CX hourly requirement inconsistency
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CX hourly requirement inconsistency
Why is it that I read some threads (mainly from US/Canadian contributors) t hat state CX require 4000hrs with bucketloads of multi turbine when I know guys/gals from NZ are getting interviews with quite a bit less than this? Does CX adjust it's requirements based on region? Are hours gained at one airline more valuable than another??
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Juan Chai
Age: 44
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone worth thier salt knows that flight time in North America is only worth half that gained in any other part of the world. The controllers speak perfect english, and adhere to the strictest of standards. Of course there is no weather what so ever. CAVOK and winds calm 365 days a year.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha, I'm now putting the pieces together, my TT is only worth half. I should start taking that into account when I fill in my logbook. 
I can also surmise that Kook has never flown through Quebec!
I can also surmise that Kook has never flown through Quebec!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on guys, I know this is the internet and it was text but you couldn't sense the sarcasm in Kooks post?
Anyway, even though we invented airplanes while the rest of the world was still flying around in balloons, apparently we have gotten lazy in our book learnin'. I asked this question and was told that basically, our lower time guys aren't up to speed with the rest of the world as far as technical knowledge is concerned. Believe it or not, I agree with that assessment. Does that make us bad pilots? Of course not, BUT it makes us not too competitive in the system that CX goes by. Basically, what we lack in book knowledge as a low time guy generally, we get with experience in the real world.
I fly with a lot of low time guys where I am now. Some good and some that went through a pilot mill and got here with very low time etc. Is it their fault? Yes and no. No because anyone that could get the job with that low time would not pass on the opportunity. Yes because you would expect someone to do a little reading prior to coming into a job where they would be flying a swept wing jet airplane.
It is really no different than military pilots getting hired at a US major airline with lower time than civilians. The military is a known quality of education and standards. While there are so many places a guy can get civilian training, the quality is not consistent. Does that mean all military is better than civilian? No, of course they aren't but the chances are better considering they all met a known standard at one time. For the record I am not military, just explaining some of the thinking out there and relating to something in the US.
Now, we have all flown with guys that might have a handle on the books but couldn't fly their way out of a wet paper bag. That's going to happen and there are going to be guys from Joe Blow's Flight School that are the best stick since the dawn of flying machines. The problem is that a base line has to be set and CX seems to subscribe to the book knowledge theory. One thing to consider is that being owned mostly by a British company, they could do what other airlines there and in some parts of the world do. They could simply require another license instead of our FAA license. What they do at least is recognize that our experience is valuable, maybe just as valuable as the books. I know as a passenger I would rather have someone who has experienced landing an aircraft in a blizzard instead of a guy that has only read about it. However, they aren't hiring these guys into the left seat so they will get some experience along the way.
Personally I had a good time there talking with guys from different countries. Instead of competing we should realize there are things we can learn from both sides. Guys that are all book sometimes tend to get wrapped up in small details that don't matter while an emergency is taking place. Guys that are all seat of the pants might not troubleshoot as well. I suspect that most of us have a good mix. However, it is their sandbox so they get to make the rules. I guess it all boils down to the fact that they could require us to get another license or not hire us at all. Now, they do need us so that has some bearing. Otherwise they would have to overnight crews in the US and spend a lot more money. Whatever the reasons, it works out for both.
I think we can all agree that either way is better than other majors out there that don't care about knowledge OR experience as long as you have the right daddy in their training department. Each company sets their standards based on the beliefs and prejudices of their managers. They have their upsides and downsides. It isn't fair, but nothing ever is. If you want to work for a certain company, you learn what they want and go get it. You could be Einstein with an ATP but if you do not have a 'sponsor' then you can forget FedEx. Same thing with CAL, the US version, with no internal recs. you can forget it. At least with CX you can conform to the standard without stalking guys you flew with 10 years ago hoping that they remember you.
Long story short, life ain't fair. But until we can all afford our own jets to go play with, we have to play by their rules. Remember the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules!
Anyway, even though we invented airplanes while the rest of the world was still flying around in balloons, apparently we have gotten lazy in our book learnin'. I asked this question and was told that basically, our lower time guys aren't up to speed with the rest of the world as far as technical knowledge is concerned. Believe it or not, I agree with that assessment. Does that make us bad pilots? Of course not, BUT it makes us not too competitive in the system that CX goes by. Basically, what we lack in book knowledge as a low time guy generally, we get with experience in the real world.
I fly with a lot of low time guys where I am now. Some good and some that went through a pilot mill and got here with very low time etc. Is it their fault? Yes and no. No because anyone that could get the job with that low time would not pass on the opportunity. Yes because you would expect someone to do a little reading prior to coming into a job where they would be flying a swept wing jet airplane.
It is really no different than military pilots getting hired at a US major airline with lower time than civilians. The military is a known quality of education and standards. While there are so many places a guy can get civilian training, the quality is not consistent. Does that mean all military is better than civilian? No, of course they aren't but the chances are better considering they all met a known standard at one time. For the record I am not military, just explaining some of the thinking out there and relating to something in the US.
Now, we have all flown with guys that might have a handle on the books but couldn't fly their way out of a wet paper bag. That's going to happen and there are going to be guys from Joe Blow's Flight School that are the best stick since the dawn of flying machines. The problem is that a base line has to be set and CX seems to subscribe to the book knowledge theory. One thing to consider is that being owned mostly by a British company, they could do what other airlines there and in some parts of the world do. They could simply require another license instead of our FAA license. What they do at least is recognize that our experience is valuable, maybe just as valuable as the books. I know as a passenger I would rather have someone who has experienced landing an aircraft in a blizzard instead of a guy that has only read about it. However, they aren't hiring these guys into the left seat so they will get some experience along the way.
Personally I had a good time there talking with guys from different countries. Instead of competing we should realize there are things we can learn from both sides. Guys that are all book sometimes tend to get wrapped up in small details that don't matter while an emergency is taking place. Guys that are all seat of the pants might not troubleshoot as well. I suspect that most of us have a good mix. However, it is their sandbox so they get to make the rules. I guess it all boils down to the fact that they could require us to get another license or not hire us at all. Now, they do need us so that has some bearing. Otherwise they would have to overnight crews in the US and spend a lot more money. Whatever the reasons, it works out for both.
I think we can all agree that either way is better than other majors out there that don't care about knowledge OR experience as long as you have the right daddy in their training department. Each company sets their standards based on the beliefs and prejudices of their managers. They have their upsides and downsides. It isn't fair, but nothing ever is. If you want to work for a certain company, you learn what they want and go get it. You could be Einstein with an ATP but if you do not have a 'sponsor' then you can forget FedEx. Same thing with CAL, the US version, with no internal recs. you can forget it. At least with CX you can conform to the standard without stalking guys you flew with 10 years ago hoping that they remember you.
Long story short, life ain't fair. But until we can all afford our own jets to go play with, we have to play by their rules. Remember the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Expatsylvania
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I know that the company doesn't have to be at all shy about hiring based on age. I would guess that the average age of NA applicants is a bit older than some of the NZ/AUS guys who have been flying turboprops since they were 18. That said, is there any way for an American who would otherwise meet the hourly requirements to prove he's not a borderline-illiterate troglodyte? I've managed to stumble through Handling the Big Jets without soiling myself, anyway...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Juan Chai
Age: 44
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I was full of sarcasm.
As for the hiring mystery, It will always remain a mystery. I think pilots have been scratching thier heads about every airline and how they hire. How one canidate who seems completely unfit for the job gets hired over someone who is obviously the best choice, will always baffle us. Mabey you reminded the interviewer of the jerk that dumped his daughter. Mabey you wore the same suit as the interviewers cheating husband. Mabey you said manda-tory intstead of man-dateory. Don't think about it too much, no one will solve the mystery. Good Luck
As for the hiring mystery, It will always remain a mystery. I think pilots have been scratching thier heads about every airline and how they hire. How one canidate who seems completely unfit for the job gets hired over someone who is obviously the best choice, will always baffle us. Mabey you reminded the interviewer of the jerk that dumped his daughter. Mabey you wore the same suit as the interviewers cheating husband. Mabey you said manda-tory intstead of man-dateory. Don't think about it too much, no one will solve the mystery. Good Luck
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: castles made of sand
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
frustrated
I don't get it either. I spoke to a guy flying in Canada who had just crossed 1000 hours flying charters in pistons and he got an SO interview! I've been applying for 3 years with nearly 3 times that experience and not a peep! Maybe they don't like West Indians?! 
