Quad, Trafalgar, spot on. Whether it's short term profits and a 'cash out' by those not really interested in looking forward and building an institution of the future or over reliance on automation (including training 'human robots' who blindly follow written guidance) really doesn't matter. The idea is to replace experience, flying skill, and judgment (which costs money) with low-cost button pushers who buy their goods from the 'company store' -- ingeniously recovering a large chunk of the money they are paid by other HK financial interests. Getting the piece of paper certifying the button pushers isn't really that hard when you can change the criteria for the piece of paper.
We've seen this with a decline of conditions as well as an increase in SOP. The idea being that procedures and directives take the place of judgment and training. Might work pretty well right up to the point someone actually has to FLY and do what pilots are trained and paid to do (and we've seen this creeping along too with the restrictions on hand and manual flying). But maybe the idea is to create so many conditionals that this window doesn't happen all that much--and 99.9% of everything is done by some "IF-THEN-ELSE" logic tree.
Does it work ? Guess that depends on your viewpoint. If you don't mind having a scrape and/or losing a couple of jets from time to time I guess it does. We've seen this in plenty of OTHER low cost carriers when the man-machine interface breaks down. Then again, to most they seem safe enough with a few isolated high visibility incidents and as long as they don't happen TOO often some might view this as acceptable losses. And you can always change the brand or paint scheme.
The trap here I think is this puts CX in the same category of every other low-cost carrier which historically (unless in a protected market--and these are ever shrinking globally) have had trouble making money. I guess you could kinda make up for this with polish, paint, and service in the back--but these take money too. AND our cost structure really doesn't support it and won't anytime soon.
Not to mention the fact that at the end of the day you get what you pay for. Happy people who are part of a team moving forward are WAYYYYYYY productive. Those just showing up for a job not so much. Eventually the newness wears off and if there's no core incentive and motivation to contribute people don't. The operation kinda muddles through with lots of baggage and high costs but not particularly productive people. Productivity is always a two-way street. People who haven't developed the experience, skill, and judgment aren't particularly good at finding creative solutions to make things better, nor can you do this with a top-down process (especially if you have a know-it-all perspective which doesn't encourage thinking outside of the box).
What does this mean to me ? Exactly what has been said. If you are looking for a long term career you might want to keep looking. If you're young and having fun beaming around the world have at it--just realize that your perspective might change down the road and airlines are a seniority driven animal. If you're looking for a long-term career (and are in the building stages) realize that things have changed to make this more like a regional airline--a stepping stone/short term job--and if you get trapped in the pond you might get screwed (so have an out). If you're older and not really having fun anymore, do what you can to alter your paradigm and either make it fun or jump ship and do something you like. The WORST thing one could do is sacrifice the truly important things in life (wife, husband, family, unrecoverable time) and dedicate oneself toward an entity that really hasn't much cared over the long run. So take it as it comes, make yourself happy, stay balanced (and if that means taking time off to stay well and stay fit by all means do so), and don't put a lot of time or effort into fixing something that doesn't want to be fixed.
SO
Aviation operates in some areas of black and white, but a huge grey area of judgment as well. Commander's discretion (especially in the way we are rostering now) or accepting last minute changes involves some level of increased risk. Granted, most of the time we use it it's not that much (otherwise we wouldn't use it). Ask yourself if it's worth it.
IF it's for a genuine humanitarian issue -- something wholly unexpected, totally unforeseeable, and objectively the 'right' thing to do (toward the passengers and crew) it may well be worth it.
IF it's simply to get the mission done, I'd submit it probably isn't. You might get a thanks and a self-made gold star for your personal love me folder, but what else have you accomplished (other than enabling bad behaviour on the part of an entity that's trying to do more with less) ?
Last edited by Shep69; 2nd Jun 2016 at 14:56.