they (ASL C&T's)may have no voice in the matter due to the way their contract is written. Anyone thought that one through? Is there now common ground to try and establish a conduit to them to offer them advice/assistance?

After but not by long. The letter sent to the A.O.A is dated 21.03.2001!

The ad is real guys.Just a question though.What's the main objection for the KUL based F/O's?Is it industrial or something else?

Please enlighten us here in the "Thirld World".

Thanks.

Safe Flying
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif
PILOST

it was next to the ad: " FOR SALE: one large vat of baseball bat grease. Bracing harness and gerbil not included...."

Pilost...well, that really says it all now doesn't it. They are hiring pilots for our jobs at 1/3 the money because that is a decent wage in KUL....that's the problem! If MAS can find someone to work for less than you does that make it alright to subvert your conditions? BOHICA-
Bend Over, Here It Comes Again.

YES, it is a decent wage here in KUL. And I understand the implications for Cathay Crews unhappy about the situation. Hopefully it will be resolved through the Union or other reasonable action. But I don't think you should make it the problem of honest pilots here in Malaysia wanting to make a better career move for themselves.

mngmt mole's threats/warnings not to join just because we wouldn't be popular and the other crews would be "burning with resentment" makes THEM the problem, not the KUL crew. Grow up.

This is not the 'war on drugs' or endangered animals where it is the demand or buying that has to stop first instead of the problem being the people supplying the 'bad thing'. Wrong end! It's not the fault or problem of KUL crews wanting to respond to the ad and the conditions offered. It is your top management that you have to aim the peanuts at, not the Malaysian pilots.

Remember it's all how you look at it. And if all pilots here in Malaysia had the benefit of your better lifestyle and conditions, then perhaps it would be a different story to what conditions would be acceptable.

My sentiments exactly QNH1013.Please don't look down upon us if we respond to their offer.The cost of living here is much, much more less than in HKG.

What makes me wonder is with a union as strong as yours, don't you have anything in your contract that forbids pilots to be employed at less pay than their contemporaries (read that as locals)?We do, & to back it up our labour law protects us too (& this in a Third World!).

What is ironic here is when CX offered the positon of F/O's & S/O's about 10 years ago, most of the Asians were turned away (this is a FACT) with the excuse that us Third World pilots have doubtful capabilities & of inferior quality but now, they are clamouring for us coz we're cheap labour?If that is the case then market forces here will determine if their ads for those vacancies will be answered.

Like I said earlier, please do not condemn us as we are just enquiring about the prospect of working with an outfit like CX.If we're jumping from the frying pan into the fire, then, at the very least, let us know.

A word of consolation for you guys.The news around town at this moment is that your union is liasing with their IFALPA counterpart here.Most probably a better line of action might be taken after hearing from them.

Till then we do hope to hear more inputs from our friends in the fragrant harbour forum.

Safe Flying.
http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif
PILOST

Aim the peanuts at the Top Management ??? MMmm

Apparently that doesn't work !!!!

[This message has been edited by HUSTLER (edited 04 April 2001).]

Fair enough on some of your comments Gents...you can understand the emotion on this one. Just stay away from CX and tell others the same. Taking this job is taking OUR jobs. The AOA is/will communicate that to your association. (and be forewarned that labour law does not protect you as well in HK)

Pilost... Yes living in your home KUL is most definitly "much, much, more less" So which one is it? More or less?

To the guys in KUL, you're not responsible for the folly of our management. It is our responsibility to put an end to this and I believe that we will, so don't count on a job with cx.

To the cx guys, if we start slinging mud at the boys from KUL then I guess we'll have to do the same to all the B scale etc etc. You can't expect the people who are looking for jobs to fix OUR PROBLEM that has existed long before they came along. WE need to stand up and stop this rot starting with solidarity from seniority number 1 and working right down to the bottom.

TAKSI, You are a joke,joke,joke!

The reason why CX continues to degrade COS is because people like yourself just TALK, but never produce any action! You are a "gunna do this, gunna do that".
The reason why your A scale continues to be attacked is because "you are gunna do nothing".
But hey, you might aswell keep talking about doing something. You have been doing it since when?????????????????
1993!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ess Jay, I'm sorry to say that you are quite right about the fact that the reason our COS has continued to deteriorate is because we haven't done anything about it.

As a result we continue to have the same problem. CX continues to find new ways of improving their profits at the expense of our COS. (I don't suppose that it would be too much of a stretch to say that they would like to see all of us on local terms, that would still be subject to change at the sole discretion of the company.) This thread is about employing pilots on local conditions based in KUL, which is yet another example of cx attempting to reduce our COS by eroding it from the bottom...exactly as they did with B scales. They got away with B scales so why not try it again?

My point with my earlier post is that there are more and less effective ways of dealing with this problem. To tell all of the pilots in the world, who might think of taking a job with cx on reduced conditions, that they better not erode our COS like that, seems to me to be one of the less effective ways. As far as I know that tactic has never worked in the past and I can't imagine that it will work now. It may even serve to alienate our colleagues who are with us now because they took a job on a reduced COS (most of us now), which obviously wasn't reduced to them or they wouldn't have taken the job. Right now we need everybody to stick together so I think that any idea that causes us to splinter apart is a bad idea.

Right now we have 3 options:

1)Do nothing and wait for an ever continuing erosion of our COS.

2)Leave cx and fix the problem for ourselves,or

3)Stand up as a unified group and actually do something about the problem.

You Decide, but in any case placing the responsibility for our problems on the shoulders of the boys from KUL is a copout.

cheers

thepenguin,

You say, "The AOA is/will communicate that to your Association."

This would indicate the AOA holds the view that the establishment of a 744F base in KUL, for DE F/Os only, somehow breaches our "contracts". Do you know how the AOA has come to this conclusion?