A few facts about Cathay Freighters

[A-3TWENTY]

"First I would like to emphasize that Cathay Pacific is an english managed company! This is important to know if your mother tongue is not english or if you have not grown up in a commonwealth state or in a former british colony. There is a lot of adaptation required. People from commonwealth states may have fewer difficulties to adapt to the system, but the following applies irrespective of that."

I have already heard that the english environment is unhealthy.

I prefer not earn such a good salary than living in constant high levels of stress.

A good environment ( although professional) is one of the benefits I consider essential.

I don`t live to work, I work to live. I `m not a slave of money.

[shortly]

I find it fascinating that those who fail or those who are about to fail, invariably blame 'the system'. There are rostering issues at all airlines, all airlines have their fair share of martinets, all airlines have their unique but strange procedures. Having observed the freight operation for some time now, and been occasionally involved in it, I cannot believe the vitriol being espoused here. No training system, all simulator rides check rides, all line checks to unfamiliar ports - what a lot of cobblers. If you guys keep telling porky pies, or exaggerating the truth, your noses will get longer and your tongue will turn black. Or so my mother told me.

[Saturn]

Exactly

I think I may have to agree with Shortly here. I have been here a year and have not had any of the experiences mentioned and I am a bloody American. I thought the "Training" was excellent, I have never felt threatned and don't feel my job is on the line. I go to work, I work as hard as I can and do well. Cathay has HIGH, VERY HIGH standards. I think most are not used to that. I wanted that and got it. It is all relative. Where I came from had O and I do mean O standards. It was pathetic and I hated going to work. I came to Cathay, felt very lucky that they even hired me, and put in 110%. I have been justly rewarded. Don't believe everything you read or here about CX. They have had some issues but I tell you, there are a lot worse places to work in the world than CX. There is no such place as a perfect airline, never has been, never will be. Apply, do well in the interview, pass the sim, get hired, pass the training and enjoy. To the victor go the spoils.

[corporal klinger]

what about the infamous high failure rates during upgrades,
can anybody actually flying for cx comment on this?

and if these failure rates would prove to be higher than the industry standard( I personally believe they are MUCH higher),
wouldn't this point in a certain direction??

[shortly]

They are higher than the industry 'standard'. The way this points is that the standard required at CX is higher than the general industry standard. Is this good or bad or even necessary? I think its good and very necessary. Most guys pass second time around and make far better captains with the experience.

[CruisingSpeed]

“Exaggerating the truth”…

… I’d say curtains up for Schrodingers Cat and another one of those famous slashes at management apologists… where are you mate, please spread hope to this sad world…

[corporal klinger]

Dear Shortly,

according to my information the failure rate is not the same on each fleet, with much higher rates on the freighter fleet( to get back to the topic).
could you comment on that?
I respect your desire for a demanding environment, and I certainly agree that an upgrade should not be granted automatically when it is simply your turn seniority wise.
However, I am in training myself, and It won't be a surprise for you,that it is easily possible to fail EVERYBODY if you want to as a checker.So the question is,isn't there a lot of political stuff involved at cx,I hear complaints from many sides( this thread is another one,in fact).
I personaly think that a failure in the sim/on the line is almost always also a reason to blame training,that the instructor(s) failed in a way,too.

just food for thoughts,
all the best

ps: and I didn't fail the interview,I actually passed

[CruisingSpeed]

Very good posting Klinger, attitudes like yours are sorely missed at CX, you must be a real asset to your company.

I noted that shortly deliberately misquoted and exaggerated GDOP using words like "all" or "no". Attempts like these to silence critical voices by cynically pointing out that "failures invariably blame the system" do nothing but display the other extreme of this discussion. It is blatantly obvious from shortlys previous posts that he NEVER finds fault with this particular "system", it would be interesting to know why he is constantly trying to justify the status quo.

Shortly, noone here disputes that high standards are desirable in any public transport operation. This discussion is about the atmosphere and staff policy regarding this particular company. If you are saying that one necessitates the other, then please accept that there are types out there that bring their best in an environment of trust, support and co-operation.

[shortly]

Cpl K. lets not confuse the two things here, training and checking. There was a time when a few CX mainline trainers made it clear that they would orchestrate the failure of the newly joined ASL pilots, especially the direct entry commanders. Those days are, thankfully, long gone. Why the higher failure rate on commands on the freighter? Well, on the Classic it would be probable or possible that many of the basic flying skills required to operate an analog aircraft diminish with time spent on the more modern glass digital machines, no trimming, follow the magenta line, all on automatics etc. For the -400 I have no idea. Look I am not saying the system is purrfect - none is - but it is a system and it is constantly being modified to meet changing circumstances. Anyone who has an idea on ways to improve 'the system' can put in a suggestion. Anonymous if you like.
Cruising Speed. You got up on the wrong side of the bed mate. Re-read my post/posts. I am not an apologist for all things company. That said I find CX a great place to work and will defend its 'ethos' whenever I feel it necessary

[Baywatcher]

Come on chaps! Cathay is a harsh environment and they don't suffer fools. But if you make it, then the rewards are great. A financially secure Company that makes piles of profits. Salary is well above the average and perks are excellent. The equipment is second to none and maintenance is excellent. If you have what it takes, come and join, the expansion continues!

[CruisingSpeed]

Shortly, don’t talk about ethos, I have seen 50 colleagues destroyed while I was undergoing training, and was too busy sorting out my own life and career. I have also witnessed single cases of fellow colleagues dismissed for petty reasons, but true to your arguments I assumed that it was entirely their fault. Then one day it was my turn, and in a way I got what I deserved, because I denied truth and morality for too long.

If you choose to keep your mouth shut, then fine, if you find the company culture acceptable, then again that’s fine, because it’s horses for courses, but your disparaging comments about those that suffered under this system are very offensive and I doubt that even you would find your contributions to this thread tenable when confronted with the family of our young colleague who tragically died during the recent industrial conflict.

You might even find that truth is NOT a question of personal taste.

[shortly]

Cruising Speed. No one is ever dismissed 'for petty reasons'. why on earth would a company that has never displayed any weaknesses on the money front throw away money? This thread is about CX freighters and not about the 49ers et al. Why for goodness sake can't you stick to the thread of the post and keep your prejudices in your back pocket where they belong. Tragedy is tragedy and all feel for a persons family when that person takes the ultimate step. Your experiences and knowledge of incidents concerning dismissal and mine are completely at variance. For those wishing to join CX please do it's a great company and well worth the trouble involved in the selection process.

[CruisingSpeed]

Hmmmh, why would a company "throw away money". It appears that the company believes that by making examples of a few, the others will follow better track, this is what is widely known as "bullying tactics". Single losses will be quite acceptable when they confirm the pecking order, or when money can be raked back in tenfold on a wider scale of intimidation, i.e. a change to COS.

As for me digressing from the freighter side of things, point taken. I am not even qualified to post then, as I was mainline myself, but I believe that the issues raised by GDOP apply to the company as a whole. And the 49er story is just one of many chapters making up the whole book, look at the wider picture.

When reading your last sentence I hope you are not implying that I am trying to run an anti-recruitment campaign here. Edited: I guess the "facts" in the thread title and GDOPs conclusive advice to prospective wannabes may be your underlying cause...
I quite agree that there are many good aspects about my former company and would never say that people should not give it a go in HK, HOWEVER: I do feel compelled to set the record straight when you are spouting around that everyone on this forum that raises or confirms valid concerns must have "black tongues or long noses".

Perhaps a more reasonable approach would progress this discussion, would that be in your interest?

[Doug the Head]

A lot of things posted by GDOP seem quite simular to the UK company I work for, including roster instability, big broher watching over you and the constant patting on ones own shoulder about "higher than avererage standards."

A-3TWENTY summed it up nicely in his/her post.

Some people blame the Chinese, but isn't the British culture also part of the problem?

[shortly]

Cruising Speed. I am very sorry you were one of the 'selected crowd'. I apologise if the tone of any of my posts has offended you, english being a second language for me. We could spoil this post by me going on about unreasonable AOA actions, but we just disagree. The people who will get the black tongues and long noses are only those telling porky pies. Mostly though they just embellish the truth to suit their ends. Good luck to you I hope every thing works out well. Actually Doug the Head is closer to the mark. Both Chinese and older style UK management tend to keep things secret from each other, you know knowledge is power etc. In my experience CX has been very guilty of that, and it is soooo stupid.

[CruisingSpeed]

English is my second language too...

Apologies taken, and I hope in return that things will improve in HK over time. I agree that there is no such thing as 100% objectiveness, but mutual gagging orders are not the way forward, most can read between the lines and come to their own conclusion.

Looking at other threads and realising that the grass may not be greener on the other side and that numerous other airlines have similar and sometimes even worse problems I have always wondered how much of all this is a company problem, perhaps there is something about the profession that causes this harsh environment (I personally dont think the "high standard" excuse is justified). This was my first job in flight ops and since I come from a middle european country with well defined ideas and laws about labour relations and generally accepted principles of performance/career development I somewhat lack comparison. I am not so sure whether the british culture plays a part, at CX I would think it may at times be an unfortunate mix of ruthless ex RAF types with an overlying management philosophy that plays into their hands, or the other way around, but this is pure speculation.

Shortly, what are you alluding to when you say that management tends to keep things secret from each other?


-: For me Holding Shorts posting wins hands down

--: My own theory is that pilots: tend to be highly organised, critical and by virtue of their salary structure usually spearhead industrial disputes, therefore special attention is allocated to ensure subordination.

[Pontious]

Any info. on F/O salaries and allowances at UK and Euro bases would be appreciated. After much searching and fruitless perusals of other threads, I fear I have to issue a 'begging letter' for the desired information. Many thanks in advance for the info. or guidance in the right direction to satisfy my curiosity.

Yours sincerely

' Confused ' of Penge.

[Stereolab]

I've been "lurking" on this post...interesting. I can't speak for CX, but I can tell you that in the States, fear and intimidation can and does exist in the Regionals. Especially, old school CRJ training at ACA. I know several new hires that were canned, went to other regionals and now they are doing fine. CA upgrade pink slips were so common that United practically disregarded them when they interviewed candidates (this was before 9/11).

Our union got together with management and proved that draconian training methods were costing the company millions of dollars. The pattern seemed to be a few individuals were running the training program as if we were flying space shuttles. They were ousted and now we have a much better program without compromising quality. I was fortunate...I was hired after the changes took place.

Draconian training methods only costs the company money. The myth that it makes "better pilots" is not only absurd, it will eventually cause financial hardships for your company and may cost evenyone their jobs. Leave the "machismo" at home.

[shortly]

'Draconian training methods'. Mmm, I have seen a lot of product from the touchy feely US style of training academy and we seem here to be talking about black and white. There is no place at CX for 'draconian' anything, and in my experience it is not there. We have, also maybe foolishly, followed the US lead with their aircrew qualification programme. This works well in theory but in real life does leave a bit to be desired, IMHO. It's all well and good to talk about a 'training programme' based on the results of monitoring systems throughout the company, but it never seems to translate into improved performance either in the sim or the aircraft. Some flying demands are much harder than others, loss of all hydraulics, two or even three engines inoperative, loss of essential power, maximum crosswind in minimum visibility, cockpit fire/smoke requiring high speed return with smoke masks and O2 masks on etc etc. Whilst one would hope that the average pilot will never see any of these things in real life, but nonetheless wouldn't it be nice if we practiced these things in a non threat environment - like we used to at CX before jumping on the 'enlightened' US training bandwagon.
Stereolab, fear and intimidation are alive and well in most airlines around the world even in your country.

[JaJaBinx]

Pontius, I posted a msg some time ago with salary/rosters etc.
Search under jajabinx in the search thingy, I've only done two posts so it shouldn't be difficult to find. Any questions just ask.
Regards Jajabinx