I feel sorry for imad and other cadets copping a beating on this topic. Its the same old crap among pilots.... "and there I was....", "I flew fast jets and you did'nt....", "military pilots are superior to a GA guy..", "the GA guy does it tough vs military..". You get the gist. We all have such diverse backgrounds at CX (culturally and professionaly), this is a good thing. Everyone takes advantage of opportunity, that is natural. If I were offered a cadetship with a major airline in my youth, damn sure I would have taken it. Cadets are not about to erode the career path of any pilot in CX, present or future. The volume (or lack of it) is of no meaningful consequence. More a case of political posturing on the company behalf. During my time in CX, I have seen some terrific pilots and some more forgetable performances, the majority though sit in between. Average people, average pilots. Cadets and expats sit in all three categories. So lets stop hanging !!!! on each other. The company love to see us at each others throats. Lets stick together for once. Unite and stick it to management and not each other!

Have seen all this before, different setting and with a more political tint.

Pilots salaries, like most things, are driven by the law of supply and demand.

I dont wanna pop anybody's bubble, but driving the bus is NOT like sending a man to the moon. The hard part about becoming a pilot, like most things, is affording it.

So lets remove that little huddle and train more pilots. Then we can pay the rest less.

ECONOMICS101

p.s. dont look down on the cabin trash, we are all part of the same big wheel. If the Sh:mad: hit the fan, i would want them to be pulling my loved ones out of wreakage.

p.s. dont look down on the cabin trash,
 

Avi8tor :

Is this really what you think of the cabin crew or is there a hidden meaning in your remarks??

I think u will find its a thing called humour, perhaps u have heard of it?

Humour
 

Avi8tor:

Humour is the quality of being amusing. I don't think your remarks would fall into that category, particularly if one were to view the remark from a cabin crew perspective. Enough said. Apology accepted.

I will forward your disapproval to the rather senior cabin crew member that made the comment, and convey your feelings that it didnt comply to your standards of political correctness.

And for the record, by any name, they are an integral part of the team.

fair enough avi8tor, peace.

Well, looks to me that there is no shortage at all.
Have you seen the pay on offer at Jade? Have also been "informed" that you have very few days per month that are really days off. As long as people accept these deals the long awaited raise in T&Cs will never happen.

Cx is not worried about a pilot shortage, what they are worried about is in having to train all of the pilots they need for the 777 that are coming. If they get age 65 they will not have to train as many and in doing so they will save a bundle in training costs. They have worked out that paying 200 guys Ascales for another 10 years is cheaper than having to train 200 captains, 200 f/o's and 200 S/o (each guys moves up the scale).

LEP savings
 

I don't want to get too numerical here. Just wanted to point out something not many people will be aware of. Lets compare an expat and cadet joining at 28 years old.

I have heard that the year in ADL costs CX about $1 million HKD - no idea if that is accurate or not. For the sake of argument, lets assume the LEP has a normal upgrade rate after he leaves ADL.

Currently expat SOs get housing of around $24K a month for two years. Lets assume that from 2 years until upgrade they rent/buy at the RFZ rate -$48K???

Currently(RA55) it takes around 9 years to become a captain. That means that an expat pilot would cost around $4.6million HKD in housing and another $1 million in education(2 kids).

So by the time the LEP gets to his command he has saved CX $5.6million HKD vs the expat and cost CX the course in ADL($1million?).

Assuming RA55, the LEP will save CX another $10million in housing as a captain and another $600K in EDN.

So over a career the LEP will save CX $15million (16.2m - ADL course cost) vs employing an expat.

So I know many feel the LEPs should be grateful that they were trained by CX but they save CX a lot of money unlike QF cadets!

frogman1484
 

It may seem counter intuitive but RA65 will actually cost CX money. What it gains them is less training courses in the short term (5-10 years depending on how long the average guy works beyond 55th birthday).

A simple example may help - imagine no growth - for the next 10 years there would be no courses needed. Meanwhile every SO is earning SO4 salary, all FOs are on SFO6 and all captains have moved up 10 increments. By our(not just me;-) analysis we estimate the savings on training costs are wiped out by extra increment pay per rank within 5 years.

There is a balance between training costs and having the most junior SO/FO/CNs possible. But if you become training constrained then all bets are off and you just accept the higher salary bill.

For info...the cost(salary and PF only) 'per pilot' was higher in 2000 than it is today. But then we had 600 A scalers out of 1500 vs 400 A scalers out of 2100 today.

So like I said, although it isn't obvious, RA65 is going to cost CX more than RA55.

"Well, looks to me that there is no shortage at all.
Have you seen the pay on offer at Jade? Have also been "informed" that you have very few days per month that are really days off. As long as people accept these deals the long awaited raise in T&Cs will never happen."

Hey "Pro", lets compare apples to apples my friend. You can't compare CX to an all cargo outfit with less than 5 airplanes, all the same type. Jade pays what they pay and it is an orange, and CX pays what they pay because they are an apple.

Jade is Mainland based. If you don't think that mainland carriers are short, consider that the governemnt has stepped in to prevent any further growth due to the pilot shortage. Only airlines employing foreign pilots will be allowed growth and expansion into china. Just because Jade got enough people to start an operation doesn't mean that things are hunky-dory in their recriutment department. It is very different to staff an airline that only has a few airplanes with staffing one that has multiple bases and over 100. :ok:

1.Not enough people take the offer from Jade, - they are parking a B 744 -lack of pilots!!

2. Age 65: Typical CX management and pilots calculations...

Age 65 costs in any case more than 55 - just because many F/O,S/O's don't want to have their upgrades delayed by further 3 or MORE years, so some will resign -additional 'gap'=costs!

Numero , you are right ...if no growth.
But we have 30+ 777 arriving and therefore growth. Just remember CX is a smart company , they will not offer something for nothing. They know what it will cost them and believe me this offer is 110% in their favour. They want RA65 because it saves them a lot of money by doing it this way...just ask them if they so worried about RA65 why are they not offering the same retirement age to the cabin crew and ground staff.

TT Weekly News
 

"Another issue keeping the FOP team busy is the shortage of trainers at the flight training facility in Adelaide - another symptom of the worldwide pilot shortage. Several creative options are being considered to keep the trainers committed to the school and to the CX cadet stream."

Tony Tyler

An admission maybe? Do hope he's told NR

CXpletive

It’s probably more a case that NR has told TT.

frogman1484
 

I realise that we are getting lots of aircraft. I built that into my model on time to command. We need to have 131 at the end of 2009 and 148 at the end of 2011 to keep command time to 12-13 years from the current 9 years.

I think we are getting some of those 777s in 2010 and 2011. As soon as we order another 19 aircraft(since we are giving back the A346s) for delivery by end of 2011 we will maintain the mid growth model.

FYI, I have estimated time to command at 12-13 years. So at the end of 2019-2020 we will have 243-258 aircraft in order to achieve command at that time....we had 102 at the end of 2006!

Numero
 

Sorry mate but you have lost me here, maybe too many numero's.
Are you saying that we are going to keep on growing to 250+ planes by 2020. Or you are saying that we need to grow to that in order to maintain command within 12 years. Both of these assumptions are a bit optimistic to me.

If RA65 is going to cost CX money why are they offering it?

Surely it will be more cost effective then to remain as we are.

Ask me and I will say that they have had to offer this in order to either offset increased training costs or put bums in seats of the new 777.

Remember no free lunches at Cx

frogman1484
 

Thats exactly what I am saying...we need 258 aircraft by end of 2020 to keep the growth rate we have had for the last 5 years. At that rate a new joiner will get his command in about 12-13 years.

There are two ameliorating factors to that time to command. One, not everyone will actually work through to 65 - I would work on the assumption that the average would be say 60 - ie, 5 more years. Two, the failure/Cat B rate we have had for the last 5 years might knock a year or so off that command time if it continues. Its hard to say for sure as obviously cat Bs might have a go at a later time. We currently have around 130+ FOs on the seniority list higher than the most junior CN - not sure what category they all are.

Why RA65? A couple of reasons...eventually at outports it will become a requirement. CX has been offering extensions(C+T) or freighters(line CNs) for a while now so that it cannot be accused of age discrimination. The second reason...the major constraint on CX right now is training. Every extendee saves a few courses. So initially there are some savings to RA65 but they are wiped out by higher average PER pilot wage bills within 5 years.

Maybe a numerical example will help. Lets say I am at 55 now and on SCN 17 (A scale). Not counting my travel fund I cost 56% more than a brand new B scale CN - to put it numerically I will earn over $800K more than him in one year. Even a B scale SCN17 earns $560K more than him.

While that FO isn't upgraded to CN1, he earns a higher increment on the SFO scale and likewise for the SO. So the cost per cockpit goes up.

Additionally every extendee is a guaranteed captain...no Cat B, no failures or extensions. Based on the last few years it seems to take 120-140 candidates to achieve 100 CNs. So there are additional training course savings.

This is not about saving money - this is about saving courses.

Sqwak7700 - I was not comparing anything, just making a comment on the thread "Asian Pilot shortage", this is not a thread about CX, right? :ok:

Numero
 

Thanks Mate finally I get what you are saying. I agree that this is about saving training costs. Yes the time to command will move out in the future.

All I can say is that I'm sure that reduced training and no bypass pay will be lower than offering A scales to current A scale guys.

The RA65 that is being offered because of the base is BS! The number of based guys is less than 10% of the total pilot body. If they were worried about age discrimination they would be offering RA65 to cabin crew too (they have based crew too) instead of offering retrenchment packages to senior ones.

Please clarify
 

NC:

Always so accurate however I am not sure I read the following right...

You might be trying to say something else but the most junior Captain(s) in the company joined in 2005. They upgraded this year on the 400F, so there are more the 130 FOs senior to them.

I think this is hard to confirm. They are offering extensions because they need bums in seats and the training system cannot supply Captains fast enough. As you know many of those retiring at 55 are C&Ts. If we could upgrade faster (ie higher pass rate) then the company would not extend more expensive pilots when they could upgrade cheaper ones. They are just hiding behind the age laws at the moment and using it to their advantage.

What is the status with the cabin crew's COS. With reference to the age discrimination court case put forward by the FAU. Did the company change the CC's COS ?

Thanks

Five Green and frogman
 

Five green
you got me. I knew exactly what I meant to say and then wrote it ambiguously.

I have access to my numbers now so can be a bit more accurate.

What I meant to say is that there are 125(approx) pax FOs on the ASL above our most junior pax CN. Over last 5 1/2 years, since NC went from 3 to 4 bars, the most junior pax CN (also a keen Carlton supporter;-) is 400+ slots below me. IN between us there are over 125 FOs. That equates to a 30% failure(Cat C)/Cat B/Cat D rate in that time. There are probably a few who have deferred for lifestyle issues on a base.

I have not tried to analyse the freighter side of the house as it is a lot more problematic getting the data. We hear of the 'successes' of 2-3years to command but we hear nothing of the failures.

RA65 - a year ago management made it clear that full B scale for all extendees(for RA60) was unacceptable. Now they simply offer RA65 with A scale? More to it than just the need for expansion methinks. They have been asking for RA60 since at least 2001 I can assure you. But they haven't been prepared to pay the price - the reason the extendee's T+C are so frugal is that the extendee's cost equated to a new B scale CN 1 in HKG - so extending was close to salary neutral, ignoring bypass pay;-)

I do think it is 'mostly' because of onshoring issues - only the UK base is imminent though - April08.

Frogman
If I stay for 10 years (55-64)my total salary bill is $7million+ more than the B scale guy replacing me. I have old training cost figures from CX - the 3 courses that I deferred will cost less than $2million. And ultimately those 3 courses will occur, just 10 years later.

So please accept it, extending on A scales is a huge cost vs RA55. But another way to look at it is that they have kept me on 1994 pay scales (about what the current A scale is equivalent to after the 99-01 cuts) for 35 years of my career...so a win for them!


Some have accused me of being mischievous for pointing out that the CX 'market driven salary' is now at the same level as it was in 1990/91. So I will instead focus on closing the B-A scale gap before focusing on that new salary being the same level over 20 years later.

The most senior B scaler is on the same increment as I am. I earn 25.5% more than he does as, whilst I am also on CPAPF93, my 15.5% is based on a higher ghosted salary. My actual monthly salary is 24% above his.

The last CX offer had a 3% payrise in Jan 08 and another in Jan 09. HDP was applied equally so does not bridge the gap between the scales.

If CX were to repeat this deal indefinitely in Jan 2015 my B scale peer would have finally caught up with my salary scale - the same scale that was around in 1994. He would have been in almost 22 years by then.

RA65 is not an issue in HKG - but with over 450 based FOs and around 250 based CNs representing a 1/3rd of our workforce, there will eventually be an effect in HKG from based issues on RA. I am not suggesting the law will change in HKG any time soon, just that we have many more on a base than the cabin crew. The cabin crew on a base are on separate contracts to their hong kong peers.

I do not know what is happening about the FAU case - sorry!

If I stay beyond 55th birthday I save between 3 and 8 courses depending on growth rate. That will save them a few million up front...but then over 10 years I will cost them over $7million extra in salary and bypass pay would add up to $5million. The once only training course savings are approx $1-4million. So $12million vs $1-4million - do you still believe that RA65 on A scales saves money?

They are training/courses limited - between DEFOs and extensions they can halve the training requirement over the next 10 years.

If they used these 'saved courses' to expand the airline faster, such that there were no delays to command due to RA65, then we would have 346 a/c in 2019 and 381 in 2020.

Anyone still believe the company mantra that says RA65 will accelerate your time to command????

I believe CX has offered “A” scalers “A” scale to 65 because they have hit the hard wall regarding the training limit of the company. We have seen evidence of this over the last few years with FC’s not being done on DESO’s doing their JFO upgrade, line checks not being required anymore for FO’s being RQ’d, the request for “volunteers” for sim duties for SO training and DEFO’s on the PAX fleet. There just aren’t enough trainers, sim instructor, sim slots and sectors to complete the required task for the expansion. If you take into account the wasted resources because of the failures it is even worse. I believe the company has offered the “A” scalers “A” scale to 65 because they had no choice in the short term to drive the expansion forward, not because of some anti-discrimination laws that might become reality. Even if they did become reality because of new laws in HK or bases going onshore, no one (repeat no one) can be forced to work to 65 if they don’t want to. Your current contract is still valid including your RA55 if you so wish. It is just a red herring being thrown around by the company and those that probably don’t realise the implication or should I say the lack of, of anti discrimination laws.

NC, my personal belief and I have no proof to prove one way or the other is that the company has been playing the poker game regarding pay scales past 55. They have probably realised that “B” scale for “A” scalers past 55 hasn’t been accepted by enough of the troops in recent times, whether it be the C&T or line captains going to the freighter to drive the future expansion. They have upped the anti only enough “in their mind” to hopefully stem the retirement flow over the expansion period. They are still hiding their hand though if more needs to be done. Remember CX has a history of only doing what it has to and even then it is like pulling teeth.

Titan mi amigo
 

You may be right. Them deciding to only offer bypass pay to HKG based FOs would tie in with your poker game theory. They would know that in a 12-13 year wait to command maybe half of the SO/FOs eventually go on a base so they would have saved hundreds of millions of dollars in bypass pay.

I know they have sought legal advice on the basings issues. Maybe it is a combination of both needs. If they have to offer RA65 on a base all the C+T guys will bid for a base...leaving them with a lot less in HKG. So maybe that is the driver for offering RA65 in HKG?

Oh well, bottom line is that they are going to offer it...how can we protect and reduce the impact to our 1350+ colleagues who joined under the assumption that RA55 would keep their command time under a decade?

Let’s play poker.:E;)

405 I agree with you...they are bluffing...look at the trend DEFO, A scles to RA65 etc they are hitting a major block CX does not give an increase or better terms for nothing.

Numero do you number this time include Bypass pay as per our contract , lets see how the figures look this time.

NC
to protect the pilots affected by longer time in back/right seat there are several things that have to be done and those are interconnected
-better lifestyle(extra crew for proper bidline/request system)
-decent payrise with more increments
-better pension
We all know that RA65(and i think 60 would have been more than sufficient) will come sooner or later.
Time will tell what the company will do...

RA > 55 will only come if the company forces it. No legislation will force CX to do it. That is merely an excuse and once again, expectation management is working it's wonders. I am not saying that it will not happen. My point is that the pilots seem willing to roll over on things on the assumption that it will happen (rumour, speculation etc). Clear as mud??

It's a bit like the theory that if people (not implying anyone or any group in particular) tell lies often enough, even they will start to believe their own lies.....

Pain in the arse
 

NC :

Sorry ol' mate slight correction again.

That would only be correct if everyone passed first time. Since a good portion of those commands were achieved in the second attempt, you must also factor them into a true 'failure rate".

Granted they do eventually pass. However I think to paint a more accurate picture you must include all failures.

The reason being that a 1 or 2 year stint in the penalty box equates to less career earnings and a considerable amount of stress over and above the stress of the first command course. It also may mean losing out on a base as well.

Sorry, but I am learning to be pedantic.

FG

shortage of pilots
 

hey all..im reading all of these comments regarding shortages of pilots. im a US based pilot with citizenship in an Asian coutry. Im trying real hard to work for any asian airline. i do realize that the pay may be ower that what i make here.. but regardless.. any suggestions on which company is hiring? 3000 total time, 1500 turbine PIC

Five Green
 

I agree that a year or two delay to command has a huge impact on career earnings.

Yes my maths are only an approximation. All I am doing is trying to see what is a 'back of the fag packet' number for the pass rate. I never see any number published by CX - all we ever get told about is the guys doing it on the freighter in 2-3 years.

Now a statistic I would like to see is the failure rate before and after Nick became DFO? Anecdotally it was very very low before I did my command, when the abacus was in charge. Obviously the zoologists' darwinian filtering techniques are more rigorous that what CX did for the previous 55 years. Of course it is possible that the previous GMA recruited badly in the mid-late 90s and that is why we have a high failure rate now - who was GMA back then??????

Expect a clip from me next time I see you. I represent that remark.

jtr, Your mum will protect me since I only said nice things about you to her;-)

My point is, we either have a) poor quality candidates or b) a flawed command process.

Occam's razor - either CX recruited badly for many many years starting from about 1992 or the command course/star chamber is flawed - the simplest, most likely answer is the latter. WHy do I say this....because it is hard to believe that the same people that recruited in 1990, 1991 etc then changed their standards in 1992, 1993 etc. Additionally and more importantly, was the very sudden increase form ZERO Cat Bs in 2001 to multiple today. When I started my command course it was expected that about 95-99% got through on their first go. I knew of only 2 guys who were the equivalent of Cat C and 7-9 Cat D equivalent guys. Those numbers bear no resemblance to today's statistics!

Like I said, I can't 'prove' either hypothesis is correct. What I do know is that NR was GMA in late 90s and DFO after that!

N.C.: .....hiring F/O with low experience - CX will have to deal with that, when this guys have their command, in let's say a decade...

Question:
Is the CX airline operation a 'Single Hand/Single Pilot ops'?
As far as I know, and experienced in former airlines, Flight Ops Dep.recognise F/O, S/O as Crew member, who are ,together with the Captain ,responsible for a safe conduct of the flight.
So ,it's a safety threat 'now', and not, when this guys come up to command.

By the way- CX hire the people! CX train(?) them!

So: What's wrong the the recruitment dep?+
What's wrong with the training dep?

It's just to simple to blame the 'single pilot'.

whats CX
 

whats is CX....is it China Airlines?

You've got to be kidding me!

CX....
 

of course.. just wanted to humor the aviation since its giving me heart-burn... Cathay!!!! happy flying all!!!!

Oasis rumor
 

Anyone able to confirm Oasis is now paying 35000 housing + education allowance?