Cathay Pacific Cadet Pilot Programme
Flight100
With all due respect, as you appear from your verbiage to be in CX in a position that is probably responsible for implementing this scheme, it isn’t the same and you very well know it. There are a number of glaring differences.
1. From 1988 to 2009 it was only for locals. As you have said from 2009 it is open to everyone.
2. From 1988 to 2009 it was only open to applicants with little or no previous aviation experience. Those that had experience joined as DESO’s or DEFO’s on full expat terms. Since 2009 those that would have come through the DESO or DEFO route were conveniently renamed iCadets just like all the other iCadets with no experience. The only difference is they come through the “Transitional Course”, i.e. renamed DESO course. The company had to re-introduce DESO’s or should I call them Transition Course iCadets because the number of new pilots required over the next 5-10 years cannot be supplied through the ab initio iCadet scheme. For every ab initio cadet, 5 transition course iCadets can be trained.
3. The reason why CX didn’t in the past offer housing to cadets was because it was an “Expat” allowance and the fact they were from Hong Kong, they weren’t expats, just in the same way those pilots with CX that are based in their own country don’t get a housing allowance. Do you get it now?
4. Most cadets today aren’t locals but expats. They don’t have the family support network that a local has and therefore don’t have the option to live with family in the early days of their CX career.
I have flown with a number of cadets recently and without exception they are all doing it very tough. What has alarmed me even more though is the number that aren’t even budgeting for their tax bill because “Quote” they can’t afford to. If this trend isn’t looked at by the company we will see a number of iCadets in the next 12 months in a serious financial mess.
By the way, the difference between what the company pays to an iCadet after 6 years of service in the form of a forgivable loan plus the cost of their training in Adelaide plus the HKPA and what they would have got in expat housing as a DESO is recouped by the company in three to four years by not having to pay the expat housing allowance. From then on the difference is icing on the cake for the company and is coming straight out of all the iCadets pockets for the rest of their career. I will leave it to you to work out how much that is.
With all due respect, as you appear from your verbiage to be in CX in a position that is probably responsible for implementing this scheme, it isn’t the same and you very well know it. There are a number of glaring differences.
1. From 1988 to 2009 it was only for locals. As you have said from 2009 it is open to everyone.
2. From 1988 to 2009 it was only open to applicants with little or no previous aviation experience. Those that had experience joined as DESO’s or DEFO’s on full expat terms. Since 2009 those that would have come through the DESO or DEFO route were conveniently renamed iCadets just like all the other iCadets with no experience. The only difference is they come through the “Transitional Course”, i.e. renamed DESO course. The company had to re-introduce DESO’s or should I call them Transition Course iCadets because the number of new pilots required over the next 5-10 years cannot be supplied through the ab initio iCadet scheme. For every ab initio cadet, 5 transition course iCadets can be trained.
3. The reason why CX didn’t in the past offer housing to cadets was because it was an “Expat” allowance and the fact they were from Hong Kong, they weren’t expats, just in the same way those pilots with CX that are based in their own country don’t get a housing allowance. Do you get it now?
4. Most cadets today aren’t locals but expats. They don’t have the family support network that a local has and therefore don’t have the option to live with family in the early days of their CX career.
I have flown with a number of cadets recently and without exception they are all doing it very tough. What has alarmed me even more though is the number that aren’t even budgeting for their tax bill because “Quote” they can’t afford to. If this trend isn’t looked at by the company we will see a number of iCadets in the next 12 months in a serious financial mess.
By the way, the difference between what the company pays to an iCadet after 6 years of service in the form of a forgivable loan plus the cost of their training in Adelaide plus the HKPA and what they would have got in expat housing as a DESO is recouped by the company in three to four years by not having to pay the expat housing allowance. From then on the difference is icing on the cake for the company and is coming straight out of all the iCadets pockets for the rest of their career. I will leave it to you to work out how much that is.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a whole bunch of repetitive ranting here, like five year olds who have drunk to much coke at a birthday party.
Repetitive? I'd happily wear that badge as opposed to yellow-bellied, spineless, ignorant, naive and a sell-out. I'll repeat that: I'd happily wear that badge as opposed to yellow-bellied, spineless, ignorant, naive and a sell-out. Therein I'm repetitive.
Barney & Flight - I appreciate the words. We can debate in a civil manner (preferred) but I trust you are open to opinions that may differ from yours and defend yours with facts, that's all. As I've written, you have to fight fire with fire sometimes. Granted that I often up the ante with a flame thrower..... No denying it. Kids like "whatever" ask for advice as to how to get into flying not via the cadetship. He rejects the answer completely as being "too hard" and his sense of "entitlement" is the over bearing character trait he demonstrates. I make no apologies for calling a spade a spade with him & the like who have gone before.
As I just wrote to one guy with the courtesy to ask from some info via a PM, you have to look at who profits from the decisions being made. CX came from record profits as they introduced the CEP. Profits were better than they had ever been in the company's history. With the CEP plan, who gained, who lost and who did it? That is the key to understanding most "business" decisions in any industry. Company stooges cry it is a just cause to keep the airline competitive. What a joke.
No, aircraft will not be parked - and if they are it will only be for a short time as CX drive up readily available and quickly trained pilots to get them in the air. To do that they will have to attract those pilots. It is blatantly obvious that this package does not.
CX paid very well and the interview was revered throughout the airline pilot world as the toughest to pass. CX therefore attracted competitive and well qualified people, and they were profitable - over $14 BILLION HKD worth of profit.
No, these kids don't see themselves as being detrimental to the industry. They are told it, they have it explained why, but they actively choose to ignore it. What they see and how they act is refelctive of the choices they make and maturity they show.
Not all pilots go through the same training. New iCadets receive less training in the sim than their DESO counterparts with many 1000's more hours: from 12 down to only 6 full flight sims. DEFO's do not need to do as many sectors as do promoted SO's. No, CX has created an out of balance world that only answers to one God: greed & money.
The original cadetship was designed for CX to "give back to the community" and support the "local community of aspiring pilots". Only as recently as earlier in the year RH quoted this in an update. CX used the cadetship's original good intent & twisted it for greed. Plain and simple. The cadetship was the road and the Racial Discrimination Ordinance (RDO) the vehicle.
Those same people defending this CEP are the ones who in the very near future will be crying "we should all stick together" and "pilots are their own worst enemies". They will complain about the poor hotel standards, crew meals and FDTL's, all the while believing it was not them or paved the way and endorsed it all. And so the spiral continues.
You can't see if you refuse to look.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titan,
I appreciate all the posts in this forum, so I mean no disrespect at all but I just want to point out that I have been living in HK for almost 10 years with a salary package more or less the same as the one offered to the newly hired "iCadets", just some extra bonuses from time to time. I know a number of other expats with very respectable jobs here living on less than what I make and being comfortable with that. I assure you I am in no financial mess and I do not live in a cage. In fact I live quite comfortably, I just dont live on or anywhere near the Peak. The mean salary in the company I work for (about 100 local people, roughly half skilled workers and half office clerks/managers) is HKD 16-17k a month for 13 months. They all seem to do fine although most expats including me would find the houses they live in way too inadequate in terms of space. By that I do not mean CX pilots should make HKD 17k a month, but i just wish to put things a bit in perspective.
BTW, like Wannaberightseat I would appreciate any input about stage 2 interview esp math test and technical interview (i know some posts here have covered this issue but an unpdate on what has been asked in recent interviews and if the math test has remained the same would be great). Also, there seems to be no aptitude test (joystick PC games) anymore, am i correct?
I have flown with a number of cadets recently and without exception they are all doing it very tough. What has alarmed me even more though is the number that aren’t even budgeting for their tax bill because “Quote” they can’t afford to. If this trend isn’t looked at by the company we will see a number of iCadets in the next 12 months in a serious financial mess.
BTW, like Wannaberightseat I would appreciate any input about stage 2 interview esp math test and technical interview (i know some posts here have covered this issue but an unpdate on what has been asked in recent interviews and if the math test has remained the same would be great). Also, there seems to be no aptitude test (joystick PC games) anymore, am i correct?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Outside
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
The first line did send a smile to my face. To clear things up, no I'm not a part of Cathay. As I stated I am not an applicant and I'm definitely not one of the BIG BOYS that put the iCadet scheme into play. Lets face it; if I was, I wouldn't be on pprune writing. I would spending my bonus check money
I don't disagree with you. What we are saying is similar. The only difference I had was what the iCadet program was. iCadet was started before the implementation of TT and AE courses. The majority of people applying to this program are pilots with little to no experience (less than 200 hrs flying time). It has always been this way, even since 1988 when it was just locals. To be fair, there were local cadets (and by local it just means HKID) who did have in excess of 300 hrs who still took this road. AE and TT courses were not available at the time. What I was saying earlier is the BASIC iCadet program is still serving its main purpose. Even if shorter courses were not available and everyone had to do the 61 week training course, it would still attract the same types of people whether or not they have a HKID; pilots with little to no flying time. And for someone in another country with no experience, this seems good (on the surface). I see where you are coming from about the TT program. And as I mentioned, I would feel insulted, if I went for DESO/DEFO, and then got offered this course on local terms. I asked in a post awhile ago. Who are you upset with? The cadets who still have little to no experience and are applying to Cathay, the same way the cadets have been since 1988? Or the DESO/DEFO poolies that have made the decision to accept the Transition Training Course terms and give-up their expat benefits.
I'm figuring you are in CX. Now I will admit to you, most of the info I have on Cathay is just from doing research and speaking with a few friends who have gone through the cadet program. And no doubt there are cadets who are finding it difficult in Hong Kong. But something tells me they did not do a lot of research before applying. Even without a family base in HK, Cadets are still making it. For every cadet you talk to that says he/she is struggling to save for taxes, I'm sure there is one who is doing just fine. Furthermore, if the local HK population can make it with an average income of $15-20K HKD, I'm sure a cadet with $45K will be fine. As said before by many, the research must be done. It's not impossible, but some will have to scale back from the lifestyle that they are accustomed to. There are no secrets. Everyone understands, or at least I hope they understand, that they are joining under local terms. Even if they are expat by birth, Cathay will recognize them as a local. The homework needs to be done before they apply.
CB
LOL I have read some of the posts and I agree fight fire with fire. For some, if you have anything better than a flame thrower, USE IT. However, as I've stated before, I don't the rest of them are sell-outs. As you have written, if people disagree with you that's fine. And they are free to do that. In your post you call those people "yellow-bellied, spineless, ignorant, naive, sell-outs" just because they choose to continue their interview process. As I said earlier, the current cadets with little to no experience are no more sell-outs than the ones employed by Cathay when you were applying. And during that time when Cathay had its great profit, Cadet pilots were there.
We both know Cathay is a business and they will do whatever they can to save a quick buck. There isn't one airline out there that wont do that (if there is please let me know ASAP so I can get that resume ready lol) At this point, Cathay is trying to recruit everyone through the cadet scheme. EVERY cadet will have to learn to become local. Some will find it difficult, while others will manage very well (that all depends on the person). I still think that Cathay will ride this as long as they can until they are forced to open up the DESO/DEFO positions with expat benefits. But they will try to save as much as they can for as long as they can.
So again I ask anyone, who are these words meant for? Who are you upset at? Is it the cadet pilots with no experience that have been applying since 1988? (obviously they found some success with this, or they would have stopped this years ago). Or the DEFO/DESO poolies that have decided to take a Transition Course on local terms?
On a side note - I am curious to know what the cadets from 20 years ago think about the current program today.
The first line did send a smile to my face. To clear things up, no I'm not a part of Cathay. As I stated I am not an applicant and I'm definitely not one of the BIG BOYS that put the iCadet scheme into play. Lets face it; if I was, I wouldn't be on pprune writing. I would spending my bonus check money
I don't disagree with you. What we are saying is similar. The only difference I had was what the iCadet program was. iCadet was started before the implementation of TT and AE courses. The majority of people applying to this program are pilots with little to no experience (less than 200 hrs flying time). It has always been this way, even since 1988 when it was just locals. To be fair, there were local cadets (and by local it just means HKID) who did have in excess of 300 hrs who still took this road. AE and TT courses were not available at the time. What I was saying earlier is the BASIC iCadet program is still serving its main purpose. Even if shorter courses were not available and everyone had to do the 61 week training course, it would still attract the same types of people whether or not they have a HKID; pilots with little to no flying time. And for someone in another country with no experience, this seems good (on the surface). I see where you are coming from about the TT program. And as I mentioned, I would feel insulted, if I went for DESO/DEFO, and then got offered this course on local terms. I asked in a post awhile ago. Who are you upset with? The cadets who still have little to no experience and are applying to Cathay, the same way the cadets have been since 1988? Or the DESO/DEFO poolies that have made the decision to accept the Transition Training Course terms and give-up their expat benefits.
I'm figuring you are in CX. Now I will admit to you, most of the info I have on Cathay is just from doing research and speaking with a few friends who have gone through the cadet program. And no doubt there are cadets who are finding it difficult in Hong Kong. But something tells me they did not do a lot of research before applying. Even without a family base in HK, Cadets are still making it. For every cadet you talk to that says he/she is struggling to save for taxes, I'm sure there is one who is doing just fine. Furthermore, if the local HK population can make it with an average income of $15-20K HKD, I'm sure a cadet with $45K will be fine. As said before by many, the research must be done. It's not impossible, but some will have to scale back from the lifestyle that they are accustomed to. There are no secrets. Everyone understands, or at least I hope they understand, that they are joining under local terms. Even if they are expat by birth, Cathay will recognize them as a local. The homework needs to be done before they apply.
CB
LOL I have read some of the posts and I agree fight fire with fire. For some, if you have anything better than a flame thrower, USE IT.
However, as I've stated before, I don't the rest of them are sell-outs. As you have written, if people disagree with you that's fine. And they are free to do that. In your post you call those people "yellow-bellied, spineless, ignorant, naive, sell-outs" just because they choose to continue their interview process. As I said earlier, the current cadets with little to no experience are no more sell-outs than the ones employed by Cathay when you were applying. And during that time when Cathay had its great profit, Cadet pilots were there. We both know Cathay is a business and they will do whatever they can to save a quick buck. There isn't one airline out there that wont do that (if there is please let me know ASAP so I can get that resume ready lol) At this point, Cathay is trying to recruit everyone through the cadet scheme. EVERY cadet will have to learn to become local. Some will find it difficult, while others will manage very well (that all depends on the person). I still think that Cathay will ride this as long as they can until they are forced to open up the DESO/DEFO positions with expat benefits. But they will try to save as much as they can for as long as they can.
So again I ask anyone, who are these words meant for? Who are you upset at? Is it the cadet pilots with no experience that have been applying since 1988? (obviously they found some success with this, or they would have stopped this years ago). Or the DEFO/DESO poolies that have decided to take a Transition Course on local terms?
On a side note - I am curious to know what the cadets from 20 years ago think about the current program today.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Somewhere, Maybe there!
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Credible Info
After looking through (parts of) the forum, I am interested to locate an active post-er who is currently a cadet with the programme, a recent graduate and now employed, or an SO employed for a few years with CX.
(If you have just posted and I have failed to see this, then I apologise.)
I am currently working my way through the recruitment process, just passed Stage 1. For some background info on me, I am an approx 1000hr CPL with a business degree. In saying that I feel I will be competent to make a decision ONE WAY OR ANOTHER about CX and the programme itself, once I have been through the recruitment process and if offered the opportunity. With this, I have not yet made my mind up and am setting out to try and gather concrete facts about CX, Hong Kong, life in, cost of living, etc......not just opinions. In short, the basis of my post is to simply try to collect some RELEVANT information from someone who is or has been DIRECTLY INVOLVED (and obviously successful) with the programme and the company, but obviously not recruitment or management (as we will hear from these people in the interviews).
No disrespect to any posters, but its tough to read all of the opinions within this thread and truly understand if they are educated via experience with the programme or simply outsiders with an opinion. Further, I do appreciate that I can sift through the forum and possibly find answers to some of my questions, but I am unsure if these answers are still valid (obviously depending on posting date) and if the author is credible (ie - sifting through numerous posts to discover their experience, etc.)
I do not need to hear that, if I am successful and do accept:
-I will live in poverty (unless this is quantified in some manner - ie cost of living figures, etc)
-That I will waste 5 years and still have a frozen ATPL (unless this is quantified in some manner - ie direct experience having left CX with only the P2X hours and trying to get recognition elsewhere)
-The program is an insult to all pilots
If you can justify the above statements with credible info, I am happy to listen.
Obviously there are many factors that make a business successful from management down to the front line, but there has to be some belief that there is good in this company and the programme exists to position the company for success in the future.
I believe everyone has an opinion and you are entitled to yours. In my case, though, I would just like to try this avenue to garner some facts about CX and the programme that do not come straight from CX themselves, and even HK, so that I can form my own, somewhat informed, opinion.
Thanks!
As the homepage of PPRuNe states:
(If you have just posted and I have failed to see this, then I apologise.)
I am currently working my way through the recruitment process, just passed Stage 1. For some background info on me, I am an approx 1000hr CPL with a business degree. In saying that I feel I will be competent to make a decision ONE WAY OR ANOTHER about CX and the programme itself, once I have been through the recruitment process and if offered the opportunity. With this, I have not yet made my mind up and am setting out to try and gather concrete facts about CX, Hong Kong, life in, cost of living, etc......not just opinions. In short, the basis of my post is to simply try to collect some RELEVANT information from someone who is or has been DIRECTLY INVOLVED (and obviously successful) with the programme and the company, but obviously not recruitment or management (as we will hear from these people in the interviews).
No disrespect to any posters, but its tough to read all of the opinions within this thread and truly understand if they are educated via experience with the programme or simply outsiders with an opinion. Further, I do appreciate that I can sift through the forum and possibly find answers to some of my questions, but I am unsure if these answers are still valid (obviously depending on posting date) and if the author is credible (ie - sifting through numerous posts to discover their experience, etc.)
I do not need to hear that, if I am successful and do accept:
-I will live in poverty (unless this is quantified in some manner - ie cost of living figures, etc)
-That I will waste 5 years and still have a frozen ATPL (unless this is quantified in some manner - ie direct experience having left CX with only the P2X hours and trying to get recognition elsewhere)
-The program is an insult to all pilots
If you can justify the above statements with credible info, I am happy to listen.
Obviously there are many factors that make a business successful from management down to the front line, but there has to be some belief that there is good in this company and the programme exists to position the company for success in the future.
I believe everyone has an opinion and you are entitled to yours. In my case, though, I would just like to try this avenue to garner some facts about CX and the programme that do not come straight from CX themselves, and even HK, so that I can form my own, somewhat informed, opinion.
Thanks!
As the homepage of PPRuNe states:
As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, or sciolists*, to elicit certain reactions.
*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".
*"sciolist"... Noun, archaic. "a person who pretends to be knowledgeable and well informed".
Flight100
I’m actually not upset with any of them. I’m upset at the company for offering it in the first place. Also for the record out of the 62 DESO's in the hold file since 2008, 61 knocked CX back when offered the new iCadet package not once, but twice.
What you seem to be failing to realise is that locals have a support network that expats generally don’t. They generally live in places and conditions you and I wouldn’t and eat food you and I wouldn’t eat on a prolonged basis. Expats generally come from countries where the houses/apartments are bigger and we eat food that is generally more expensive. The whole basis of the expat housing allowance was to attract experienced pilots to CX and allow them to live in Hong Kong in conditions similar to what they would expect in their home country. I’m sure there are some cadets that are living very frugally on what they are being paid. They reality is though I fly with more than my fair share of them and the numbers speak for themselves. Whether this is because they didn’t do enough research is debateable. I personally think it is more to do with immaturity and lack of money skills. One day they have very little money and the next they have what appears to be a lot and don’t know how to handle it.
I am aware that when the iCadet scheme was introduced it was only for ab initio candidates. This was mainly because it took some time for the HKCAD to approve the advanced and Transitional courses. The original iCadet scheme had no HKPA, children’s education allowance or the forgivable loan. While CX refuses to admit it, “suitable” applicants particularly for the Transition Course, have been and continue to be thin on the ground. To entice more applicants especially for the Transition course, the HLPA, education and the forgivable loan were introduced. What would have been more sensible would to just call Transition Course iCadets what they really are and that is DESO’s and pay them full expat allowances. CX will say they can’t do that because of the “Race Discrimination Ordinance”. As I have mentioned before the RDO doesn’t apply to cadet’s v DESO’s as cadets were and still aren’t employed based on their race, but because of their right of abode in HK and now because of their experience as in the cases for ab initio and advanced course iCadets. CX has never employed cadets based on their race therefore the RDO isn’t applicable.
Ideally I would like to see all cadets get what I have when I joined CX. I am also a realist and understand this may not happen. I believe CX should stop the charade with the iCadet program and call each candidate what they really are and stop hiding behind the RDO, i.e. they are either a cadet if they have little or no experience or they are a DESO if they have significant experience. Pay full expat allowances to DESO’s and pay the HKPA to iCadets until they have completed a fair return of service.
Who are you upset with? The cadets who still have little to no experience and are applying to Cathay, the same way the cadets have been since 1988? Or the DESO/DEFO poolies that have made the decision to accept the Transition Training Course terms and give-up their expat benefits.
For every cadet you talk to that says he/she is struggling to save for taxes, I'm sure there is one who is doing just fine. Furthermore, if the local HK population can make it with an average income of $15-20K HKD, I'm sure a cadet with $45K will be fine. As said before by many, the research must be done. It's not impossible, but some will have to scale back from the lifestyle that they are accustomed to.
I am aware that when the iCadet scheme was introduced it was only for ab initio candidates. This was mainly because it took some time for the HKCAD to approve the advanced and Transitional courses. The original iCadet scheme had no HKPA, children’s education allowance or the forgivable loan. While CX refuses to admit it, “suitable” applicants particularly for the Transition Course, have been and continue to be thin on the ground. To entice more applicants especially for the Transition course, the HLPA, education and the forgivable loan were introduced. What would have been more sensible would to just call Transition Course iCadets what they really are and that is DESO’s and pay them full expat allowances. CX will say they can’t do that because of the “Race Discrimination Ordinance”. As I have mentioned before the RDO doesn’t apply to cadet’s v DESO’s as cadets were and still aren’t employed based on their race, but because of their right of abode in HK and now because of their experience as in the cases for ab initio and advanced course iCadets. CX has never employed cadets based on their race therefore the RDO isn’t applicable.
Ideally I would like to see all cadets get what I have when I joined CX. I am also a realist and understand this may not happen. I believe CX should stop the charade with the iCadet program and call each candidate what they really are and stop hiding behind the RDO, i.e. they are either a cadet if they have little or no experience or they are a DESO if they have significant experience. Pay full expat allowances to DESO’s and pay the HKPA to iCadets until they have completed a fair return of service.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Buzz85
like you i passed stage 1 and icao english test too so i cannot answer you regarding how i feel about being a SO at CX. For some reason it seems that once people land a job as SOs they stop reading and adding to this forum until after many years, when they come back resentful towards new cadets.
I can give you some ideas about what to expect should you move to HK though. I am not sure if you know these websites already, i list them anyways just in case:
Expat community forums (non-aviation related)
Hong Kong Expats - Hong Kong Apartments, Expat Classifieds, Forums, Serviced Apartments in Hong Kong :: Hong Kong GeoExpat
Hong Kong Expat - Hong Kong apartments, expat relocation, Hong Kong serviced apartments, Hong Kong property, Hong Kong property for rent, apartments for rent
Major real estate companies/websites:
Hong Kong Property, Apartments, Homes, Real Estate for Sale, rent and lease - Square Foot
Property Agency in Hong Kong - Midland Realty
there are 4 main types of houses in HK -
1. buildings for the "locals" (with rents mainly subsidised by the government), I do not recommend you staying in one of these places although some are better than others,
2. newer buildings with "clubhouse" facilities which are normally rented without furniture but with built in kitchen and bathrooms,
3. "village houses" in the new territories they are all the same except that some are newer and some older, they have 3 floors and a terrace on top of the last floor and every floor is 700 square feet, some have a small garden or courtyard at the ground floor,
4. extremely expensive villas/apartments.
On a CX SO income you would probably live in either category 2 or 3 of the above. Besides HK island, popular expats areas are Discovery Bay (very close to the airport but bear in mind that cars/taxis are not permitted there, there are buses and ferries that take you to other destinations in town), Sai Kung (if you like water activities that's the place for you), Yuen Long (there are some rare reasonably priced "villas" with gardens, check Fairvew Park listings on those property websites) and Tai Po for village houses.
HK IS an expensive city, however bear in mind that the price of most things (food, non-major-brand clothes, household items) tends to be cheaper than in Western Europe. Only the housing market is very expensive, but there are plenty of ways to keep the monthly rental below or around HKD 10k a month and living in a decently spacious flat if you move out of the central area (HK island/TST). Personally i live in the new territories in a 690-700 square feet house and the building has a "club house" with an indoor and outdoor swimming pool, a gym, 2 tennis courts, 2 badmington courts, kids playground, dogs playground, a small supermarket, laundry.. and i forgot what esle. It's all downstairs all i need to do is take the lift. I spend HKD 9k a month, utilities excluded, but the landlord pays for the management fees. I have a car and it takes me about 20-30 minutes to go downtown and 20 mins to reach the airport, obviously if there is an accident on the highway it can take much longer. Public transportation is quite efficient so you don't really need a car and in fact I am considering not to keep a car if I manage to get hired by CX. Taxis are cheap at least to my Western Europe standards and they are everywhere, so if waiting and sitting on a bus or on the underground train doesnt sound good you can always hop on a taxi for HKD 15 for i think the first 2-3Km. Then its HKD 1.5 every 200 meters. You cant really go too far in HK, so unless they cheat you you wont spend a fortune if you go around by taxi more often than not as I used to do before i got a car.
Hope that helps on the HK cost of living side. I wish i could give you some insights about being a CX SO... but can't atm.
like you i passed stage 1 and icao english test too so i cannot answer you regarding how i feel about being a SO at CX. For some reason it seems that once people land a job as SOs they stop reading and adding to this forum until after many years, when they come back resentful towards new cadets.
I can give you some ideas about what to expect should you move to HK though. I am not sure if you know these websites already, i list them anyways just in case:
Expat community forums (non-aviation related)
Hong Kong Expats - Hong Kong Apartments, Expat Classifieds, Forums, Serviced Apartments in Hong Kong :: Hong Kong GeoExpat
Hong Kong Expat - Hong Kong apartments, expat relocation, Hong Kong serviced apartments, Hong Kong property, Hong Kong property for rent, apartments for rent
Major real estate companies/websites:
Hong Kong Property, Apartments, Homes, Real Estate for Sale, rent and lease - Square Foot
Property Agency in Hong Kong - Midland Realty
there are 4 main types of houses in HK -
1. buildings for the "locals" (with rents mainly subsidised by the government), I do not recommend you staying in one of these places although some are better than others,
2. newer buildings with "clubhouse" facilities which are normally rented without furniture but with built in kitchen and bathrooms,
3. "village houses" in the new territories they are all the same except that some are newer and some older, they have 3 floors and a terrace on top of the last floor and every floor is 700 square feet, some have a small garden or courtyard at the ground floor,
4. extremely expensive villas/apartments.
On a CX SO income you would probably live in either category 2 or 3 of the above. Besides HK island, popular expats areas are Discovery Bay (very close to the airport but bear in mind that cars/taxis are not permitted there, there are buses and ferries that take you to other destinations in town), Sai Kung (if you like water activities that's the place for you), Yuen Long (there are some rare reasonably priced "villas" with gardens, check Fairvew Park listings on those property websites) and Tai Po for village houses.
HK IS an expensive city, however bear in mind that the price of most things (food, non-major-brand clothes, household items) tends to be cheaper than in Western Europe. Only the housing market is very expensive, but there are plenty of ways to keep the monthly rental below or around HKD 10k a month and living in a decently spacious flat if you move out of the central area (HK island/TST). Personally i live in the new territories in a 690-700 square feet house and the building has a "club house" with an indoor and outdoor swimming pool, a gym, 2 tennis courts, 2 badmington courts, kids playground, dogs playground, a small supermarket, laundry.. and i forgot what esle. It's all downstairs all i need to do is take the lift. I spend HKD 9k a month, utilities excluded, but the landlord pays for the management fees. I have a car and it takes me about 20-30 minutes to go downtown and 20 mins to reach the airport, obviously if there is an accident on the highway it can take much longer. Public transportation is quite efficient so you don't really need a car and in fact I am considering not to keep a car if I manage to get hired by CX. Taxis are cheap at least to my Western Europe standards and they are everywhere, so if waiting and sitting on a bus or on the underground train doesnt sound good you can always hop on a taxi for HKD 15 for i think the first 2-3Km. Then its HKD 1.5 every 200 meters. You cant really go too far in HK, so unless they cheat you you wont spend a fortune if you go around by taxi more often than not as I used to do before i got a car.
Hope that helps on the HK cost of living side. I wish i could give you some insights about being a CX SO... but can't atm.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CB: Calling me a kid huh? How old are you son?
I ask about the negative sides of CX privately to the people I believe can give me the most accurate answers, in the most sensible fashion. That is why I ommited you from any correspondence.
And about the repetitive ranting, I wasn't just talking about you, I was also talking about others, you know, the spineless, gutless ones.
In addition, you may not have read to well into my sarcasm of previous posts, maybe re-read them like you tell everyone to re-read all the posts on this topic.
Seriously.....
I ask about the negative sides of CX privately to the people I believe can give me the most accurate answers, in the most sensible fashion. That is why I ommited you from any correspondence.
And about the repetitive ranting, I wasn't just talking about you, I was also talking about others, you know, the spineless, gutless ones.
In addition, you may not have read to well into my sarcasm of previous posts, maybe re-read them like you tell everyone to re-read all the posts on this topic.
Seriously.....
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight: my references and choice of words are directly & unashamedly aimed at the likes of this kid "whatever" who asks for facts, for advice & information, who does not do any research of his own and ridicules the information he has received. It is his type who (as he says) feels "entitled" to an airline career such as CX, and that other means are just "too hard".
That's whom I refer to.
I have swapped numerous PM's with those wanting information about the CEP and from my experience & from my point of view. They have the courtesy and professionalism to have a difference of opinion and support it outside of shear selfish "I feel entitled to it" character traits. Respect is earned, not taken via a cheap & nasty means that lowers the industry they seek to be a part of. Those with the professional backbone to research the facts, listen to both sides of the argument have far more spine than the likes of "whatever" and co.
My words are also aimed at those who deny the undeniable and willfully, knowingly and happily contribute to the lowering of terms & conditions not only at CX but as such are a detriment to aviation (airlines) in general. The selectively choose one side of an arguement unable to offer one miniscule of logic reasoning or based on facts.
CX seek to save a buck at the expense of standards, training and therefore safety. That has been proven. Name another reason for reducing training systems and skill training, especially for those who need it most.
Businesses have every right to look for ways to be more productive. But they have no moral right to do so at the expense of standards that directly affect safety: such as RP's, FDTL's, training systems, recruitment, competent rest facilities, etc, etc.
That's whom I refer to.
I have swapped numerous PM's with those wanting information about the CEP and from my experience & from my point of view. They have the courtesy and professionalism to have a difference of opinion and support it outside of shear selfish "I feel entitled to it" character traits. Respect is earned, not taken via a cheap & nasty means that lowers the industry they seek to be a part of. Those with the professional backbone to research the facts, listen to both sides of the argument have far more spine than the likes of "whatever" and co.
My words are also aimed at those who deny the undeniable and willfully, knowingly and happily contribute to the lowering of terms & conditions not only at CX but as such are a detriment to aviation (airlines) in general. The selectively choose one side of an arguement unable to offer one miniscule of logic reasoning or based on facts.
CX seek to save a buck at the expense of standards, training and therefore safety. That has been proven. Name another reason for reducing training systems and skill training, especially for those who need it most.
Businesses have every right to look for ways to be more productive. But they have no moral right to do so at the expense of standards that directly affect safety: such as RP's, FDTL's, training systems, recruitment, competent rest facilities, etc, etc.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404titan,
Many thanks for your clear insight and time to give a well build statement of what should be offered to the Icadets.
If I understand it correctly, the essential line between a “bad”-package and a “decent”-offer is the housing allowance? Are most the other secondary conditions like the provident funds and education allowances (albeit only local schools) reasonably in “line”? Or do those conditions need to be reviewed as well?
I would agree on the most part, but I reckon that for CX, housing allowance is something that will be cut considerable as the overall staff expenditures would be rise to a amount that is not “sellable” to stakeholders and internal parties.
Let’s say the package is financially upgraded with the housing allowance to the standards of the DESO. If I use my “beercoaster”-accounting, it would mean that 250 entries per year would have an housing allowance collectively of 8.237.500,00 HKD, and that the second year of keeping this on the same package with 250 flight deck entries would mean the amount would be 24.712.500,00 HKD in about 2 years. There is quite some impact on the balance sheets. And this has to be backed up by the statement that "safety and quality" comes first, but unfortunately, it seems on "safety and quality" there is an boundary to use that argument according the ones who decide where to take this company....
Now, not looking at the rental markets which most likely will rise to even an higher level, and leaving aside the further costs for the company as the allowance will rise with more seniority and years of service, looking already at the figure above for the years, the company has to get it back somewhere on the WHOLE corporate line and “sell” it to the internal parties which in itself is already an tricky matter to do.
I can imagine this will cause a knock-on effect to other line departments such as Engineering, In-flight Services, Revenue Management, and others. The debate “who” or” what “is more important becomes very much alive and I do not think it will go very well past the “common-white-collar-workforce”(with the utmost respect to them!). Of course, I am very much speculating and by all means it is just one of the many outcomes. I am just wondering how CX is going to stay profitable when the break-even point will be harder to reach. But I am swaying way off topic here. Sorry for that.
All I want to state is that although I understand and agree with what 404titan is saying, I reckon it is not something that from an corporate (and political) point of view is NOT going to happen unless indeed, (like Dan Buster mentioned) Icadets are massively rejecting the offer and all terms for the B-Scale are reinstated. Nevertheless, I think in any way this means it will have a huge profit/loss-effect and so it even is harder to maintain a positive margin as a commercial airliner and eventually the company will have an greater RISK to lose its edge because the commercial cut-throat environment the company is moving in. It is somewhat discouraging to see.
Regarding the mystery why CX is not willing to pay for outside schools, I reckon that the company wants to use the schools in HK (rather than opposed to go overseas) has not necessarily to do with whether it is an additional cost or not, if you sent you kids to international school, it means either some part of your family will have to live with them. I think more than not a mother (or father) has some trouble to leave their child behind when they move to HKG. If one could choose to stay on a base, it would be different story, but as that is on hold and probably will not open anytime soon, the safest bet for now is let the kids join an local HK school and at least they have an “home” to go to instead in staying in an boarding school (what is also driving of an overseas school up for the company)with you have to rely as an parent on the capable hands of teachers and dorm-mothers. Not to discredit the people running an overseas international school, but you cannot help “immediately” when things go wrong because you might be on the other side of the world. But that is just my brain trying to connect the dots too.
Once again, 404titan, ChinaBeached, VoiceofReason, Dan Buster, and all others positive or negative, thank you for the statements made, hopefully it will help some to see what is at hand here and make their decision wisely and clearly…
Barney Out.
Many thanks for your clear insight and time to give a well build statement of what should be offered to the Icadets.
If I understand it correctly, the essential line between a “bad”-package and a “decent”-offer is the housing allowance? Are most the other secondary conditions like the provident funds and education allowances (albeit only local schools) reasonably in “line”? Or do those conditions need to be reviewed as well?
I would agree on the most part, but I reckon that for CX, housing allowance is something that will be cut considerable as the overall staff expenditures would be rise to a amount that is not “sellable” to stakeholders and internal parties.
Let’s say the package is financially upgraded with the housing allowance to the standards of the DESO. If I use my “beercoaster”-accounting, it would mean that 250 entries per year would have an housing allowance collectively of 8.237.500,00 HKD, and that the second year of keeping this on the same package with 250 flight deck entries would mean the amount would be 24.712.500,00 HKD in about 2 years. There is quite some impact on the balance sheets. And this has to be backed up by the statement that "safety and quality" comes first, but unfortunately, it seems on "safety and quality" there is an boundary to use that argument according the ones who decide where to take this company....
Now, not looking at the rental markets which most likely will rise to even an higher level, and leaving aside the further costs for the company as the allowance will rise with more seniority and years of service, looking already at the figure above for the years, the company has to get it back somewhere on the WHOLE corporate line and “sell” it to the internal parties which in itself is already an tricky matter to do.
I can imagine this will cause a knock-on effect to other line departments such as Engineering, In-flight Services, Revenue Management, and others. The debate “who” or” what “is more important becomes very much alive and I do not think it will go very well past the “common-white-collar-workforce”(with the utmost respect to them!). Of course, I am very much speculating and by all means it is just one of the many outcomes. I am just wondering how CX is going to stay profitable when the break-even point will be harder to reach. But I am swaying way off topic here. Sorry for that.
All I want to state is that although I understand and agree with what 404titan is saying, I reckon it is not something that from an corporate (and political) point of view is NOT going to happen unless indeed, (like Dan Buster mentioned) Icadets are massively rejecting the offer and all terms for the B-Scale are reinstated. Nevertheless, I think in any way this means it will have a huge profit/loss-effect and so it even is harder to maintain a positive margin as a commercial airliner and eventually the company will have an greater RISK to lose its edge because the commercial cut-throat environment the company is moving in. It is somewhat discouraging to see.
Regarding the mystery why CX is not willing to pay for outside schools, I reckon that the company wants to use the schools in HK (rather than opposed to go overseas) has not necessarily to do with whether it is an additional cost or not, if you sent you kids to international school, it means either some part of your family will have to live with them. I think more than not a mother (or father) has some trouble to leave their child behind when they move to HKG. If one could choose to stay on a base, it would be different story, but as that is on hold and probably will not open anytime soon, the safest bet for now is let the kids join an local HK school and at least they have an “home” to go to instead in staying in an boarding school (what is also driving of an overseas school up for the company)with you have to rely as an parent on the capable hands of teachers and dorm-mothers. Not to discredit the people running an overseas international school, but you cannot help “immediately” when things go wrong because you might be on the other side of the world. But that is just my brain trying to connect the dots too.
Once again, 404titan, ChinaBeached, VoiceofReason, Dan Buster, and all others positive or negative, thank you for the statements made, hopefully it will help some to see what is at hand here and make their decision wisely and clearly…
Barney Out.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan Buster,
Yes, CX is back-flips all the time, but that is an unfortunate part of ever- changing condition in an industry that is hard to forecast what will happen next. Unfortunately only a few “wise”-men had to make a business –decision that might have an impact on the global line. I do understand your statement and by no means have to go further on it, but I think some of the stakeholders will scratch their heads if they see that the staff expenditure level will rise exceptionally if you would implement the B-scale pack “immediately”. I believe it is just not that simple to “re-instate” any issue that might have an bigger impact on the whole corporate line…
Besides that, one always has a choice. It is depended on the person who is ALLOWED to make that choice even if that will take the company into another crisis… Just my 2 cents...
barney out.
You are incorect. If not 1 person took up this icadet package, the B scale expat package with full hosuing would be re-introduced immediately. They would have no choice, no matter what the DFO has 'given away'. CX back flips all the time.
Yes, CX is back-flips all the time, but that is an unfortunate part of ever- changing condition in an industry that is hard to forecast what will happen next. Unfortunately only a few “wise”-men had to make a business –decision that might have an impact on the global line. I do understand your statement and by no means have to go further on it, but I think some of the stakeholders will scratch their heads if they see that the staff expenditure level will rise exceptionally if you would implement the B-scale pack “immediately”. I believe it is just not that simple to “re-instate” any issue that might have an bigger impact on the whole corporate line…
Besides that, one always has a choice. It is depended on the person who is ALLOWED to make that choice even if that will take the company into another crisis… Just my 2 cents...
barney out.
Last edited by barney31; 14th Nov 2011 at 18:35.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barney,
CX made over $14 BILLION HKD PROFIT - a record amount - with a remuneration package in place that held it as a (considered) world leader, all the while attracting pilots with excellent experience, credentials & knowledge. They paid well and attracted and then screened accordingly. Again, all the while making record profits. Greed. There can be no other word for it.
This is not as much a business decision as a means for a profit chase & back pocket lining at the expense of standards, safety and reputation. Legacy? Well done TT, RH and co. You and the cohorts effectively ruined the reputation of an airline well regarded as amongst the best, if not the best. You have increased the profits but look at what expense.....
CX made over $14 BILLION HKD PROFIT - a record amount - with a remuneration package in place that held it as a (considered) world leader, all the while attracting pilots with excellent experience, credentials & knowledge. They paid well and attracted and then screened accordingly. Again, all the while making record profits. Greed. There can be no other word for it.
This is not as much a business decision as a means for a profit chase & back pocket lining at the expense of standards, safety and reputation. Legacy? Well done TT, RH and co. You and the cohorts effectively ruined the reputation of an airline well regarded as amongst the best, if not the best. You have increased the profits but look at what expense.....
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Outside
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
"They reality is though I fly with more than my fair share of them and the numbers speak for themselves. Whether this is because they didn’t do enough research is debatable. I personally think it is more to do with immaturity and lack of money skills. One day they have very little money and the next they have what appears to be a lot and don’t know how to handle it."
Couldn't agree with you more. As I stated, some will find it hard to live in Hong Kong and some will find it easier. And you are right. Expats would be accustomed to living in larger places and eating different types of food. Which just reaffirms what I wrote earlier. Research needs to be done, and if applicant still feels as though they can make it, that is their decision. Doesn't make them any less of a person.
Next the forgivable loan did not come to attract people. CX found a loophole. As bonding of employees, to my knowledge, is illegal in Hong Kong, CX was able to offer a "loan" instead. That way if a cadet tries to leave (on his own accord) before six years time, he will have to pay back the loan. Therefore, its no longer a bond. Even better was to offer the shorter courses a piece of the loan as a "bonus".
And you are right. The RDO doesn't apply to TT courses as they have the experience and qualifications needed. However, it does apply to the ab-initio cadets. Therefore, they will never get expat terms.
I'm not sure of your length of employment at Cathay, but I'm curious to know if you have always thought the Cadet program was a bad/industry destroying idea? If so then I completely understand your argument. But it seems that people did not start writing about how horrible this scheme was until they opened it to international cadets, who also have the same credentials and experience as the local cadets of the past. You say you are upset at the company offering these terms, but they have always offered them to cadets. So I will rephrase my previous question. Are you against ab-initio applicants applying to Cathay, or is it the fact that people with lots of hours and experience are accepting TT terms and conditions? If its the latter then I agree with you. It is a shame to see someone with an ATPL and all of that jet time be compared with an ab-initio cadet.
CB
" Respect is earned, not taken via a cheap & nasty means that lowers the industry they seek to be a part of."
Very true, but as I've asked Titan, are you including ab-initio applicants in this group? If this is the case, were you against Cadet pilots when you applied for Cathay as a DEFO, or did that not start until international cadets were allowed? It's the same program it has been since 1988 and is no more/no less cheap and nasty as it was back then.
I do feel greed is a driving factor in what any airline/company does. It is sad, but that is the case. It's one of the problems that has caused the downfall of airlines in the USA.
For both:
I am actually asking this not to be a smart-ass, but because I really don't know. How has safety been affected because of the cadet program? The same types of cadets are being accepted, the same standard that they have had for years. And to say Cathay is anymore unsafe now because of iCadet program would be saying that Cathay was just as unsafe when only locals were allowed. And as you have all mentioned, Cadets are employed as SO's which mean they wont be allowed to sit right seat during the most critical phases of flight. But there are cadets that are now Captains at Cathay. Are they any less safe because they did not have any experience when they were hired? Has anything changed with sim times? Is there less training being given? I've heard that the students in Adelaide must go through Jet Transition Training courses and I'm wondering if Cathay has shortened sim training in Hong Kong becasue of the added sim time in Adelaide.
"They reality is though I fly with more than my fair share of them and the numbers speak for themselves. Whether this is because they didn’t do enough research is debatable. I personally think it is more to do with immaturity and lack of money skills. One day they have very little money and the next they have what appears to be a lot and don’t know how to handle it."
Couldn't agree with you more. As I stated, some will find it hard to live in Hong Kong and some will find it easier. And you are right. Expats would be accustomed to living in larger places and eating different types of food. Which just reaffirms what I wrote earlier. Research needs to be done, and if applicant still feels as though they can make it, that is their decision. Doesn't make them any less of a person.
Next the forgivable loan did not come to attract people. CX found a loophole. As bonding of employees, to my knowledge, is illegal in Hong Kong, CX was able to offer a "loan" instead. That way if a cadet tries to leave (on his own accord) before six years time, he will have to pay back the loan. Therefore, its no longer a bond. Even better was to offer the shorter courses a piece of the loan as a "bonus".
And you are right. The RDO doesn't apply to TT courses as they have the experience and qualifications needed. However, it does apply to the ab-initio cadets. Therefore, they will never get expat terms.
I'm not sure of your length of employment at Cathay, but I'm curious to know if you have always thought the Cadet program was a bad/industry destroying idea? If so then I completely understand your argument. But it seems that people did not start writing about how horrible this scheme was until they opened it to international cadets, who also have the same credentials and experience as the local cadets of the past. You say you are upset at the company offering these terms, but they have always offered them to cadets. So I will rephrase my previous question. Are you against ab-initio applicants applying to Cathay, or is it the fact that people with lots of hours and experience are accepting TT terms and conditions? If its the latter then I agree with you. It is a shame to see someone with an ATPL and all of that jet time be compared with an ab-initio cadet.
CB
" Respect is earned, not taken via a cheap & nasty means that lowers the industry they seek to be a part of."
Very true, but as I've asked Titan, are you including ab-initio applicants in this group? If this is the case, were you against Cadet pilots when you applied for Cathay as a DEFO, or did that not start until international cadets were allowed? It's the same program it has been since 1988 and is no more/no less cheap and nasty as it was back then.
I do feel greed is a driving factor in what any airline/company does. It is sad, but that is the case. It's one of the problems that has caused the downfall of airlines in the USA.
For both:
I am actually asking this not to be a smart-ass, but because I really don't know. How has safety been affected because of the cadet program? The same types of cadets are being accepted, the same standard that they have had for years. And to say Cathay is anymore unsafe now because of iCadet program would be saying that Cathay was just as unsafe when only locals were allowed. And as you have all mentioned, Cadets are employed as SO's which mean they wont be allowed to sit right seat during the most critical phases of flight. But there are cadets that are now Captains at Cathay. Are they any less safe because they did not have any experience when they were hired? Has anything changed with sim times? Is there less training being given? I've heard that the students in Adelaide must go through Jet Transition Training courses and I'm wondering if Cathay has shortened sim training in Hong Kong becasue of the added sim time in Adelaide.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CB,
Very true, and I stand corrected, however, to make your statement a bit more accurate, I must state that you have used the ATTRIBUTABLE profit figure, which is overwhelming, but in order to give a more balanced view the OPERATING profit/loss figure is more important. This is significantly lower, because of the 14, 048M HKD, you have to subtract the hedging contracts, the one-off sale of shares from HEACO and disposal of the Air China Shares, Fuel, and other, you will “only” have an Operating profit of 9,465M HKD. This is indeed still an impressive figure, but looking at the downfall of 2008 when the company took an hit with an operating loss of 1,440 M HKD and “only” had an profit of 285 M HKD, it makes an slightly different picture.
Nevertheless, it is still one of most profitable carriers in the world, and that is why the question begs why it is so hard to upgrade the offer.
Given that corporate greed is not something prone to this airline only. There are virtually nil carriers (at least none come to my mind), which will have no money-hogging management stooges.
404titan, Dan Buster, and ChinaBeached, I dearly hope that someone from the 3rd, floor or better yet, the 9th floor( and including the "taipans" at the Swire House), will read some of your postings gets an epiphany and will start something up. Who knows? There still might be some light left at the end of the tunnel… and if not, sooner or later, the consequences of going blind will not lead to be one of your happy endings.
On that note, I will leave the discussion here. I think everyone has had enough of reading through all of my mindblogs….
Godspeed to all who read this in whatever you decide to do.
Barney Out.
Very true, and I stand corrected, however, to make your statement a bit more accurate, I must state that you have used the ATTRIBUTABLE profit figure, which is overwhelming, but in order to give a more balanced view the OPERATING profit/loss figure is more important. This is significantly lower, because of the 14, 048M HKD, you have to subtract the hedging contracts, the one-off sale of shares from HEACO and disposal of the Air China Shares, Fuel, and other, you will “only” have an Operating profit of 9,465M HKD. This is indeed still an impressive figure, but looking at the downfall of 2008 when the company took an hit with an operating loss of 1,440 M HKD and “only” had an profit of 285 M HKD, it makes an slightly different picture.
Nevertheless, it is still one of most profitable carriers in the world, and that is why the question begs why it is so hard to upgrade the offer.
Given that corporate greed is not something prone to this airline only. There are virtually nil carriers (at least none come to my mind), which will have no money-hogging management stooges.
404titan, Dan Buster, and ChinaBeached, I dearly hope that someone from the 3rd, floor or better yet, the 9th floor( and including the "taipans" at the Swire House), will read some of your postings gets an epiphany and will start something up. Who knows? There still might be some light left at the end of the tunnel… and if not, sooner or later, the consequences of going blind will not lead to be one of your happy endings.
On that note, I will leave the discussion here. I think everyone has had enough of reading through all of my mindblogs….
Godspeed to all who read this in whatever you decide to do.
Barney Out.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight: Against DEFO's? In principle, yes. It undermined the seniority system and allowed CX to reneg on promoting SO's, as well as management tearing up yet another clause of their contracts of by-pass pay.
Against the original cadet scheme for HK Nationals? No. It was set up and designed to promote the local HK community. CX is a HK airline and as such the local HK community should be shown some loyalty. What CX have done with this is just immoral and against their own words and definition of what the cadetship was all about.
Barney: I gave only the figures as quoted by TT in the document I mentioned. I did not go on to mention the approximate 70% pay increase the DFO has given himself over recent times, nor the fines the airline had to pay for CX management's illegal price fixing activities, nor the fuel hedging fiasco(s) that cost the airline millions.... All these (illegal) activities and guess what? They all received BONUSES for it!!! And then what? They cut the remuneration package for the future pilots. Immoral and greedy. Nothing more, nothing less.
One's past behaviour is the best indicator of one's future behaviour.
Aircargo Asia Pacific - Cathay Pacific pleads guilty to US price fixing charges
Fuel hedging bets cost Cathay Pacific $1bn - Business News - Business - The Independent
(For the remarkable bonuses and salary increases management have given themselves, refer to the AOA publications - or someone else can give those details.)
Against the original cadet scheme for HK Nationals? No. It was set up and designed to promote the local HK community. CX is a HK airline and as such the local HK community should be shown some loyalty. What CX have done with this is just immoral and against their own words and definition of what the cadetship was all about.
Barney: I gave only the figures as quoted by TT in the document I mentioned. I did not go on to mention the approximate 70% pay increase the DFO has given himself over recent times, nor the fines the airline had to pay for CX management's illegal price fixing activities, nor the fuel hedging fiasco(s) that cost the airline millions.... All these (illegal) activities and guess what? They all received BONUSES for it!!! And then what? They cut the remuneration package for the future pilots. Immoral and greedy. Nothing more, nothing less.
One's past behaviour is the best indicator of one's future behaviour.
Aircargo Asia Pacific - Cathay Pacific pleads guilty to US price fixing charges
Fuel hedging bets cost Cathay Pacific $1bn - Business News - Business - The Independent
(For the remarkable bonuses and salary increases management have given themselves, refer to the AOA publications - or someone else can give those details.)
I'd happily wear that badge as opposed to yellow-bellied, spineless, ignorant, naive and a sell-out.
But it is the B scale pilots who sit back and do nothing (except whining or ranting on pprune) who are the real yellow-bellied, spineless sell-outs.
-You will live in poverty, the cost of living expenses for HKG are out there,
And Harlok has provided some useful information on the previous page.
Last edited by etrang; 15th Nov 2011 at 10:33.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it does when one applies:
a) knowing full well the serious ramifications & pressure placed on one's potential colleagues at CX and willfully contributing to the lowering of standards in terms of standards, safety & training, and / or
b) selectively refusing to listen let alone appreciate how & why the overwhelming majority of pilots with the experience that counts (CX & other) know what the CEP means with regards to standards, safety & training for the airline & industry in general.
Financial security?? There is no denying that you may be able to keep your head above water in HK as a lone iCadet without dependents or (irresponsible) need to plan for a future. Save for a secure retirement? Save for a short term goal to buy a property? Plan to save to provide for a future family? Existing on (by the terms of the agreement) an ever eroding remuneration package, ie with reference to the HKPLA? The CEP offer is not sustainable for short or long term career security let alone financial security. Already guys have posted baring witness to actual iCadet accounts of being unable to even save for their tax bill and looking to run at the first given opportunity now that the realities of their error have sunk in. Therein lies the next massive headache for them. Run where? With what credentials or recognisable logged hours? With what money saved? A guy from GA, flying school instructor, regional / domestic airline or charter company with as little as 1 year experience & 500-1000 hrs TT is more employable than a 4-6 year CX iCadet on a widebody by legislation of license and log book hours. By pass pay? No, they ignore that contract term as well.
Job security? How many contracts do CX have to (illegally) tear up for you guys to get it? How many more "sign or be fired" ultimatums to lower your contracted terms & conditions have they got to do? How many more proven & public illegal activities have these guys pleaded guilty to & rewarded themselves with bonuses? How friendly & willing have CX management come to the negotiating table to discuss not pay rises, but simply keeping salaries on par with inflation alone?? (Only after threats of contract compliance and a long winded drawn out process only to throw AHK in the pilots' faces immediately afterward!!) Rostering practices?? Flight Duty & Time Limitations abused & changed continually for the worse, as endorsed by the C(X).A.D.??
How many times?? Never enough when you are ignorant, naive, spineless and a sell-out.
Too many of these iCadet wannabes only see the monthly salary as acceptable because most have zero appreciation of paying bills, rent or can even fathom the cost of a family on a single (iCadet) income, retirement or life's many expensive (!!) "what ifs". And as has also been proven here, they have all but zero regard or comprehension of the career they claim to be "passionate" about.
a) knowing full well the serious ramifications & pressure placed on one's potential colleagues at CX and willfully contributing to the lowering of standards in terms of standards, safety & training, and / or
b) selectively refusing to listen let alone appreciate how & why the overwhelming majority of pilots with the experience that counts (CX & other) know what the CEP means with regards to standards, safety & training for the airline & industry in general.
Financial security?? There is no denying that you may be able to keep your head above water in HK as a lone iCadet without dependents or (irresponsible) need to plan for a future. Save for a secure retirement? Save for a short term goal to buy a property? Plan to save to provide for a future family? Existing on (by the terms of the agreement) an ever eroding remuneration package, ie with reference to the HKPLA? The CEP offer is not sustainable for short or long term career security let alone financial security. Already guys have posted baring witness to actual iCadet accounts of being unable to even save for their tax bill and looking to run at the first given opportunity now that the realities of their error have sunk in. Therein lies the next massive headache for them. Run where? With what credentials or recognisable logged hours? With what money saved? A guy from GA, flying school instructor, regional / domestic airline or charter company with as little as 1 year experience & 500-1000 hrs TT is more employable than a 4-6 year CX iCadet on a widebody by legislation of license and log book hours. By pass pay? No, they ignore that contract term as well.
Job security? How many contracts do CX have to (illegally) tear up for you guys to get it? How many more "sign or be fired" ultimatums to lower your contracted terms & conditions have they got to do? How many more proven & public illegal activities have these guys pleaded guilty to & rewarded themselves with bonuses? How friendly & willing have CX management come to the negotiating table to discuss not pay rises, but simply keeping salaries on par with inflation alone?? (Only after threats of contract compliance and a long winded drawn out process only to throw AHK in the pilots' faces immediately afterward!!) Rostering practices?? Flight Duty & Time Limitations abused & changed continually for the worse, as endorsed by the C(X).A.D.??
How many times?? Never enough when you are ignorant, naive, spineless and a sell-out.
Too many of these iCadet wannabes only see the monthly salary as acceptable because most have zero appreciation of paying bills, rent or can even fathom the cost of a family on a single (iCadet) income, retirement or life's many expensive (!!) "what ifs". And as has also been proven here, they have all but zero regard or comprehension of the career they claim to be "passionate" about.
Last edited by ChinaBeached; 15th Nov 2011 at 20:39.