If CX...
 

Dear FT flyers,

After reading a couple commentaries concerning the recent CX pilot actions, I am surprised that CX got most of the supports. An article from a local HK magazine even suggests firing all the foreign pilots and uses all the mainland Chinese pilots. According to reports, there are about 400 Mainland pilots waiting to head down to HK at anytime and the HK government will support CX by letting them work in HK.

Of course, firing every foreign pilots in CX means closing down Cathay Pacific. But then will the image of CX change if it uses mainly Chinese pilots, especially from the Mainland? Of course, various travelers had always complaint about the flying skills of the mainland pilots, especially those transferred from military forces. They tend to take more risks, but as times change, the Mainland Chinese pilots seem to take a "softer" approach.

Nevertheless, CX seems to use its mainly "foreign pilots" as a promotional point and why it is more superior than other Asian or Chinese carriers. SQ and MH use their national to fly its aircraft, but will you stop flying CX if it hires mainly Mainland CHinese pilots? IF yes, will you pay the high prices that CX charges now? Do you think the value of CX tickets will go down if it uses mainly Mainland pilots?

Just curious to your responses... if CX uses all Mainland Chinese pilots from now on, will you continue to fly CX or pay the premium prices that CX charges to fly it? Will you be more comfortable flying China Airlines or China Southern now, if CX is just another "Mainland" airline?

Carfield

It won't make one whit of difference to me. I'll still fly them every chance I can get.

Pilots need to be "good enough", which the mainland pilots certainly are. It's the cabin and ground service staff that make the CX/SQ experience what it is...

agree.

in reality, there is always a mix of pilots. there are 300 out of the current 1500 pilots, most of them expats, who are not AOA member and not supportive of the industrial action. and i am sure CX can hire many international pilots if these old folks are gone.
in addition, cx had been preparing for this day since over 5 years ago, and many newly trained pilots are on the pipeline.

as for the mainland pilots -- first i dont agree the china baching that they are not good. even if the average is lower than US/UK. there must some 20-40% of them who are above the international average. after all, piloting is not such a sophoisticated skill. the main issue for mainlanders is language (i.e. english)

with cx's pay package, i don;t see any problem of them attracting the top 20 percentiles of all the mainland pilots.

"piloting is not such a sophoisticated skill. the main issue for mainlanders is language (i.e. english)"

Beg to differ, after getting good at the necessary fly-the-airplane stuff, the most important piloting skill is being able to handle a survivable emergency, which sometimes means being able to think "outside the box". I suppose someone will become offended - and I most certainly don't intend that - if I go any further, so I'll stop while I'm just a little bit behing.

i always think that it's just prejudice against mainland pilots...i've taken air china, china southern, china eastern, etc flights so often, both to/from HK and other domestic flights...and frankly i don't see how superior the flying skills of CX pilots are...

yes, i know people always talking about handling of the "emergency" situations...but, again, i've also flown with them and CX and other airlines during typhoons and adverse weather and turbulence, and i'm yet to find out the difference...

in fact, any concrete examples of travelers complaining the flying skills of mainland pilots from their own flying experience with them ?? i hate to say this, but i think many people still have the china-is-of-course-always-bad mentality...without actually experiencing something themselves...

definitely, china airlines (the one from taiwan) is different, i still avoid taking their flights as much as possible...but for mainland flights, i have no problem at all...

i agree that the cabin/service itself is what made CX/SQ different...but i would add that it's not even "service", it's just the cabin, the "hardware"...from my experience with mainland FAs...yes, maybe they don't speak perfect english...but at least i feel that they are polite and helpful, even compared to CX FAs...and definitely better when compared to UA (especially UA outside Asia)...

anyway, just my two cents...

i suppose emergency handling requires training and experiences.

so mainlander might lack flight simulators training. but certainly not experience, esp if u assume they have airforce background?

if they are with CX formally, i believe they would have enough time playing with the simulators, so that shortfall should be filled.

just curious, what is the reasoning that someone from china (or non-US/European coiuntries would lack emergency handling skill in particular? -- i am convinced if u say sophisticated flight simulator practice, just curious if there is sth else)

I think most people prefer not having 'ex-Chinese air force' pilots man their aircraft.

It really has nothing to do ' more expensive airfares' as the media has been pounding the heads of HK people.

Everywhere in the world, host airlines of home countries usually charge more than other airlines because they have the best routes outbound from HK. The case is similar in Singapore when SQ charges more than other airlines in its special unpublished fares and even in England when BA charges more than other airlines flying similar routes. Besides 'more expensive' means that it's more based on the special/consolidator airfares that is not a published fares. CX on the other hand is usually cheaper than other airlines when flying from other countries to HK. Or through from UK to Australia via HK, its fares will be cheaper than both Qantas and BA!

Based on published full fares, excursion or Business/First Class, Cathay's fares are exactly the same as everyone elses. But in asia, and most of world other than North America, almost 60-80% of tickets are 'special nett consolidator tickets' and where discounting is rampant.

Which then of course brings one to compare the various airlines one can choose from. ie if your'e paying a fare which allows you to fly on any airline in say, Economy, Business and First Class between HK and San Francisco, which airline would you take... we have 3 choices. UA which is a morning departure and arriving at noon in SFO, and both SQ and CX which have evening departures and arrive also in the evenings.

I was flying on a fullFirst Class fare last week and I opted to fly via Tokyo. With a full fare ticket I could take any airline and any route and I chose a codeshare on AA using JAL metal via Tokyo and arriving at noon. I refuse to take UA.

If everywhere in the world followed North America's example of using only published fares and not depend on consolidators for tickets, then we might be able to see a better example of competition and survival of the fittest in the airline industry. Which then allows one to choose an airline based on quality, service, and safety!

[This message has been edited by Guy Betsy (edited 07-27-2001).]

I too have flown numerous mainland airlines, and have found no problem with Chinese pilots. As for emergencies, the vast majority are the result pilot error, at least in the U.S.; just ask the NTSB and/or FAA. At most, I would like to see mixed Chinese/expat flight crews for a while, rather than pure Chinese, to ensure that the most effective cross-checking occurs during ops.

Personally, I would applaud CX if they were to fire a large number of the expats en masse, as I consider them at present not to be highly paid, but overpaid. It is my sense, at least in talking to people in HK, that there would not be much sympathy lost on the pilots, who apparently manage their PR far worse than their planes.

Not true, North America still has "net fares" from consolidators. I was able to get a "net fare" First Class ticket on CX from a Chinese travel agent in Vancouver for about 20% less than the published fare!! (With flight restrictions, NON ENDORSABLE etc., but still booked in "F" class)

"Net fares" from North America are still used for "International" fares.

As a pilot (not with an airline), I find some of your comments towards the CX pilots very ill-informed. From a customer stand point, of which I am currently standing, I find this action to be tough on all of us. But, I've been following the disputes between management and pilots at CX for years. I think that most of the people on this board are very educated, and if people knew the whole story, people would feel where the pilots are coming from. They are not villains that the press makes them out to be. They're simply trying to stand up for what they believe, and there has never been anything wrong with that. The spin doctors at CX are rather successful at the moment. Don't believe the hype. Find out the whole story, then make your judgements.

As for mainland pilots at CX, it wouldn't make that much of a difference. From my experience, Asian pilots are very skilled, yet there are barriers which at times may cause an unsafe situation that you might not see on a flight deck with western pilots. Either way, the issue isn't mainland pilots, it's getting the facts straight regarding the current crews and management.

If they cut corners with flight crews, don't think that the customers aren't fare game. Just like with flight crews they'll cut back something and we'll be forced to deal with it. Remember the dip in service in 1998? I have yet to see the previous level of service come back to flights today.

------------------
preez mine da pratform gahp.

UAL Traveler - what would you consider a fair salary? I know I, and many of my school mates have spent nearly US$100,000 on flight training and aviation university, I would say that is on par with many ivy league medical and law schools.

When we graduate and IF we decide to pursue our career with an airline, we'll be fresh out of school flight instructing for a few years making US$10 a flight hour (5 flight hours = 8 actual work hours roughly). A year later, when we gain the magic number of hours, we'll be flying you (and me for that matter) around on Eagle, SkyWest, Comair for barely US$20,000 a year to start. 5 years later, once we gain another specified amount of flight time, we'll finally be making a middle class income at a real airline. Did I mention US$100,000 for school, and the interest these student loans have been accruing for the past several years while living almost at the poverty line flight instructing and such?

If you read above, you can see why I ultimately chose not to become an airline pilot, but instead got a desk job within aviation that can make ends meat.

Never the less, if doctors and lawyers pay as much for school and intense training, suffer just as much as interns, etc... and they make millions per year in the end run, why shouldn't pilots be able to make a similar salary. After all, they are hurling us through an atmosphere which we can not survive, at 85% the speed of sound, 1/3rd of the way around the world. Not exactly open heart surgery, or the OJ trial... but pretty d@mn close I think (I know)!

Okay... what is a fare salary then? Did I mention cost of living in Hong Kong? Most of you have been there, most of you don't need this explained.

Lastly... say you make a fare salary, but see most of your counterparts fighting and making much much more. Well I'm sure all of us have experienced this and some of us have fought, and some of us were happy with what we got... and you get the 1,100 pilots that are fighting and the 300 who aren'y saying a word. Pilots are nowhere near as overpaid as doctors and lawyers that have put in equal amounts of time and effort and training, yet knowledge and skill levels are extremely similar.

------------------
preez mine da pratform gahp.

[This message has been edited by ChuckDEE for numerous spelling mistakes http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif(edited 07-29-2001).]

[This message has been edited by ChuckDEE (edited 07-29-2001).]

ChuckDEE, my comments on pilots were intentionally provocative. I appreciate very much your measured response. The entire issue of pilots, how they are viewed internally by the industry (and externally by the public), compensation, working conditions, etc., is IMO worthy of solid discussion.

First, I should point out that I too am a pilot, though not active at present. During my undergraduate years, I logged thousands of hours of commercial flying (the whole gamut) to help pay for my education. I think that I have a fair sense as to the general demands of the profession, skill levels required, and what fair compensation might entail.

Let’s consider the education that underpins these professions. For doctors and lawyers, admission to the profession requires 3+ years of postgraduate education, and professional exam(s). What about pilots ? The last time I looked at FAR 61.153 and 61.159 (for airplanes), to become an ATP in the US you didn't need much: 23 years old, 1,500 hours total (or foreign or military experience) and pass a knowledge and practical test. Formal education requirements: none. Professional requirements and admittances: none.

Of course, individual companies generally have their own hiring standards that exceed the formal base, but usually that boil down to more flight time and maybe an unspecified undergrad degree. Oh yes, to exercise the privilege of the certificate, an ATP has to pass the dreaded 6-month first-class medical exam.

Next, consider the actual skills and attributes required of a pilot. Basically, they have to drive the plane safely. This does not take much skill in the present-day environment of highly automated control and sequencing. I would argue that more than 99% of the time, the pilot does not have to have his brain engaged much more than... (fill in the blank)%. This is in stark contrast to the professionals cited above (doctors and lawyers) who must be thinking and performing at high levels while providing normal professional services. If an off-nominal situation arises on an airplane, the pilot is supposed to handle it the best they can. Most important, they should not contribute to the cause of an incident or accident. Sadly, pilots are the cause, not the cure of most critical situations, as I noted in my reference above to the NTSB and FAA pilot-error statistics. As the old saying goes, now-a-days, you only need a man and a dog to safely fly an airplane. The man feeds the dog to keep him alert, and the dog bites the man if he touches the controls.

Finally, lets look at a few financial facts. You say, (emphasis added). We really do need to get a sense as to what levels various professionals are compensated. The latter is quite easy to establish. Rather than get into a hand-waving discussion, we can simply look at the numbers gathered, digested, and posted by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. They have a convenient Occupational Outlook Handbook on the web that provides a wide variety of detailed occupation and salary info. These statistics are several years old, but given the relatively slow expansion of the economy over the past few years, they provide a fair representation of salary, and certainly a very good relative guide. For example,
Lawyers: in 1998, the median annual earnings of all lawyers was $78,170
Doctors: according to the American Medical Association, median income, after expenses, for allopathic physicians (fancy name for M.D.s) was about $164,000 in 1997; the average income for General/Family practice was about $132,000 in 1997. The number of doctors and lawyers who earn 'millions per year' are varnishingly small. Do I think that a pilot making more than 150 to 200 grand a year is overpaid? Absolutely.

To conclude, I believe that all hardworking folk are due their fair compensation. We just need to establish what is fair in a relative sense to other demanding jobs. In the case of the CX pilots, it is my opinion that they are asking for far more than what is reasonable, given their job description and working conditions.

UAL Traveler - Very nice and informative reply. I do, however, still disagree with the point you make of pilots being overpaid.

Being a pilot yourself you should realize that if all it took was a man and a dog in the cockpit of an airplane then the airlines would have done that a long time ago. Sure cockpits have come a long way since back in the day, but the knowledge, experience, and skill that both you and I trained for many years is a must. And with such high a skill level and responsibility comes a fair salary.

CX pilots at one time were one of the highest paid in the industry. A lot has happened between 1993-1994, the B-scale, ASL, and other management driven schemes devised to lower costs via pilots' salaries.

The desire for one pay scale, a safe and survivable roster, and the feeling of knowing that management isn't trying to cut you out all together is all CX pilots want. One pay scale that is adjusted for the cost of living in Hong Kong. There are no public schools for expat children to attend for free, 1,500 sq ft apartments are in the US$5,000 per month range, automobiles have a 100% tax, milk is four times as much as here in the US.

If you adjust a salary to cost of living in Hong Kong, one is bound to see that it will be much more than on other parts of the world. Their not being greedy, just want to be able to make ends meet. After all, it's not very likely that the Mrs. will be able to get a job as a secretary or whatever it is Mrs. did in their home country in Hong Kong!

Anyway, money aside, I think you'll find the CX pilots still demanding more and these have nothing to do with money. Rosters, the feeling of not being hunted by management, a normal work and time off schedule by most airline standards, etc... these I think outweigh any financial winnings.

I think if you want to point fingers at overpaid pilots, one should look at 3 major airlines operating in the US. I think in CX's case you could point fingers at them once upon a time. And if you point fingers at pilots that are being overpaid, you have to point fingers at everyone, and evaluate how much they and their work are really worth.

Pilots are highly skilled, highly professional, and highly educated people. They are responsible for your life for 1-16 hours at a time. In some countries, if they mess up they go to jail, and in some cases if they mess up you don't live to complain about how high they are paid on some bulletin board.

------------------
preez mine da pratform gahp.

i don't care how much the pilots are paid.
i think it is dependent on the market.
(though we all know that this market is not that efficient)

the reason we are not on the pilots' side of this dispute is not about how much they are paid (i guess most of us here don;t really care ). but the way they "negotiate", and what they imposed upon the passengers and their colleagues on the ground.

however, they did make a 3-year deal with the management 2 years ago.
and the way they (AOA) handled the whole process was a total fiasco for their members.

ChuckDEE, thank you for your response. I guess that in effect we are politely agreeing to disagree. You say that
Absolutely. I don't think that there is much argument, for example, that the UAL pilot deal has contributed (along with generally poor management and an economic downturn) towards record losses that are now projected to be in the neighborhood of US$1,000,000,000 for the year. With those sorts of dramatic revenue reversals occurring throughout the industry, IMO it is fair to take a fresh look at who brings what value to the enterprise. As you say I have no argument with that.

Finally, you note that (please excuse the 'snips' . Same goes for bus drivers.