The REAL cause of the revenue drop
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: HKG
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The REAL cause of the revenue drop
'... we understand the need to continuously improve the products and services we provide our customers and which they value, so we won’t stop investing in these things.....' Bull****.
Management continue to cut costs by cutting away at the product. You can't charge a premium for a sub-premium product. Compared with our competitors our food is worse, our IFE is a joke and our newest product is falling apart.
Our food doesn't stack up. Lack of quality, lack of choice.
To say that the IFE selection is '...carefully curated so the customer isn't overwhelmed with choice...' is complete crap. Once a pax has flown 4 sectors there is nothing new to watch.
The game changing 350 is certainly game changing - with a brand new cabin actually falling apart. Do you think pax will pay a premium for seats that don't recline (assuming you can even sell the seat with the rate of failure of the armrests), screens that don't work and with panels falling off. 20 - 30 cabin defects are normal. How much money did the company save in the short term going with a supplier Airbus warned you not to use? How much money will it cost to fix? How many pax are lost due to the appalling state of the cabin?
Each generation of managers makes small cuts to make their bonus before moving on. The cuts have accumulated to the point that our product is worse than our competitors. If you want to turn the company around you need to spend more so the product is superior and you can charge a premium for it.
Do the managers ever fly on the competitors to see what the successful operators are doing?
We are struggling due inept managers. Time for a change!
Management continue to cut costs by cutting away at the product. You can't charge a premium for a sub-premium product. Compared with our competitors our food is worse, our IFE is a joke and our newest product is falling apart.
Our food doesn't stack up. Lack of quality, lack of choice.
To say that the IFE selection is '...carefully curated so the customer isn't overwhelmed with choice...' is complete crap. Once a pax has flown 4 sectors there is nothing new to watch.
The game changing 350 is certainly game changing - with a brand new cabin actually falling apart. Do you think pax will pay a premium for seats that don't recline (assuming you can even sell the seat with the rate of failure of the armrests), screens that don't work and with panels falling off. 20 - 30 cabin defects are normal. How much money did the company save in the short term going with a supplier Airbus warned you not to use? How much money will it cost to fix? How many pax are lost due to the appalling state of the cabin?
Each generation of managers makes small cuts to make their bonus before moving on. The cuts have accumulated to the point that our product is worse than our competitors. If you want to turn the company around you need to spend more so the product is superior and you can charge a premium for it.
Do the managers ever fly on the competitors to see what the successful operators are doing?
We are struggling due inept managers. Time for a change!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are correct about product to some degree. However, the white elephant in the room as it pertains to declining revenue is fuel. Competing airlines are paying less for their fuel. So, as fluid markets should, ticket prices have declined with the price of the largest cost, fuel. Other airlines are able to maintain sufficient margin at these prices. CX is not able to maintain margin because it is paying so much more for fuel. Not rocket science actually, just Econ 101.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The product is declining, no doubt. Just go wander around websites where frequent fliers share their experiences on different airlines. CX is always mentioned as having terrible food. Then again, CX owns the kitchens and I suspect they are run in the same brainless-cost-cutting vein as the main airline is...
All competitors have indeed matched us in hard product, the whole 'prestige' thing is only held together by the cabin crew who are willing to bend over backwards for even the most insufferable passenger.
How long is that going to last, then, when managers who won't look in the mirror for culprits have another go at the contracts of their flying staff?
And can someone explain to me why AA is able to offer business class on a HK-US direct flight for the price of a premium eco ticket on CX on the same route?
Their staff cost a lot more than here, they have proper unions and labor laws to deal with, the airplane and seats cost the same, and they make a profit... Is there something I'm missing?
...Oh, right, they don't pay twice the going rate for fuel.
The last 5 have been golden years for airlines. They all turned good profits, got back on their feet, expanded, ordered airplanes, rewarded their staff.
Except for one, of course, which -through mismanagement- never managed to perform as well as its competitors and as its shareholders expected despite constantly gnawing at its own expenses and staff.
Now the golden years are over, and the cyclical wheel of aviation business is showing its muddy side again. That time when they come at us with the butcher knives again, not that they ever put them away of late...
So before we get imposed a new round of punishing measures for the sake of the airline somebody else ruined, why don't we ask our dearest managers what sacrifices they will be making this time?
#accountability
All competitors have indeed matched us in hard product, the whole 'prestige' thing is only held together by the cabin crew who are willing to bend over backwards for even the most insufferable passenger.
How long is that going to last, then, when managers who won't look in the mirror for culprits have another go at the contracts of their flying staff?
And can someone explain to me why AA is able to offer business class on a HK-US direct flight for the price of a premium eco ticket on CX on the same route?
Their staff cost a lot more than here, they have proper unions and labor laws to deal with, the airplane and seats cost the same, and they make a profit... Is there something I'm missing?
...Oh, right, they don't pay twice the going rate for fuel.
The last 5 have been golden years for airlines. They all turned good profits, got back on their feet, expanded, ordered airplanes, rewarded their staff.
Except for one, of course, which -through mismanagement- never managed to perform as well as its competitors and as its shareholders expected despite constantly gnawing at its own expenses and staff.
Now the golden years are over, and the cyclical wheel of aviation business is showing its muddy side again. That time when they come at us with the butcher knives again, not that they ever put them away of late...
So before we get imposed a new round of punishing measures for the sake of the airline somebody else ruined, why don't we ask our dearest managers what sacrifices they will be making this time?
#accountability
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's very simple. CX management has had several years of opportunity to prove that the mantra of "share in the good times/share in the bad times" was something more than propaganda. Well, the verdict is in: when times were tough, they always expected us to sacrifice. When times were good (multi-Billion $$$ profits), well, they found reasons why we shouldn't get our fair share (always the same excuses, "tough times around the corner", "market forces" blah, blah blah). No doubt we are about to hear the same excuses again (and well done AOA for a well documented article demonstrating the unerring coincidences correlating their "doom and gloom" messages with contract negotiations). After 20+ years of listening to their inane drivel, this time I will just throw it back at them. SLS...? The answer will be NO. Sign or be Fired ? See you later, not interested anymore (and goodbye trainers and STC's). Basically, they are a predictable bunch of incompetent and narcissistic w*nkers (rhymes with 'banker'). If you want loyal, dedicated and hard working CAREER aircrew, you had better start treating them as such. Starting with the realisation that HKPA is a failure (and not even indexed for almost a decade ffs !). Everyone who considers themselves a professional airline aviator, know that you have a real skill that is in demand. As for our managers, the airline would continue to hum along without nearly every single one of them (in fact, would probably do much better, eg: fuel hedging). Throw all the negativity back at them, ridicule them and let them know your life, career and dignity will long outlast every single one of them.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HK-CRoC
Posts: 749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I Say Again
What is the 'Peter Principle'
The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence. The Peter Principle is based on the logical idea that competent employees will continue to be promoted, but at some point will be promoted into positions for which they are incompetent, and they will then remain in those positions because of the fact that they do not demonstrate any further competence that would get them recognized for additional promotion. According to the Peter Principle, every position in a given hierarchy will eventually be filled by employees who are incompetent to fulfill the job duties of their respective positions.
Sound familiar, it's rife in this company. That in addition to CX probably 15 years ago (Swire DFO's) went total "liberal" and stopped being a Meritocracy and more or less went "seniority" at all levels. Look what's happened - same as the CAD.... It's all over but the crying..
Say no more......
The Peter Principle is an observation that the tendency in most organizational hierarchies, such as that of a corporation, is for every employee to rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence. The Peter Principle is based on the logical idea that competent employees will continue to be promoted, but at some point will be promoted into positions for which they are incompetent, and they will then remain in those positions because of the fact that they do not demonstrate any further competence that would get them recognized for additional promotion. According to the Peter Principle, every position in a given hierarchy will eventually be filled by employees who are incompetent to fulfill the job duties of their respective positions.
Sound familiar, it's rife in this company. That in addition to CX probably 15 years ago (Swire DFO's) went total "liberal" and stopped being a Meritocracy and more or less went "seniority" at all levels. Look what's happened - same as the CAD.... It's all over but the crying..
Say no more......
Last edited by Flex88; 9th Dec 2016 at 07:08.
