Shortly has presented the reasons why the company attacked the AOA. I have not seen any sound rebuttal of these facts.
The only thing he ommitted was the fact that they flagged their intention , if not their methodolgy, well ahead of time.
As with the 1989 fiasco in Australia, the consequences of what followed destroyed friendships and created animosities that will outlive us all.
The AOA now represents between 49% and 51% of the aircrew.
As a result of hostilities, the company has become less tolerant and actively seeks to get rid of people who are 'unhappy' rather than help them work out any issues they may have.
The SARS crisis has, IMHO, shown that the company does still care about ALL its employees and this is appreciated at all levels within the company. It is time to build on that goodwill and move on.
The simple fact remains, CX is a better employer than those airlines with which it is so often compared such as SQ and EK. You only have to look at the log book on Shearwater or at Cheung Sha and the list of schools attended by offspring to realise that some of the intangibles are used and appreciated.
The victim mentality is in many ways comparable to the Japanese psyhce on Hiroshima. Noone denies that Hiroshima was a terrible tragedy but to ignore the reasons why it happened is to use selective amnesia as an excuse for gross miscalculation and incompetence.
And no, I am not in management nor do I work for Freehills, but if independently analysing the facts and the big picture over many years qualifies me as a sycophant then so be it.