Originally Posted by
Who stole my meds
Thanks Trafalgar.
Like I said, get proper negotiators. Pilot's can't go in there and bang the table making demands as easily as hired negotiators.
I disagree.
And do not thing pro negotiators will help all that much; potentially being a waste of money.
No matter WHO goes in there, they will do so with the constraints and deal making authority vested in them by the GC who in turn gets it from the general membership. Perhaps hired help will know the 'tricks' somewhat better (perhaps not if they haven't had specific dealings with CX) but that is about it.
The very THOUGHT that a GC would be talking to someone using the C word I find repugnant. Sure, new processes and win-wins might be achievable. To that end it might be worth talking. But if that end is NOT happening there is no need for further wastes of time and money. Better to save this to assist members in finding employment elsewhere. Or the inevitable legal battles as COSs are degraded and imposed.
What happens in any negotiations solely depends on the will of the GC and membership at large. This is what drives the train and where the power is vested. And at the end of the day determines what happens next.
NOW
The main issue here is absent a strike, the tools available in HKG have been CC and the training ban. Have these been effective ?
Depends on how you define it (and it depends on the extent to which it's followed).
The TB is (and always has been) a choke point. Not easily worked around and there are tremendous collateral costs in just keeping us current; much less in upgrading people (and the plan has BEEN to upgrade cheaper replacements for those currently in the positions). The company has bet way heavily on this and having the training assets (as well as enticing those after training to remain) is critical. So this is the first place to start.
CC reduces availability and the 'above and beyond' factor--something critical to the airline in that it runs undermanned to begin with.
These two points create a war of attrition; they don't force an outcome right away but take a great deal of time to achieve their effect.
So far they have achieved an effect in spades.
BUT
The effect they have is in reducing supply of operators. What has happened over the last couple of years is the company can't really keep the wheels on and has had to deal with dramatically increased costs and reduced supply (i.e. productivity declines and difficultly in upgrades). So CC/TB HAS been extremely effective in doing this.
BUT
The ultimate goal is to force the company to the table in order to improve working conditions and compensation. The wild card has been (and remains) what do you do with an entity that would rather sink the ship than fix the problems. Keeping the pilots happy has a relatively small cost in the grand scheme of things--especially when considering lost opportunity of expansion which the airline really needs in order to survive. To contract is to die. But this is the apparent course which the company has for whatever reason decided to embrace. It makes absolutely no business or rational sense whatsoever--with C scale pay you get C scale results--and it puts the place in an accelerating death spiral where already high fixed costs overpower the ability to climb out of it with fledging competitors who use incentive nipping at your heels and eventually overtaking you; not unlike decreasing speed on the back side of the power curve behind L/D max (which is kind of where we are at). All of the economic indicators are there.
Now we COULD put the nose down and recover (this would mean making the folks who work here happy; like right away NOW)--which would happen relatively quickly as you unload the wings (assuming you have some altitude to play with below you). But all we seem to get is management pulling further back on the stick. You can't really help ANYONE who is determined to do this; the stall is aggravated as the ship is mishandled and leads to its inevitable conclusion.
Even THINKING the C word is inconceivable in the market and any leadership who does so should probably be replaced. It would have no effect; kinda like a half-hearted bump in power when you're pulling back REALLY hard. The only net effect would be less money in pocket when the ship hits the ground. Unloading the wings MIGHT work, but this would require inflationary adjustment in pay, restoration of housing, and coherent work rules (as well as an immediate offloading of costs by going large on bases where it can). This is the COMPANY'S part in the equation and really all that can be done is steer the ship in THAT direction. IF they are unwilling to listen, it is inevitable that the ship will hit the ground and no one at the working level can fix it.
It's kind of like sitting in the back seat and not being able to override the guy in the front or get him to listen to you in any way. IF he continues to do what he does the best YOU can do is bail out before he takes you with him.
Professional talkers would have no net effect on any of this.