Now look, it really is in your own interests to fly the freighter, it has nothing to do with the shortage of crews or the fact that we will have to park a nice shiny 744F come July if you don't. I mean we have already cancelled some new routes...................................
Your memory cannot be that long, surely you have forgotten the ASL debacle, the hatred, fighting on the bus, spitting at the scab labour and all that??et alone how it affected your career......................
So, you will be phoned individually and intimidated into flying the freighter or suffer the consequences......................................

It really is interesting flying, I mean why do HKF - SFO - HKG when you can go to Anchorage and back ?? we even have some nice flights leavng HKG at 11pm and getting back at 7 or 9am to Shanghai for you HKG based guys, I mean what could be more interesting than that ???


Equal terms and conditions for all Pilots perhaps ??? even a meagre pay rise ??? well come on chaps, play our game !!!

errr this is your Captain....ooops
 

Well spotted Ndekepilot !


Looks like ACMS could follow his own advice a little more ! From another thread.......

Got to go and read the new FCTM and new FCOM 3, later !

FG

"If Check Captain have manboobs: dont taxi on white line."

:D :ok:

Just heard that CX pilot #8 has started at UPS. Also, 20 unfilled 747-400 vacancies in ANC will go to newhires starting this summer. :D :D :D

oops. I must be getting old. Anyway that's what F/O's are for

ACMS
 

Spoken like a true Cathay Captain,

you really are a w@nker!

:suspect: ...................

FO??? Sorry, I've only been flying for twenty years, I'm certainly not worthy of that lofty title yet!!
Please excuse me while I beetle off and make the bunks. And would Sir like a milk or dark chocolate on his pillow?
NP:ok:

Boy I really do have to spell everything out to you don't I :}
I meant: most, if not all FO's I have the pleasure of flying with on the 777 are either preparing for or have just completed some form of upgrade training ( SO to JFO, JFO to FO and hardest of all FO to Capt ) and as such are EXTREMELY knowledgeable on all the books.
So if I tongue in cheek say ( and remember we were talking about the VOL2 Pt 2 ) "that's what F/O's are for" then I mean that if I want to get some info from the books then the FO is the person to ask. Quite simple really, as a Captain I will use all resources available to me to complete the flight safely from A to B.
It may have been meant tongue in cheek, but it's very true.
It wasn't meant as a slight on FO's, quite the opposite actually, and when you get old and baggy like me you will come to understand how much you really do rely on your FO.
Clear now?
Finished the name calling and mud slinging?
Life is too shaort fellas, remember who the real enemy is ( i'll give you a hint, he's on the exec floor )

ACMS
 

Nice attempt at a back pedal mate but it doesn't wash with me.

Heres a tip. THINK before you type. Remember the C-L-E-A-R model that you were taught in all those CRM classes? Maybe use this to evaluate your thoughts before treading on your shlong again.


Love



The Bunk maker.

Out of Seniority????
 

Five Green, don't speak about seniority if you don't understand the concept. Obviously, you are either from England/Australia/NZ or you have been highly influenced by people from those places.
Let us consider the "giving" or "getting" of a command the decision by Cathay management to take the initial step in the process: the submission to the command selection panel of the candidate's name. This happens AUTOMATICALLY IN SENIORITY ORDER in the case of PASSENGER COMMANDS, but for FREIGHTER COMMANDS, ONLY A PILOT WHO HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO HAVE HIS NAME SUBMITTED TO THE COMMAND SELECTION PANEL will be considered for freighter command. THESE SUBMISSIONS WILL BE MADE IN SENIORITY ORDER FROM THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR A FREIGHTER COMMAND.
To my knowledge, NO PILOT WHO HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR A FREIGHTER COMMAND HAS EVER [bold]NOT[/bold] BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE PANEL IN SENIORITY ORDER. The terms "Early Command" and "out of seniority" are bulls**t phrases used by wankers at Cathay who want to play one group against another, make themselves feel more important, or make someone feel "lucky" because he got something "earlier" than he should have.
To explain for you other morons (there are a LOT of you): for OUR intents and purposes (not taking into account the subjective nature of Cathay commands, CAT B/C/D, etc., because those are not the issues here), someone "getting" a freighter command because NO ONE SENIOR TO HIM HAS EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR IT is NOT getting an "early" command, nor is he getting a command out of seniority. THAT IS HOW SENIORITY WORKS! IF YOU DON'T WANT IT, IT GOES TO SOMEONE JUNIOR TO YOU WHO DOES WANT IT.
Grow up and stop using these divisive terms. Nobody at UPS or FedEx goes around whining about how Jose got an "early" command on the 727. You get what you want unless someone senior to you wants it. THAT IS SENIORITY.
JJ

JJ,

"Obviously, you are either from England/Australia/NZ or you have been highly influenced by people from those places."

Don't talk about people from those places unless you know them ALL.:}

Jeez Jose,
You're a bit highly strung, aren't you? I bet the guys can't wait to fly with you!
As for your comments about Australians, Kiwis et al, why don't you get over yourself you xenophobic halfwit?
:eek:

Here we go !!
 

JJ : You are right about one thing, we as pilots need to stick together and not get set on each other by mngmt. So how do we do that ?

In a perfect world (of highly moralistic people) we as a pilot group would not accept getting command ahead of other pilots who are SENIOR to us, in order to satisfy our own personal needs. Then as a result the company could not reduce a segment of the pilot group's pay and conditions. No pilots would join on the reduced conditions and then the company would cancel the whole idea. "In a perfect world" Careful now JJ this is a hypothetical discussion.

Would you not agree that we as pilot group would be better off if there was no segregation of freighter and pax ? Would you not agree that one pay scale for all pilots is better (assuming it is the higher pax pay) ? Would you not agree that you SHOULD get a crack a command in SENIORITY and that should include all commands ? Do you not agree that if the freighter command was intigrated then we as pilots would get command on passanger in SENIORITY sooner than we do now ?

The current situation is a farce. I am all about fairness and to me the current situation is not handled fairly. Now before you say "Life is not fair, grow up", let me remind you that life was a lot less fair in days gone by. So why is it more "fair" now ? In most part because strong, intelligent people got together and forced change. We as a pilot group should be intelligent enough to realise we are being had. Work more for less pay, but you can be a "commander". So pilots do.

Your comments are extremely simplistic. You imply that everyone gets a chance to bid for early command. Well, they do not. Only pilots that can hold residency in the countries that have the openings can apply for early command. Thereby denying more SENIOR pilots the positions. If the freighter and pax were not seperate you would get a command in Hong Kong, then pilots with residency would take the bases. Either that or they would crew from Hong Kong (we are a Hong Kong airline).

In addition, you must consider that the current set up allows them to by-pass candidates who want early command, a lot easier. "How so ?" you say. If the current rate of Cat Bing for those applying for early command were applied to all commands it would really show up. When someone gets Catb'd for early command they usually content themselves with the fact that they have X years to pax command and that the pay is no different etc. If this was not the case then the complaints would be louder and eventually we would see something change, as commercially that kind of failure in the training department would be unsustainable. Then as a result the commands get offered to progessively less SENIOR pilots.

You infer that every pilot who wants an early command on the freighter gets one. Not true. An example is the classic freighter. I know several pilots who wanted to go for it but were denied and yet everyone accepts that nobody wants those commands and therefore the rapid command hiring is ok !! The current system of categorising FOs is not unlike the system mngmt use to upgrade Cabin crew. In a nut shell it is upgrade by selection. It is used as a discipline tool. They use reasons to hold back one candidate that do not hold back another. There is no transparency to it and therefore it is open too abuse by management or trainers with a particular ax to grind. It is not done in true SENIORITY. If you don't believe me look up those above you in seniority and ask them why they have not taken a command on the freighter (out of SENIORITY).

Having said all that, I do not want to see the pilot group divided. I would like to see more join the AOA . The problem is not with the pilots who do what is available to them under the system. It is with the system.
If you are one of the lucky ones who has taken an early freighter command then well done on the hard work, as it is still not given away. However please reflect on the fact that you fit the mold and were able to progress, while others more SENIOR to you did not.

This comes back too what started my comments. The co. wants us to fly freighters. Why? They are getting short because people are leaving. Maybe not many in the grand scheme of things, but certainly the highest percentages on a month to month total than ever before in our history! You have pax captains flying freighter rosters, and not just one or two trips. You will soon have pax FOs filling the empty spots on the freighter roster. Our CP is not talking to people because he is concerned for the well being of those under his care. He is trying to cover the roster. Why is he having this problem ? The problem is entirely of their own making. Unfortunately, as with other problems, rather than address the actual problem and fix it, they will get out the big stick and force us to solve their problem. As I said before if the freighter group was re-absorbed on the same COS and FTLs all problems would be solved. We would stop loosing FOs and Captains and we would all fly the freighter. Until then I will reserve my contractual right to not fly the freighter.

By the way, where I am from has nothing to do with my understanding of seniority. The seniority concept is applied slightly differently in every contract I have ever read. I am sure that I have read more contracts than you have. It comes down to some basic principles most good for pilots but some major points are bad as well. That however, is a whole other thread !

The question is:

If a guy less senior to me gets command, do I get captains pay, even tough I choose/chose/was chosen for staying as an F/O?

No, you don't:confused:

OK chaps, so the way to bail out is to get on a base and cash in your provident fund. Quit while outside of HK so the IRD can't nail you, find another job and bolt for the door...

There are a great deal of great things out there.

What I'd like to hear about are some of the stories of how CX management have employed PI's to check/spy on people....

When the training bonds start... well what would that be an indication of ?????

Now, the above quote has got to be one of the dumbest thing I have read on Prune for a long time. Boofta, if you are remotely intellegent and really has the heart to change things for the better. Maybe you should go up to the 3rd floor and talk to your fleet manager about all your concern. If you are too chicken to voice your concern to the management because you think you will get fired, go talk to the AOA, I am sure someone will listen to you there. For me and the others who are happy with the company, we don't usually have any problem in talking to anyone on the 3rd floor. Hence we don't have to keep up the negatives on Prune. There's simply not that much negative things about Cathay as you want people to believe.

bus

Happy is a relative term. I'm not looking for the door but happy is not the adjective I would use!

Whats out there !
 

Are there any good contracts out there for B744 and B777 Capt.?
Is it true Korean,Emirates and Etihad got big payrises?

As a dreamer I look forward to many years of US$300000 -500000 a year due marked forces.

Thanks and please be gentle.

Just gently keep dreaming

'Positve Rate'
''Gear Up..please'
'No No No you dumbkopf! It's 'Gear Up'
I'm afraid that's a fail' :ugh:

Spleener,

Had a bad day at work there old chap?

Blue Foot

CX? Great lifestyle, world-wide basings available, a company with solid financial background! and - the worst training, I've ever experienced in the aviation industry!

boys and gals. Pls stop talking about training and CX. There are no such thing as training here.. This is the only company Ive heard of that uses - Ideas, Conventions and Procedures. Standard is something that is described in FCOMs, Vols, FCTMs etc. etc. - its one big mess. Go fly and some have got one idea - some another - its like a flying club. Info and procedure here and there about the same things. Mickey Mouse. This is at the best an average big airline with at long way to go to get up with the big ones.

Incident statistics speeks for them selves - that being the ones that are accounted for!.. Naa.. Go fly and have fun where ever you come from - because you are not gonna find it here. Good luck to you folks.
/ Y.

That's gotta be the best description of Cathay Pacific's Flight Ops I've ever heard. So simple yet so true!

With the arrogance that are running around, I doubt they will ever "get it". Yes, go fly somewhere else. Best advice I've seen on pprune in a while.

Cmon Guys, how hard is it to play the game? By the time you get to have a crack at command you have seen it done 1000 times, you have seen it done well by some captains, hopefully the ones you want to model your management style on, and you have seen it done badly, the ones you dont want to copy. Play the game for 6months, even if you need to check your egos in for rehab for the duration, once you have passed with flying colours, then take cracks at the training department as a captain, they may start to listen then if your way of doing things is so much better than these guys are capable of teaching.

What is more dangerous do you think? A training department who want to train a certain way, or a candidate not flexible enough to learn another way because he knows it all, and cant be shown something different? :hmm:

"Cmon Guys, how hard is it to play the game? "


Well according to recent history, a degree of difficulty of anywhere between 0 and 9 depending on fleet and how rabid the board/checkers are.

More and more are turning commands down.

Maybe it is a different mindset or maybe the system is so out of control they just don't want to deal with it. Either way the mere fact that you acknowledge with your "play the game" statement that you are required to be someone you are not in the course, and will morph back into your "old" self after the course seems to indicate there is a problem, no?

JTR - You would only be your "Old self" if you ended up back in the right hand seat wouldnt you? :E

Otherwise, you actually might have learnt something? Could that be possible?

If "play the game" means turning up willing to learn to fly their aircraft their way, what is wrong with that? Do you honestly think that people are being failed for absolutely no reason, or because they said "checked" and not "check"? Honestly? I have never met a Training Captain who didnt want his candidate to pass when he puts them up for check, or a check captain that wants to fail people regardless of their performance. But I have met people who have failed and had the lamest of excuses for their own poor performances, they can tell you the "only 1 thing" they did wrong on the check, or people who know the books backwards who cant even tie their shoe laces. You wouldnt give them a command either.

so by inference, a decade or so in the company does not bring you up to the mark, it is the 40 sectors of C+T that does it and nothing else. Interesting.

"Otherwise, you actually might have learnt something?"

The command course is not about learning, it is about polish. - Agree/Disagree?

Do you seriously think guys (and soon to be gals) spend 8,9,10 years in the company not busting their balls to climb the peak? Spend months studying for PCA's, weeks sweating before RT/PC's and line checks? Seriously, do you think they go into it with the wrong attitude, inadequate preparation, poor skill set?

"If "play the game" means turning up willing to learn to fly their aircraft their way, what is wrong with that? " - Nothing wrong with that, just as long as "their way" is bounded only by SOP, not personal preference.

"Do you honestly think that people are being failed for absolutely no reason, or because they said "checked" and not "check"? Honestly?" - No

Not sure why you have such a problem with the concept of learning something on a command course. Is this such a foreign concept? A command candidate should turn up knowing the books backwards, knowing the sops and all the possible variations and interpretations of evey in and out... This is a basic prerequisite. Polish? I hope we are talking about the same thing.

Yes, I think people have turned up to command training with poor skills, crap attitude, health problems, troubles at home, runny noses, no idea of the books, and every other possible human combination. However, they are the exception, not the rule.

10 years in the right hand seat and the back seat doesnt necessarily make you a switched on operator, infact that long in the golden chair can do quite the opposite. You honestly dont know any bone lazy SOs or FOs? Are all the guys you fly with Jedi Knights who couldnt possibly learn another thing or make a mistake? You know as well as I do, some people just do enough work to scrape through, anything extra is a waste of pi$$ drinking time.

Think of it like this... You turn up to a bbq with a brand new Ferrari, you just bought it. All your mates want a drive. Some, you wouldnt even let them in it, you know they are going to cane it as soon as they are around the corner. Some you think will be ok, you just want to ride around the block with them to make sure, some of your mates think they will be fine because they used to have an rs2000 escort back in Australia, and some probably are going to drive it better than you, because they already have ferraris.

Whats wrong with the company designating someone to "Screen their mates" with their new 777s?

All I can say is that, I have read these posts with interest over the last month or so. My feelings are exactly the same as the majority of people at Cathay. We feel constantly badgered, beaten and unwanted. I have never,ever worked for a company that treats it's staff so badly. The training is as bad as everyone says, just check after check after check. Previous experience is basically useless as you are treated as an idiot regardless of time in the seat. The exception are the "airforce" fast jet types which seem to be what cathay like.....The old airforce mentality is sickening. Hong Kong sucks. THere is no other way to say it. My kids are constantly ill and my youngest has constant trips to the Dr. Morale is non-existant. I have heard the phase "CX is a captains airline". I would like to qualify that and say CX is an A scale captains airline. They are the only ones who are compensated appropriately for putting up with the constant BS. If I had my time again, would I have joined CX......not in a million years! Steer clear of this over rated shambles..........

Elroy Elroy Elroy......
 

Well if command candidates were trained then great. They are expected to turn up and know every little nuance of being a captain. A position they have never held in this airline and therefore cannot possibly have seen every concievable scenario. Flying long haul for ten years does not prepare you for regional flying. An example might be the way in which your C+T passes on Local knowledge. People fall down on courses when the checker could have just given a "heads up" to the candidate on his first exposure to "xyz" and then the candidate would know it from then on.

This is fleet dependant. Much harder to know what all the preferences of the C+T s on the 400 than on the 777. In a big airline sops would be SOPS and not convention or opinion or your words :interpretations. The main problem I have with SOP vs. Convention vs. Opinion is that we are checked on conventions and opinion as if they are SOPS. On the 400 fleet you can get 2 s for SOPS for not following the checker's opinion. It is really very simple make the hard and fast conventions into SOPS. To do that add them to FCOMM 3 IN WRITING. We could start with the mouth music (not a prob if you have picked it up along the way, but for the new joiner only learned through osmosis). If you don't think there is any confusion check out the FAQ sect of the 400 FCTM and read the newly ammended introduction. I only hope you have the maturity to read between the lines.

You are way off mark suggesting that anyone tries to cruise through a command course here. The one good thing about a check and failing system is that people do the work. THEY BUST THEIR BACKS to prepare. There are a certain amount of justifiable failings but there are also those that should have passed. If we get a more standardised training criteria and standardised assesment process it would go along way too improving the moral on this issue.

We all know the process (command and command selection RT PC line checks) can be easy or impossible depending on who you get. That would not happen if all you say were true. Nobody wants to suck it and see !!


FG

Training. What sort of training would you suggest? 40 sectors? Enough? Not enough? 10 sims? 20 sims? 50? Take the example of screening your friends at a bbq to drive your new ferrari I gave earlier. Even something that simple, they all had different requirements, different levels of training required. Even for letting your friends drive your car, there isnt a one size fits all response. Now try coming up with a one size fits all command training package for 1000+ pilots. What would you put in yours? One thing you wont find in any course is spoon feeding. I am not suggesting that that is what you are asking for either. If you know your stuff, and you have 10 years to learn it, you are showing a genuine effort to pass, but you are having a problem with a particular area, or something you just need to clarify, do you honestly think they would rather fail you than work on that area? :confused:

OK, so now you have developed this amazing training system that gaurantees 100% Ben Konobis, 100% of the time, on all fleets, right across the board, how are you going to make sure the guys you choose to train and check under your new system, all do so in exactly the same way to all candidates they pass through the system? Its easy to whinge and complain about the system, what are you going to replace it with?

You and I could sit down and read the same paragraph from a book and come up with two completely different interpretations of what we read. Now lets sit down and read 4 FCOMs. At the end of reading all that, do you think we would have identical interpretations on the entire manual suite? Doubt it. Differences are inevitable, especially where the written word is inolved.

No one disagrees with the unfairness of marking someone down for personal preference over SOP, it is unfair and unprofessional. The problem is when a check and training guy offers a suggestion on how to do something that he has used to his benefit for over a decade as a wide body captain, and some j&rk off SO or FO says, "Well where is that written?" If a checky is telling you something contrary to an SOP, or limitation, then that is a different issue. You have every right to quote the book, and show them where it is written, and that they are wrong. Doesnt matter what their personal preference is, no one will fail you for doing it completely by the book.

As for trainers withholding information from a candidates that are coming up for check, so that they will be gauranteed to fail, you dont believe that do you? Sounds like the rantings of a failed candidate... "It was my training Captains fault, he set me up to fail! If only he told me about the visual approach into Osaka! He knew I would get it, it is his fault!" Yeah, they all sat around the table, and worked out how to fail you. Do you honestly believe that if you picked the brains of a training captain prior to your final check that they would withhold anything?

Completely agree that longhaul doesnt prepare you for regional. So, if you are not well prepared, you get 12 months in the right hand seat to learn it after you miss out on your first attempt. If you take the egos out of it, it is a good result. If you still cant do it after 12 months, should you have a command? The system that has you jumping from one fleet to another is not ideal for training, but that is a result of the employment agreement, seniority, and your personal preference. Nothing to do with training, a completely seperate issue.

Elroy, Is it correct to assume that you are from Australia (just like ACMS)?

How Many are Leaving?
 

Back on topic guys;

As of August 2006, we needed to recruit a-man-a-day for just over two years to man the Company's planned expansion. At that time, my Fleet Management stated they were at about 6 per week inbound; i.e. 1 man per week shortfall.

I spoke with some of our colleagues that attended a briefing earlier this year, where one of the Managers indicated that we started to lose crew back into NAM carriers at the rate of 2 per week from mid November 2006.

That 3 per week behind the drag curve, assuming we manage to improve in the second half of last year.

I wonder what the management will try next to bludgeon an improvement in moral when the shortage starts to bite?

joining CX
 

Hey there! sorry to change the subject but i was wondering if someone could give me some advise on finding a cheap hotel near the airport. i have an interview comming up and i would like to check out hk for a couple of days
many thanx:ok:

The transport in HKG is excellent. so don't limit yourself - I would recommend the YMCA in TST - reasonably priced, excellent location and great hotel facilities.
http://www.ymcahk.org.hk/sales/html/hst001e.htm
If you're stuck and rooms are unavailable, try the Novotel in Tung Chung, 15 minutes from Cathay City and also close to "Slashers Arms" (The Aviator Pub) - the Oasis "Recruiting Centre"
http://www.accorhotels-asia.com/6239...l/default.aspx
Good luck.

Hi guys

Just a quick question for you if you can help. I would like to join Cathay Pacific. I love Hong Kong, I love Sim checks, and I love this forum. Can any one provide me with a contact for me to send my CV to or any advice. I have nearly 2000 Hours on boeing 737's in the UK.

Its been great fun reading the posts. I would like to find out for myself what CX is like.

Thanks

[email protected]

New Joiners resign
 

New Joiners resign

I heard this week that 2 new joiners have resigned, before they started their line training. The first was "repatriated" the same afternoon that he resigned.