Vforvendetta (and three thirty)
sorry, one of my friends in BA has been laid off - I thought he said it was less than 50. I stand corrected.
I am well aware what happened in Qantas - my point is - they didn't let them go. As I said, they lowered their salary bills in other ways. EK let pilots go - and may struggle to get them all back.
The point i am trying to make is - CX is going to need as many pilots as it can keep - and I believe they know that.
Turnandburn
No I haven't flown the 744 for many years - Ironically I was always hitting CAD hour limits on it back then.
I dont have current fleet average figures- but yeah I guess all those I am speaking to that are doing 60-90 hours might just be in a minority. But given the so-called over manning of the fleet, you would expect the average hours to be 20-30% LESS than they were precovid. Using some old data I have from precovid I get average block hours being 50 in some years and as high as 67 in others. So if the fleet is overmanned by 20-30% I would expect the average hours to be as low as 35 and as high as 54.
I dont understand why you think pilots on the 747 doing minimum hours NOW in this pre xmas peak is a good thing? surely this is the time all the 747 pilots should be working the hardest then having them back to lower block hours when freight demand is lower?
Numbers (mostly) don't lie - and numbers can convince. (caveat to the famous "lies, damned lies and statistics")
First thing - the more hours we do the cheaper we get. There are fixed costs - the more we work the lower the average fixed cost per hour becomes. So it is in the airlines interest for us all to be working towards 900hours - not the minimum (35 -747 etc).
Second thing - it was numbers that got rid of 3 man flying to Europe - numbers showed that it was MORE expensive than 4 man when using COS08 rules. I haven't redone the numbers for COS18 but I suspect it will be close to a wash. Using COS08 costings, the only flight that made financial sense to be 3 man was EUR based crew flights to/from HK.
AFAIK that was the only one operating precovid (LHR-HKG-LHR 3man)
Third thing - yes ego gets in the way of some managers/directors making decisions - but ultimately it will be numbers that drive the majority of board decisions. They dont care about morale - they care what their training bill will be -and that depends on how many leave. The 49ers can be viewed as their way of saying "we are the boss, you will take what we offer you". Likewise, ASL was seen as a cost reduction. Yes in 2007 negs we managed to show/convince them that, financially speaking, it was costing them more. Funny thing - they reintegrated ASL after that - just a coincidence I guess if they are NOT driven by numbers.
Fourth thing - did you ever wonder why they were prepared to offer more in pay/hkpa in 2016 than in 2018? I mean - by the end of 2015, before negotiations even started in 2016, they knew they were sitting on over 30B worth of impending losses from their fuel speculation episode. And yet they offered payrises/HKPA increases?
Again - numbers - because in 2015-16 our margins were better - in 2018 they had deteriorated so less was offered. I am not talking about Fuel - those losses were already known - looking forward they believed we had lower margins so they offered less.
I could go on - my point is - they are driven by $$$ - not emotion (most of the time - one of many exceptions was HOW they treated the 49ers after they were terminated - it got personal!)
Prove to them that 2 SO ops to Europe are causing higher costs and they will stop it. I can't - I KNOW I am more tired - but tired is not an item on a balance sheet or P&L.
Progress Wanchai
From 'their' point of view - do you think they really set up a PAR base KNOWING it was illegal? More like- they were understaffed in basings office and did not do due diligence and only found out over time.
49ers- small cost to break the will of the pilots - PRE 49ers - over 95% membership and over 90% voting for LIA(limited industrial action) vs POST 49ers - no payrises from 2002-2007 (thanks to 49ers/ 9-11) and AOA membership falling to 50%. I suspect the company thinks the 49er episode was a bargain in terms of the control they achieved/savings on static pay.
ASL - saved them money as far as they were concerned.
The training ban had NO effect - I did the numbers on our training during TA18 negotiations - 2015 was the last year we were at full training capacity. After the TB was introduced they shifted a few 330s over to KA and due to airline planning reductions in growth forecasts, the trainers were running under 90% in 2016 then down to I think it was 50% in 2019. And I mean what percentage of the trainers total flying was training - so the lesser number of trainers we had in 2019 were, on average, doing half training half line flying. So what did it achieve? Well the chairman that introduced it, who BTW was KNOCKED back from training before he became chairman, got to look very industrial - he did enjoy his trump like grandstanding.
It is NOT personal unless you make it so.
CX is running a business - 99% of the time they dont give a s@#t about any single one of us. They are not picking on you or me - they are just doing what they do!
Some people think there is some machiavellian plan that is being rolled out over years/decades. I dont think so. They have too much turnover on 3rd/9th floors for that. And I have seen too many changes and backflips - I mean, look at our rostering rules - there are so many similarities to the 1994 rules which ultimately failed. Reinventing the 4 sided wheel!
Anyway - if you think it is personal and that they are out to get you - then ok - enjoy the victimisation feeling.
They are just a company - and I am just an employee. One day I will leave - either resign/retire/be fired - in the meantime I refuse to feel like a victim - I am here of my own free will. No one is forcing me to come to work. And whilst the office is new and shiny, the crew I fly with are competent and good fun, I will keep flying.
PS whilst I can 'justify' in financial terms what is done - that doesn't mean I agree with it actually being carried out or how it is carried out. That is why I have spent close to two decades in GCs/negs etc fighting - trying to make things fairer. But to negotiate you need to understand what the other side is thinking.
Anyway thanks for the thought provoking posts guys/gals.