Jump to main content
Utilizamos cookies para ofrecer la mejor experiencia posible. Puede obtener más información aquí.
Puede obtener más información aquí. Si continua navegando consideramos que acepta su uso.
Usted ha bloqueado las cookies de esta página web.
Active las cookies para mejorar la navegación.

Cathay Pacific statement on notices of termination

05 Jul 2001


Cathay Pacific Airways Director Corporate Development Tony Tyler addressed the media at 7:30pm today at Hong Kong International Airport. He said the following:

- Cathay Pacific confirms that two of its pilots were today given notices of termination of employment. Both individuals were terminated in accordance with their Conditions of Service and the Hong Kong Employment Ordinance.

- Under their Conditions of Service, an officer's employment may be terminated at any time by either the Company or the officer giving not less than 3 month's written notice, or payment in lieu of notice, to the other party. Both officers will be paid three month's wages in lieu of notice with effect from today's date.

- The Company is mindful of the seriousness of these actions and wishes to stress that it has not taken these decisions lightly.

- The first case involved a First Officer with 8 years of employment history in the airline. The company exercised its right to terminate his contract of employment following a review of his past employment record with the company. Such a review was triggered, in part, by a recent incident concerning flight CX883 from Vancouver to Hong Kong. A number of factors relating to the officer's employment record, including a recent warning letter on his file, were taken into account when reaching the decision to terminate the officer. In simple terms the Company has lost confidence in the employee. We are aware that the officer concerned is a member of the HKAOA.

- The second case involved a First Officer with 5 years of employment with the airline. His employment has been terminated following a detailed investigation of a recent incident in which he was found to have presented himself for a flight in circumstances which were in serious breach of the Company's Approved Flight Time Limitations Scheme. The officer had not allowed himself sufficient rest before reporting for duty. We believe that the officer concerned is not a member of the HKAOA.