Originally Posted by
Numero Crunchero
cxorcist - I admire your optimism on the power of courts in other jurisdictions imposing their will on a communist company in a communist enclave in the worlds most populous, and arguably most powerful(communist), country.
Let me think - in a 1st world country an airline leader shut the airline down to show who was boss. Consequence? "you shouldn't have done that - that was naughty" verbal remonstration by FWA.
AMS and PAR laws too difficult for CX to deal with - shut the bases down. Consequence? Small change payout on Paris though a profligate former chairman almost bankrupted the union with his blank cheque legal agenda fighting this.(would have been cheaper for the AOA to just pay the legal money spent to the plaintiffs)
Fire for no particular reason - a bunch of pilots to show who is boss - result, after many many years of court (up to highest court) - 3-4months salary should have been paid.
So yeah - tell yourself that Canadian courts, US courts, Australian courts etc will give a **** about trying to get a fairer outcome for a few pilots if they are laid off. All CX has to say is "it is not ideal to have people based" which is actually true. From a rostering point of view - it is sub optimal. From a financial point of view - they save money because expat pilots are expensive. So you have to prove to court it wasn't done for a commercial reason - good luck.
But hey - what if they could get 100s of pilots for cheap due to an oversupply - what if they were all experienced and desperate for a job? We could have heaps of DEFOs come in to replace the HKPA pilots being upgraded to CN. Now imagine if they all lived in HK? Rostering is easier!
So yeah - there is a doomsday scenario for you. Of course I could be wrong - the US, Canada and Australian courts will have plenty of free time after covid- plus there is nothing more important to them than 'million dollar morons' living in their country working for a foreign carrier. I mean seriously - why should anything else be more important than the 0.0006% of Australians working for Cathay as pilots based in Australia. Or the 0.000076% of Americans living in the US working for Cathay. I mean - in a close election - that 0.00076% could make all the difference.
So if you think we have bases open because of fear of courts - you are mistaken. It makes sense to have bases for two reasons - it saves money on expat terms - it makes CX a more attractive employer as you know you have the chance for one (maybe).
You’re losing it NC. The numbers don’t matter in this case, the law does. CX can certainly close any or all bases, but you cannot furlough (make redundant) out of seniority while they are still open. There would be a lawsuit, and the Company would lose, even fantastically perhaps. They know this and don’t want to get themselves in the proverbial poo AGAIN with western courts. They’ve got enough on their plate at the moment, and closing the bases would destroy any remaining pilot morale at CX, including in Hong Kong.
This isn’t about democracy or demographics. It’s about rights. Cathay pilots on the bases have rights, period. I know CX doesn’t like that, but they’ve learned, the hard way in some cases, that doesn’t matter. Shut the bases... fine, but do it legally or get ready for a court fight. It really is that simple. Your numbers don’t mean squat. CX wants to keep flying to the US, Canada, Australia, etc. So I think they are stuck playing by their rules if CX is going to keep employing people in these countries.