Check out the CX pilots safety record Dr.

The safety margins at cx are being eroded by lousy morale and fatigue inducing rostering by a management driven by short term profit goals (greed).

Please excuse us whilst we try to rectify the the safety issue.

Say there, Jumpseat, how much CX stock do the pilots hold? IF a suitable amount, your group may be able to get together with some of the institutional investors and (combined) try to influence your management. This has been tried in the USA before with some success. If you guys called the ALPA number in Washington DC I mentioned some time ago, these guys should have mentioned this. This may not work in HKG however.

Say there 411A, Go back to advertising Bills coaches in Manchester.

I think we'll call you the PPrune sexual advisor. If we want your F*%$$#g advice we'll ask for it.

Goddit?.....Good!

[This message has been edited by jumpseat (edited 05 July 2001).]

411A...remember the final equation?
Airline-management=ongoing operations.

Airline-pilots=immediate grounding of company's fleet.

Passenger Revenue - (Company aircraft+Company pilots)=PROFIT for shareholders.

Passenger Revenue - (Leased Aircraft+Leased crew+Leased crews' company profits+Maintenance of Cathay aircraft)= LOSS for shareholders.

The longer this equation remains unsolved=the more it will cost the shareholders!

Kaptin M I've read your equation on several threads now, what you must also remember is the Airline-Cabin Crew, Engineers, Cleaners, Caterers and the list goes on and on would also have the same result, so whilst you are a slightly bigger cog in the wheel it is the many other small cogs that keep it all together. Unfortunately I believe it's going to be us smaller cogs that are going to suffer at the end of all this, thanks!

Spanners, this management has acted with impunity against ALL employee groups for the better part of a decade now. What is so difficult to understand about the necessity in re-establishing a 'balance of terror' between management and the employees. Just be quietly grateful that we are willing to take these people on and risk our own jobs in doing so. Look at the example at United airlines. The pilots achieved an industry leading contract, which 3 months later led to their mechanics obtaining their OWN industry leading contract. If the management of CX can continue to cut our pay and benefits, intimidate and threaten with impunity and generally treat ALL staff with the contempt they have shown these past 8 years.....what do YOU think the future would hold for ALL of us...?

Gosh....here are the CX guys....back on line in FH. Maybe their OWN site is not so good??
Welcome back!!

The Resistance if you read what I said I was just trying to point out that we all have a part to play some bigger than others but all important, I didn't mention anything about YOUR fight or management or anytrhing else. So if you do get the xx% payrise that is alleged do you think we'll get the same? I think not, in order to pay for it the sacrafices WILL be made elsewhere by people not involved in YOUR fight.
411a as I'm not a pilot, but an Engineer in CX I can't get into the HKAOA website/forum however I do appreciate feedback from the people who are, unlike yourself!

spannersatcx, you are absolutely correct in what you say, the airline is made up of "Cabin Crew, Engineers, Cleaners, Caterers and the list goes on and on". Unfortunately, and REALISTICALLY though, any of the aforementioned groups can be removed, and the planes will continue to fly, but only as long as there are pilots - when all is said and done, pilots are the linchpin on whom the ENTIRE airline depends. This is not an egotistical point of view - a mere fact upon which no-one is able to disagree, like it or not.

"Market forces" have been a well worn cliche cited by companies for downgrading the pilots' conditions over the past decade or so, and it is now those same "market forces" that are responsible for determining the pilots', engineers', cabin crew, cleaners, and caterers' remunerations.
Perhaps management ought to be thanked for implementing this concept during the "Asian crisis".

Kaptin M...Hellllloooooo

Do you think it would be legal to fly without the doors being adequately manned?


Don't think so.

I am a CX crew and I support the Pilots!!!!

Well helloooo Flybygirl! You are correct, unfortunately however I have seen a dispute involving cabin crew, and guess who replaced them? Our mutual friends, the management. Unfortunately, and as you're no doubt aware, cabin crew replacements can be taken "off the street" and trained in the required emergency procedures in several days if need be - cleaning and catering are also able to be outsourced to unskilled labour. I'm not trying to upset anyone, nor look down my nose at them - simply a statement of facts.

The Resistance's posting is interesting in that it highlights (one of) the fundamental differences in thinking between aircrew generally and senior management here. United Airlines aircrew and ground engineers have apparently obtained 'industry leading' contracts of employment. UAL then post first first quarter losses of U$308 million and analysts are suggesting half year losses of U$1 Billion. We all know our industry is cyclical but reconciling large pay rises in times of reduced or non existent profitablilty is difficult. The longer term
danger is that UAL and others 'rationalise' (horrible word) and people get laid off. I think this was one of the points Spanners was making?
I fully accept the current dispute is not just about money, indeed 99.9% of the guys I know just want a stable life style. However, airlines are a narrow margin business and cost reduction will ALWAYS be a huge part of management focus.
I'm not being contentious simply making an observation.
Cheers
SH

Then again if I don't certify the a/c fit to fly, whether you've got a pilot or not it ain't going anywhere! That's the law.
Anyway this is a side issue and you could argue about it all day, which I won't, so I'll say goodbye until I sign the CRS.

Hey Spanners, if you don't sign the maintenace release because the aircraft is not airworthy, then you or your colleauges have not done their job. No pilot in Cathay would accept an aircraft that wasn't safe to fly.

Exactly, Hotdog.

Kaptain M:

Who buys the aircraft you fly?
Who buys the engines for the aircraft you fly?
Who negotiates the bilaterials on the routes that you fly?
Who secures landing and takeoff slots at the airports to which you fly?
Who schedules the flights of the aircraft you fly?
Who calculates yield factors on the aircraft you fly?
Who sells tickets to the passengers whom you fly?
Who ensures travel agents do not flood the market which below cost tickets for the aircraft you fly?
Who arranges essential maintenance for the aircraft you fly?
Who (in the case of CX) ensures one of the most modern aircraft in the world is the aircraft you fly?
Who advertises the services of the aircraft you fly?
Who aims to make more people fly with you than anyone else?
Who provides the training so that you can better your CV?

Give you a clue.......they begin with 'M'.

It's not all done by magic you know.

Kaptin M: When is the last time you saw the pilots changing oil, refuelling, or changing the worn out tyres?

Wake up and smell the coffee

BahrainLad, quite correct! Each one of those you have mentioned is working towards a COMMON goal - to get the aircraft airborne. And only ONE person is able to achieve that, the PILOT.
What you have done, is to RE-INFORCE my point that MANY, MANY other people are dependant on the pilot(s) to realise (all of) their efforts, by using his abilities.

Take away ANY of the individuals you have nominated and the airline will not be grounded (with the exception of the purchaser)...sorry spannersatcx but if you don't sign an aircraft out, it is still possible for the commander to override the MEL - if he considers it necessary!
NONE of the job classifications mentioned by BahrainLad are NECESSARY to operate a commercial aviation operation.

Flybygirl, we can do it [change the oil, the tyres, clean the windscreen, etc...if required. But what's the point of having a dog, and barking as well!!??

Show me an airline without pilots, and you'll convince me!

Sorry Kaptain M, but I don't think you get my point.

I'm NOT trying to argue that an airline could fly without pilots.

What I AM trying to argue is that it wouldn't fly without management either.

You acknowlege the role of the aircraft/equipment purchaser in your posts. Well, I'm not going to give you any Guvnor-esque 'I'm an airline CEO' bollocks, but I do know how an airline is set up.

You need management to do all the tasks I mentioned in my first post, otherwise the airline will not fly. You I am sure are aware of bilateral agreements, slot negotiations, maintenance contracts which are all tasks for management and are CRUCIAL to the running of any airline.

An airline would be GROUNDED without management as comprehensively as it would be grounded without pilots.

In fact, if you are talking about commercial airlines, they are doubly necessary. The very definition of a commercial (as opposed to a charity) airline is one that makes money. I don't see CX making any money without routes, schedules, tickets, maintenance, training or advertising.

I repeat, you are not surplus to requirements. But running a successful airline is a team operation: no one else is either.

Maybe the good Kaptin M will fly for free, after all if there is no accounting staff, salaries would not be paid, due to no revenues collected.
Come to think of it, you really do not need a permanent pilot staff as well, these can be outsourced.....hello, Parc Aviation?
A bit OTT you say, well just to illustrate that the sun does not rise and fall on pilots. No teamwork, no airline. Simple as that.

[ 08 July 2001: Message edited by: 411A ]

Agreed BahrainLad, "running a SUCCESSFUL airline is a team operation", and not dissimilar to an aircraft, with redundancies designed in several areas to take the extra load should one system fail - unfortunately however, some systems are "one-offs", the failure of which may result in the aircraft being rendered completely unflyable.

You win 411A - no accounting staff, and the airline would be grounded. :rolleyes: Now toddle off to another site and annoy people of your own mental capacity - try a search using "crayola" as the keyword!

:rolleyes:

411A Where'd your 5 star rating go? :rolleyes:

Kaptin M, your own sense of self has given you tremendous tunnel vision. With all due respect to pilots who do a wonderful job flying the plane, the same praise goes to those who keep the planes flying, and those who keep the passengers wanting to fly CX as opposed to some one else.

Oh and let's not forget those who serve the pax and yes there are those who prepare the items that are made available for them to be served to pax.

And yes what about those who load the cargo and meals onboard, and the ones who write the rosters so the right people show up to each flight?

If you want to Kaptin M, you can play as a team, if you don't then go fly a crop duster where you can do everything yourself and bark till your hearts content.

I'm so happy the majority of cockpit crew I have met are down to earth enough to realize it takes more then one person to play a team sport. so to speak...

Kaptain M, you don't understand. Still.

An airline is like a machine with cogs. The failure of any one cog will cause the airline to be grounded.

Name me one out of scheduling, maintenance, fleet acquisition, ticketing that you could fly without, and how you propose to do this, and you'd make a lot of money as a consultant :D

BahrainLad, I believe you are missing MY point, and that is, IMMEDIATE removal of any or all of the departments you have nominated, will not IMMEDIATELY ground an airline - other staff are able to "cover" areas such as cabin crew duties, ticketing, (often) scheduling and rostering - which is pretty much static from month-to-month, and unless the aircraft are due for maintenance (sheduled or unsheduled), it would be some time before the effect of lame's would be noticed.
Flybygirl, catering is non-existent on many low cost operators these days (pax carry their own refreshments aboard), and -yet once again - I have seen the "suits" (attempting) to load the cargo during a stoppage by loaders.
IMMEDIATE removal of the pilot group means IMMEDIATE cessation of flying ie. grounding of the airline's aircraft - THAT was my point (phew!).

In this case however, it would seem that the mis-management team, of Turnbull, Tyler, Bartlett and associates, believe they have pre-empted a withdrawl of pilots' labour, and have VOLUNTARILY decided to incur financial losses to Cathay, by ceasing services to some destinations.

The corollary of my point might be also be proven, by showing that the REMOVAL of Cathay's current management would cause an INCREASE in revenue for the Company!

And my point is that action by a number of other groups in the airline would also cause the IMMEDIATE GROUNDING of the airline.

Take Cabin Crew for example. What's the legal implications of trying to fly a 747 from LHR to HKG with flight deck crew only? Are you going to fight your way out of the flight deck, down the stairs, all the way back to Door 5R to help with an evac. in an emergency? Didn't think so.

Seems you have forgotten the safety aspect of Cabin Crew which is far, far more important than their role as meal server.

Take engineering for example. Why is it that when I come as SLF to BAH on a BA 777, invariably the cover of the GE90 pops open and there are people looking at the engine? Surely not, if maint. only happens every couple of weeks. What about the BA Engineer that flys BAH-DOH-BAH every day. Does he do this for the good of his health?

And don't give me that 'anyone could do it' bollocks - you're not the only one that has to be legally certified in an airline operation.

As a e-type person myself, I am intrigued to see that PPrune Towers are able to

"...know, for example, exactly how many CX management or SCMP machines are reading the site at any one time. We can produce detailed logs for any hour of any day for any company server accessing this site - it's childsplay..."

A powerful weapon to scare off management types - but how do you tell if they are management rather than pilots, for example? IP addresses are normally for the whole company, right?

BahrainLad you really are wearing my patience thin. Do the names Fedex, Tower Air, Polar Air Cargo or UPS support your argument for running an airline without cabin crew? As I stated earlier, MANY of the unskilled jobs are able to be outsourced and replacement workers brought in within a matter of days.

Now, you said "Take engineering for example. Why is it that when I come as SLF to BAH on a BA 777, invariably the cover of the GE90 pops open and there are people looking at the engine? Surely not, if maint. only happens every couple of weeks.
My guess is that it is either (a) engineering staff familiarisng themselves with the 777, and/or (b) artisans - and isn't that word salt in the wounf for lames - checking fluid quantities.

What about the BA Engineer that flys BAH-DOH-BAH every day. Does he do this for the good of his health?
He is there IN CASE that particular aircraft on which he is paxing, requires work that only HE - as a 777 rated lame - can perform/oversee, and sign off. But ONE aeroplane going u/s won't ground the entire airline. And for as long as the aircraft continue to fly without developing any major problems, or requiring any scheduled maintenance, the mechanics can sit back and enjoy paxing around without getting any grease under his fingernails. If perchance he carks it enroute, it's not going to ground the aeroplane. Same cannot be said for EITHER of the pilots.

Bahrain Lad...there are many cogs required to run the airline, but when one of them becomes out of alignment such as say flt ops management, the metal shavings resulting contaminate the whole operation....eventually resulting in the destruction of the airline.....Kaptin M...remember the forum is for ALL opinions and views...why don't you voice your opinions, and keep your crybaby silly comments to yourself...no one else here is behaving in your true union-boy fashion...so like it, or ignore it....

Kaptain M, yes an a/c needs flt crew to fly that is given. However for him/her to be able to legally fly that a/c that a/c has to be released for flt and under the HKGCAD Law an appropriately approved/licenced/authorised engineer has to sign the CRS for any or nil defects the a/c may have, the maint check that is c/o iaw the Approved Maintenance Schedule (even a transit). As for the freighters, even though they do not have Cabin Crew, still require that release, that is the Law in HKG (and elsewhere), so whilst you're sat there waiting to go, until I sign it off you ain't going nowhere. :)

Kaptain M, you will surely be aware of the way in which an unsecured or imbalanced load on a cargo aircraft can reduce you to a mere passenger.

But who's responsibility is this? Or are Fedex pilots now loading their MD-11s themselves?

ironbutt57, agreed. Seems CX Management are screwing the whole thing up - but not surprising considering their history.

Kaptain M - for the last time no one is suggesting that Pilots can be removed from the operation. However, you do seem to have an elevated sense of your own importance...


And I called your bluff about the 777 - most of the time they are checking for fanblade cracks in the GE90 - or could you do that?

Hypothetical for you spannersatcx: aircraft diverts to and lands at an airport where there are no lames, at all - can that airplane depart without the Tech Log being signed by a mechanic? According to you - no. According to me - yes!

The pic is legally responsible for the overall safety of the aircraft, and its occupants - hence should he decide it is safe to depart, WITHOUT the aircraft being "signed off" by a lame (even if one IS available) he IS permitted to do so. Of course he must be able to justify his decision, should it come under scrutiny.

Tin@ass this thread wouldn't have gone the distance it has so far, without the various opinions being offered. I appreciate hearing from most of them, as they allow each of us to interchange our thoughts, and perhaps add some extra dimensions to our views. I happen to believe it should the right for those who desire it, to be represented in their employment conditions by whomever they choose - whether that is the individual, a solicitor, or a representative body...ie. a UNION. Employers present prospective employees with a professionally written, legally prepared document, usually involving penalties if those terms and conditions are not adhered to. If there is a disagreement, the employer will not hesitate to use a legal professional to extract, from the employee, the said penalty.
Why should an employee be denied the same right when dealing with his employer?

Kaptain M, with regards to your last question, it all depends on the school of management your employer went to, and which country you are in.

It seems that CX management are taking the attitude that they are doing you (pilots) a thumping great favour by employing you in an increasingly competitive job market, and therefore they can dictate terms. After all, from their position they know far more about their money in/out situation than you do. (See recent comments from CX in the wires). Additionally, they represent investors without which you would not have aircraft to fly nor airports to fly to. A 100% attitude like this will not get them anywhere.

Then there is the pilot/employee attitude which says that we are the backbone of the company and doing everyone a service at our own expense. A 100% attitude will not get them anywhere either.

Obviously the great question is where to find a happy medium between the two. I do think Pilots (especially at CX) should be paid more - the steps taken at Delta are 'a good thing'. However, there must be a limit - and that won't be imposed by management, it'll be imposed by economics.

I know you and your colleagues take 300 lives in your hands - price $300 million as a result of AF4590 - but the passengers are simply not prepared to pay a level of fare that would even begin to pay you for that level of responsibility.

I posted what I thought was a very interesting article in the Economist on the R&N board - if you haven't, I encourage you to read it.

It's very much a case of 'where do we go from here?'

I am not a CX pilot but wish to offer my support to them all.

It's important that ALL CX PILOTS take the same action...the ones who sit on the bench are the ones who should be sacked not the ones out there after better conditions and pay.

ON YOU GUYS, BEST OF LUCK.

Sorry I didn't get back earlier Kaptain M but I've only just flown back to my base as I had to go to another port to release an aircraft, funnily enough the Crew couldn't!
Rgds spannersatcx. :cool:

Kaptin M I am sure that a captain would never take an aircraft unless his life depended on it without the relevent CRS signed by an engineer. As for taking an aircraft with defects outside the MEL again I don't think so. Nobody has tried to belittle your qualifications so why do so to others? It might be good experience for you to spend a day on the ramp with an engineer, you could learn something!!!!!!

Methinks from perusing this forum that "Kaptin M" is unable to learn anything, as he knows it all...like most other "89ers"....too bad all the other airlines in the world are not blessed with the presence of these miserable whinging, self-indulgent morons...

Kaptin M.

Your arrogance astounds me, and it is not just on this thread that it has reared it's ugly head.

The amount of time it would take to train up all of these ("unessential" workers in your eyes) would be enough to see an airline suffer to a huge extent. Possibly even enough for it to go under completely. Unless of course you wanted to park the aircraft, get out and put the gate/stairs on, offload the bags and freight, then load the outgoing. Then you can head up stairs and cater the aircraft, clean it, and if you have time, you can chase up those annoying pax that decide they want to get to the a/c 10 minutes after it is supposed to leave. After they are finally on board you can some how take the gate off, push the aircraft back and make your way on to the flight deck.

And I only mentioned what happened airside.

In the short time I have been a member of this board, I have swung from neutral to in favour of the the companies sacking of the pilots who are not performing their duties up to the standards expected of them.

The arrogance of Kaptin M is a classic case of the "I KNOW BEST" mentality despite the rest of the participants pointing out very good reasons with patient explanations.

This "I KNOW BEST" attitude has landed 52 pilots in hot water, I feel the only way they will fly CX again is as a passenger on their journey home.

Putting this into perspective:
Hong Kong is paying a huge price for the sake of 1200 pilots staff? Can't the AOA see how unfair it is to effect so many lives for this small number?

There are many who will suffer, even amoungst the pilots! Wives, kids etc.

Very sad indeed

Diamond .. How can you explain that 52 pilots were sacked in one day "for not doing their duties" in the middle of an industrial action that involves nothing other than carefully checking company manuals and procedures? (Please note that four of these individuals were prominent union members, some were on leave, others were sick.) Surely this smacks more of intimidation?? I would hope that any corporation with a safety reputation as exemplary as Cathay would notice that 5% of their crew were incompetent.

Further, my understanding is that salary is not the major issue in this dispute. Rostering issues and practices, which the company has been promising to fix for many years (and has so far refused) is. You sound like an intelligent business owner. Can you imagine only finding out what your roster was 15 or less days (depending on where you are flying) before the next month and having NOTHING to say about it? Can you imagine never being able to plan a family event, attend your daughter's school play, or attend a friend's wedding? Can you imagine getting your roster and knowing that it is going to change anyway? Do you have any idea how much stress that causes in a person's life? The sad thing is that it doesn't have to be that way.

Going back to the salary issue, first of all, don't belive everything you read. If salary was the only problem Cathay Pacific was facing, why aren't they asking for across-the-board reductions from all their employees? Why isn't management taking a pay cut with the pilots? I believe that management gets the same housing and education benefits that the pilots do. How do you expect pilots to believe ANYTHING management says after forcing them to take a pay cut "for the salvation of the company" only to have the company post record profits?

Cathay has always hired the cream of the crop, and as we all know, the cream costs more. Ask yourself if you're willing to choose your doctor or surgeon based on cost. Aren't you more likely to choose your doctor based on experience and skill? When you need surgery, do you quibble about price? Every time you get in an airplane (or car - since you're hiring a driver) you are putting your life in someone else's hands. You would be foolish to hire on the basis of price.

Ask yourself also if the price of leasing aircraft wouldn't have gone a long way to meeting the pilots demands. When you have a staff of pilots reporting for work and being turned away, you must ask what management's agenda is. A lot of these searching questions are now being asked in the newspapers and the answers are not being answered very credibly by management.

Please keep an open mind.