ME carriers are difficult to compete with. They simply operate in a different reality by being a state-owned and run airline. A CEO's dream
Yet I, for one, would much rather have Tim Clark as the CEO of my outfit than whatshisface whose only ability seems to be that of making cringeworthy TV interviews.
- State prestige object - profit desirable not essential. That sky bedroom may just turn out be a marketing and vanity project.
Yet, profits they make. Aplenty.
- No real labor laws
Because CX is having a hard time with HK's extremely stringent labour laws? Please...
That applies to everybody these days, unless your managers were idiotic enough to hedge fuel at its historical high... But what competent management team would do that?
- Cheap (state) loans
I will actually give you that one, as well as the infrastructure support and ideal geographical location as EK's main advantages. Yet the market was there, and no one was bold enough or had the foresight to dig into it.
EK was adventurous where they saw potential, whereas in comparison, CX has been lazily resting on its laurels for much of the past 2 decades, promoting conservatism as their main business model. What a great strategy...
- Cheap and unlimited labor supply
I wonder whether the ME3s are the only airline where wannabe pilots and F/As fall over themselves to accept sub-par contracts...?
- Full state support for everything from infrastructure to political backing, etc.
It's not like CX could ever make the civil aviation regulators help solve their crewing issues or have the local government prevent a competitor from entering their market, right?
(Yes, I enjoy sarcastic comments)
- The Chairman of the airline and the man who runs the state "regulator is the same guy"
Read above.
I'm no EK apologist. Quite the contrary in fact.
But for whatever the foul-play accusers say, EK is a successful business model. And yes, their premium product blows CX's out of the water.
On the other hand, agressive cost cutting for the sake of the exercise and not much else has been the norm over here for a while now, and only someone who doesn't work for CX could not understand or see the impact it has had on the service and product offered to the punters.
Of course it all depends on how the airline markets itself. But if CX continues to position itself at the very top end of the price range while they keep relying heavily on front end loads for yields, then it behooves them to stay at the sharp end of the customer experience offering.
It could just be my cynical self, but it seems many of my colleagues seem to share the view that they are very much not doing that at all.
It has ZERO impact on the quality of my career.
And that's the main problem with your argument. You're missing the point completely.
I could fly goats across the desert on a DC-3 if the pay and conditions were the same. Hell, I'd probably even have fun doing it, for a change.
People aren't slagging off CX's shortfall for the sake of it.
Believe it or not, many once felt proud of working for them.
The problem is that trust and confidence in the people who run the airline is in the process of being completely destroyed through their apparent lackadaisical and/or inept management and corporate greed.
You can keep not caring that the first class passenger keeps getting woken up by galley noise and smell after being served an average-at-most meal, or that the business class pax sitting at the end doesn't get his meal choice because the airline is too cheap to carry enough, but when they start leaving for the competition, and the yields start dropping, and the numbers turn to red, and we're asked to make sacrifices 'to help', and the agressive cost cutting continues into an downwards spiral of irony, and the assets are sold off, and the layoffs start, and the main stakeholders lose interest and sell the charred remains to Air China, then, maybe, you might care.
But what do I know? I'm just a stupid employee.
You should ask the shareholders why
they're worried...