The general wrath and fury about COS 18 is not only useless, it also is missing the core of the problem. Without much hope, I will still try to offer an alternative viewpoint.
I am of course fully aware of the minority position I am representing in this forum, so you don't have to share my opinion, nor do I expect it, but if you please could possibly refrain from the usual mechanical insults that would be fantastic. I am neither management, nor do I believe my viewpoint actually supports such an assumption.
The only reason of existence of a company in a free market is to make a profit. There is no other purpose. By definition, any company that doesn't attempt to minimise costs will suffer. It is one of the core principles of business in any free market environment. Paying more than necessary for any goods or services would not only be complacent, it would be unsustainable and therefore irresponsible. If you don't agree, ask yourself: when was the last time you did voluntarily pay more than the market price? And please be careful: paying more than the market price does not meanyou boughtsomething expensive or especially precious to you, it means that you paid deliberately more for something you could have bought in the same or comparative quality elsewhere. That is the meaning of paying above the market price. Think about that for a moment, did you ever do that and if so why? Additionally, when you purchase something, anything, do you ever look at the assumed costs of the seller? As an example, imagine you want to buy a car, and the two models you like are different in price, but the same quality. Would you consider to buy the more expensive model because you reckon the production cost ( not the quality) is higher? I will get back to this point later.
All our customers shop around of course, they constantly compare the price and the product, then they make a decision. All shareholders of every company constantly monitor costs, if they or some consultant identify misspending the management will have to explain it. This is part of the " invisible hand" system immortalised by Adam Smith, it is an inseparable and vital part of our society, our way of life. So how do you know if costs are too high? What is the benchmark? The benchmark is indirectly what competitors pay, but more precisely it is what is required to get the goods or services you want. I assume COS 18 is deemed to fulfil that requirement by its creators. I personally do not know if that is true, nor do I care much, the market will decide, not the managers nor me. In other words, if you have the opinion the price CX is willing to pay is not enough you can sit back and relax, if you are right time will tell. I want to repeat what i said above: only a company that cares about costs will survive. I personally want CX to survive, not because I like it so much here, but because I would dislike it more at HK Express or China Southern. You might have a different opinion on that, but chances are that you too want Cathay to survive or you would not be much interested in this topic in the first place. If you don’t like Cathay much anymore, you think you can get more money elsewhere and you don’t care about its survival, then there is logically no other solution then to leave. If you think COS 18 is not the market price then there is also no argument, we just need to wait and see. In both cases you can stop reading now.
I can only think of three possible arguments against paying market prices.
First, you think you would get better pilots for more money and this is somehow important to you. This is difficult to discuss, because the quality of a pilot is not easy to quantify and safety statistics are by definition only looking backwards. I think the absolute pay is not very relevant, and I also think it is perfectly ok to employ cadets with no experience and train them on the job. I don’t see any differences regarding motivation between a new S/O and an old CPT, actually I see more frustration and less interest for aviation in older colleagues, myself included. Other airlines in HK pay even less and don’t fall out of the sky either. And even if they fall out of the sky, unless it becomes are regular habit the consumer doesn’t care. hard to swallow, I know, but the odds of dying in an aircraft are just too small to be factor anymore. If you differ in this point, I can’t really argue, except that I would point out that obviously CX has a different viewpoint and it is very unlikely this will change, and also that it is an industry-wide practise to employ cadets. My assumption is that the safety argument is not the real reason for all the excitement, but if it is honestly your main concern, fair enough, but remember this next time you book full fare with a low-cost carrier for yourself please.
Second, you think it is unfair or even a disgrace, because HK is so expensive or the job bears such a big responsibility, you think it is making the “unborn” pay , you feel it is a “race to the bottom” etc and anyway soon after joining people will leave again. This is a very common and (very ) emotional argument I hear on the line and read in this forum, and I have not a clue why anyone would be concerned about that. If you think the pay is not fair or justified, then don’t accept it. Simple. Everyone starting this career now, in 2018, must be aware of the clear downward trend of the industry. I don’t know the individual goals of any cadet,their financial background, their alternatives, nothing. I don’t know what a HKPA recipient was planning or thinking when he or she joined. I have empathy, but my position is very clear: when i joined I never expected an improvement, I knew the trend was against me, I knew A scale was gone. I don’t judge anyone on HKPA, but at the same time I can’t take any responsibility. As a matter of fact, I don’t see how I even should be able to vote on their package. Why should I? I don’t know anything about them and I give them the benefit of the doubt, I assume they knew what they were doing, had sound reasons back then when they joined. Now, again, if they misjudged the cost of HK, housing, quality of life etc, then so be it, it is part of life. If the company suffers from attrition, so be it. You make good and bad decisions, but these decisions are up to the individual, no company can make that decision for you and pay more just because they think it is “fair”. Most of us, myself included, changed jobs multiple times, simply because it didn’t work out as planned. There is no shame in that.
Third, and I strongly assume this is actually the real reason behind the anger and opposition, you think it has implications on you, on your contract. Maybe it has, maybe it hasn’t, nobody knows for sure. I would argue that Cathay has seen a many pay scales and e.g. A scale died of natural extinction. If they could or if they can cut our pay they will do so. It is totally irrelevant if at the time of decision other pay scales do already exist. You can create a new one anytime.
COS 18 is not an independent decision by some evil manager, it is a reflection of the industry. Again, if you differ here, then please check the numbers of our direct competitors, and see above. Some think that it is a “pilots market” ( strangely even after a considerable period of unemployment), but I think the truth is that most of us know that we would suffer if we would change jobs, at least financially. I know I would. It is understandable that this puts us in a precarious position and the fact that since decades the very same people complain about CX in this very forum additionally testifies the sad reality: it is very hard to leave CX . After having invested so much, with a cruel seniority system, all those sacrifices, all the humiliation in training etc etc. I feel you, and I feel the same. But a new pay scale is not the problem: the problem is the unrealistic expectation of an improvement of your conditions after you joined.
The answer can’t be to get distracted and emotionally wound up if the company is adjusting prices to match the market for new joiners. It is in our interest to have an employer that cares about costs, and i am not joking. Yes, I know, fuel hedging. But what does that change? If anything at all it enforces my point, profit is in our interest, and to achieve profit costs need to be competitive. Just one example: if all HKPA staff would be on B scale that would translate into about 1 Billion ( and counting) additional cost. And yet many do see introduction of C scale as a watershed moment. I do too, but for the better.
It is a totally different story to cut wages for existing staff, cutting packages of those already committed would destroy trust of all employees and lead inevitably to harsh reactions, simple because of what is at stake. There are legal issues, trainers would actually be directly affected and react, nobody would join and be able to do any planning, etc. But to offer a pay package X and to see if there are enough takers is part of our economy. I don’t blame CX for it, I don’t like it, but I understand it.
I fear we are letting ourselves distracted, sleepwalking into the abyss, by not focusing. What is really important right now and here? Is it really the possibility of SO’s joining in 2019 not staying until retirement?