Voluntary LOAs are here.... [Archive]

hongkongfooey

29th Nov 2008, 01:42

What really :mad:'s me off is that we are now expected to pay for the (mis ) managements mistakes, especially WRT the freight fines and fuel hedging.
Are the loads really that bad ? I know ours definitely are not.
Most of the figures being shoved down our neck are in relation to " projected growth " which are pitted against a record year last year. How about a few realistic figures, ie: what loads do we need to turn a profit, or what loads do we need to not make a loss ? Not : what loads do we need to put TT et al into new Rollers next year.:hmm:

Dear Management
you are running a business, like any business there will be highs and lows,just because you had a record year last year does not mean you will have one every year, you CANNOT expect your employees to bend over every time you go through a bit of a tough time, unless you are happy to a) offer extra leave next time things go really well or b) expect your employees to leave.
Regards
Fooey
PS yes, I realise CX paid the LWOP back last time, but we pilots do not offer 12 months interest free, nor do our banks, credit cards etc etc

HardRock

29th Nov 2008, 02:03

OK then hkf, get laid off......

hongkongfooey

29th Nov 2008, 02:12

You must be management ( or should be ) , completely missed the point :D

Thunderbird4

29th Nov 2008, 03:56

just checked.....only additions were in March; an extra 4 slots each week. All the rest zippo.

Humber10

29th Nov 2008, 04:15

I hope those who have not received their leave for next year are writing to the AOA.....

badairsucker

29th Nov 2008, 06:31

hongkongfooey

Spot on post mate. You said what I have been saying for ages, well done sir.:D:D:D

HardRock

You sir, have been here 5 mins or you believe what everybody tells you!!!!

Captain Dart

29th Nov 2008, 07:34

One tonne under MTOW today, one on the jump seat and holds full of seafood.
The fuel 'should' have been cheap, too.

Voiceofreason

29th Nov 2008, 12:56

Since when do loads ever determine if CX (or any airline) make or lose money? You can sell 100% of your seats at $100 or 80% of your seats at $150 - which makes more money?

Higher loads just mean greater efficiency, not more profit.

However, I totally agree with the annual leave. Give that before offering unpaid.

HardRock

29th Nov 2008, 13:15

Of course the loads are OK... they are parking planes, selling others, and cutting flights. I most certainly am not management, have been here quite awhile, and don't believe anything anyone tells me anymore. The fact that I've been through this already, tells me that it's not all that bad to have an extra month off when I choose it... seeing that the leave system is pathetic, and can't be relied upon to give you any semblance of a life.
My comment was made to clarify the fact that you can choose some leave, or be forced to leave... I'll choose it when I want it.
And thanks Dart... a full plane doesn't mean you are making any money, although I'm very sure they are making loads of it.
Have a good vacation.
:D to you too

Flaps10

29th Nov 2008, 13:44

Hey guys...

Does the company still cover housing when on unpaid leave? I understand from the notice that if we take more than a month, certain benefits will not be covered but they weren't very specific.

What other considerations are there?

Not surprised we're at this point. I just hope that further cuts won't have to be made seeing as I'm only a few hundred from the bottom of the list.

CodyBlade

29th Nov 2008, 13:48

Been on unpaid leave before, I believe anything more than 14 days co. won't pay rent.

Mooseflyer

29th Nov 2008, 13:48

I've requested the details of a LOA greater than 30 days and will report when I recieve a reply. I, too, hope other cuts aren't required since I'm only a handful from the bottom myself!

poydras

29th Nov 2008, 15:42

In any case guys let's stick toghether.No dissense among us please.

bobrun

29th Nov 2008, 23:14

If they ever lay off by reverse seniority, it would free up promotions. Some SOs are senior to some captains these days.

No-Wai

29th Nov 2008, 23:37

BIG understatement - quick glance at the list shows at least fifty HK based FOs/CNs behind the top few SOs.

If you look at all bases, the number grows to about 350 (DE)FOs behind senior SOs.

Exactly how would CX furlough in reverse order of seniority?:*

Apple Tree Yard

29th Nov 2008, 23:38

Guys...get a grip! This is classic CX 'expectation management'. Look at the facts: most flights are near full (certainly mine have been); all aircraft are operating, none parked; they can't allocate enough leave. Ask yourself a simple question: if they can't allocate enough leave...how can they say they need people to take voluntary leave? What a ridiculous situation. I guess the company can now make sure that you don't get paid leave...only unpaid leave! What next....we pay them to fly the aircraft...? Don't buy any of this. CX chose not to reward us when times were good (remember that they did not pay us any profit share when they made nearly 2 billion profit...!!). Now that times are a bit more difficult..they can lump it. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. CX is doing fine. The latest numbers show us ahead of last year for pete's sake. :ok:

Truckmasters

29th Nov 2008, 23:58

More expectation Management

LOA - further convincing you that they couldn't pay a full 13th month.

Next they'll change the profit share formula again. That way when the accountants allow a small profit they won't have to pay anything to you.

stillalbatross

30th Nov 2008, 00:06

Dunno, but the AOA will fight bitterly to hold on to pax DEFO, as with ASL DEFO's they're also considered the future of the Association. Anyone who joined as an S/O should start reading the Flight Int. from back to front, the AOA doesn't give a rat's ass about you. Never has.

CokeZero

30th Nov 2008, 02:12

Also noted that if/when you take unpaid leave then this affects your 13th month and profit share (Yeah Right) as well. Pro rata'd

I thought that by helping the company then they would help you..... (loud laughing in background!!!!)

Makes no mention of whether housing is affected by unpaid leave? And you have to be current when you come back? (more loud laughing in background)

TT Are you going to take unpaid leave? With you gone we could start making a profit again! Everything you have touched seems to break so it could be a good start if you while up are gone the middle managers can fix it!!!

Or how's this, why not listen to what your middle managers are saying?

CokeZero

30th Nov 2008, 02:21

Make the managers take a paycut. Or just get rid of TT and BLAM!!!! Instant Profit!!!

TT is like our old AOA President ST - so much better when they're gone!

buggaluggs

30th Nov 2008, 04:28

" crew shall ensure they maintain landing currency" HAHA I can't do that working a FULL ( +100 hr ) roster!! How the F**K am I suppose to do it while on LOA!!?? :ugh:

Westcoastcapt

30th Nov 2008, 05:10

We have been through this before with SARS and unpaid leave is the easy way out for the company. They win big time and the members that have seen their pay and benefits erode over the last years are the big losers.

Imagine if you will, everyone refused to take unpaid leave if CX requests it. It cannot be forced upon you, just like a change in contract, you must agree to it. Cx would then be forced to act like every other airline and lay off from the bottom. Those on probation would be given one weeks pay in lieu and the others, 3 months.

It would be an expensive proposition for CX to undertake. The 3 months salary would certainly bite as it could be expensive. To recall the pilots would involve expensive retraining. Moreover, CX would become a much less attractive employer if new joiners thought there was the potential for layoffs. Experienced pilots would become less apt to give up careers for CX.

The end result is that CX would have to raise the pay and benefits to attract new recruits given the possibility of uncertain, long term employment. No longer would new hires continue to take our jobs on lesser pay and benefits thus eliminating any chance of a pay raise.

And just imagine, we might start looking like a real airline.

hongkongfooey

30th Nov 2008, 05:21

Since when do loads ever determine if CX (or any airline) make or lose money?

True, except the front end that was supposed to be empty is still 1/2 full or better and I don't think CX or KA have resorted to selling J seats for $100 just yet. Also other than a few deals going about, I also have not noticed any seats going for HKD100, let me know if you see any :confused:

In any case guys let's stick toghether.No dissense among us please.

Pity more people here don't think like us poydras, but then thats exactly what management want, dissention in the ranks, and some fools are quite happy to play right into their hands :ugh:

If people want to take LWOP, good on them, I am just jealous 'coz I can't afford to. Just remember we are not all in that enviable position.

moosp

30th Nov 2008, 16:24

Westcoast you have it right. Just say no. Unless you are exceedingly rich in your second profession or you have a personal need to take the time off, why do it? Fidelity have stuffed your P fund, you need every cash asset you can get. Like a salary.

It's like the old conundrum, what if they had a war and nobody came?

I'mbatman

30th Nov 2008, 23:41

WSC,

If you think for one second, furloughing from the bottom is the cure to crappy pay and conditions, I've got 10,000+ previously and currently furloughed guys from the US carriers that have a bridge to sell you. How have conditions in the US improved one iota in the last 7-8 years? Exactly. Guys, they are asking for voluntary leave.....if you don't want it, don't take it. I gaurantee though that if CX ever actually decided to furlough it would be out of the equipment that they needed reductions on, not seniority.:eek:

In fact, I just re-read your post and laughed out loud at the thought of job losses equaling better conditions.....its so outlandish I can't help but post my opinion.

SweepTheLeg

1st Dec 2008, 01:08

Why should we subsidize Cathay's inept fuel hedging program?

Airlines Are Caught With Hedges Down - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122791931234765709.html#)
The Wall Street Journal
November 29, 2008
Airlines Get Caught With Hedges Down
By MOHAMMED HADI
MORE IN HEARD ON THE STREET »

So perverse are the Fates overseeing the global airline industry that plunging fuel prices bring their own bad news.

Carriers across Asia are surprising investors with losses stemming from fuel-hedging programs. The misnomer is that all of these are "hedges," when some are merely soured bets on oil.

View Full Image

Getty Images
Ground staff tow a Cathy Pacific airplane in Hong Kong in February 2007.
At Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., fuel-hedge losses hit $359 million at the end of October. Since then, Brent crude, the benchmark for many of Cathay's positions, has fallen 22%.

Cathay buys contracts capping what it pays for some of its fuel. But to offset the cost, Cathay also sells put options, effectively betting fuel won't fall below a certain price, and taking losses if it does.

Cathay won't say how much of its fuel expense is hedged this way, or what price it is obligated to pay. But the put options are on its books until 2011. If oil prices fall further, losses will mount.

Thus far, losses are unrealized, and are a fraction of Cathay's expected yearly fuel bill of about $5 billion. Still, any cost matters in an industry that weighs every olive it puts in a salad.

For others, the impact already is more meaningful. Air China Ltd.'s hedging losses tripled in October, to $454 million, potentially raising its annual fuel expense 16%, Citigroup estimates.

The positions were put on when "the general market consensus...was that high oil prices would prevail," Air China said.

That cuts to the heart of the matter: True hedging doesn't deal in price predictions.

There is a right way to do things. Qantas Airways Ltd.'s fuel expenses are capped when crude rises above $106 a barrel, and, rather than losing money, it benefits from falling prices.

Others, facing a choice between spending more or taking on additional risk, have clearly said, "We'll take the risk," said Damien Horth, analyst at UBS. They will doubly rue this, as the economic slowdown continues weighing on oil prices -- and starts hurting revenue.

Write to Mohammed Hadi at [email protected]

hongkongfooey

1st Dec 2008, 01:08

Batman, please humour me, how many of those 10,000+ pilots came from extremely profitable airlines and how many came from airlines that were barely squeeking by even in the normal climate ?

Gentleman, please don't make the mistake the company wants you to make ( and clearly some of you are already convinced ), that is confusing saving the airline with maintaining high profits, I am all for the former when and if it happens, they can jam the latter up their collective :mad:

I'mbatman

1st Dec 2008, 01:16

HongKongFooey,

here is interesting reading regarding the profitability of US majors in the late '90's.

U.S. Major Airlines Report Another Stellar Year of Operating and Net Profits in 1998 (5/4/99) (http://www.dot.gov/affairs/1999/dot6599.htm)

The main point of my response was that the idea that better pay and conditions come as a result of straight furloughs is ludicrous.

CMOTDibler

1st Dec 2008, 01:30

I don't mind taking a hit for the boys, I'll take redundancy if a half decent one was offered. How about it Cathay, you are overstaffed and I can't be bothered working for you anymore so lets come to a mutual agreement and help each other out. It is a financial Tsunami after all. There are probably 100 or so of us out there that would take a reasonable offer. You offered it to Cabin Crew a couple of years ago so why not now?

Chances - nil.

Sleeve_of_Wizard

1st Dec 2008, 02:17

Why are we even contemplating this?? AOA stand up and recommend that nobody take unpaid leave. No brainer. DON"T DO IT..................

Voiceofreason

1st Dec 2008, 02:59

HKF you remind me of an ex-union leader in the US who once said "I don't want to kill the golden goose, I just want to wring its neck for every damn last egg".

*sighs* oh well, I guess it takes at least a degree of common sense to realise that in any company, profits = growth = more jobs and more stabliity and more interesting work.

Do I have it right then, that you would prefer CX to just scrape by every single year making a measly profit because any extra it makes gets plowed into ensuring every pilot (only about 13% of the total workforce) gets an A-scale salary?

Any company in any industry has to remain profitable and competitive in order to grow. The rest of the world certainly isn't standing still.

And no, I am NOT management!

Mooseflyer

1st Dec 2008, 05:25

SoW,

Why NOT do it? I'm curious? If it suits someone, what does it hurt? Everyone benefits, no?

Edit - I just re-read CMOTDibler's post. I suppose the point is to try to force some type of incentive package for taking a LOA?

PS - I'm new to this game and not that smart anyway....

fire wall

1st Dec 2008, 05:48

Because Moose, you are going to get the same amount of time off with the loved ones AND get paid for it if you don't apply for it

Sleeve_of_Wizard

1st Dec 2008, 06:38

Like i said... No brainer.... thanks fire wall.

Captain Dart

1st Dec 2008, 06:40

Captain Dart's financial 'tsunami' priority:

1. Option for crew take all paid leave early
2. Management lead from the front and take unpaid leave*
3. Crew inspired by Item 2 and/or who so desire take unpaid leave
4. Voluntary redundancy package
6. Extendees made retirees
5. Redundancy in accordance with the contract

This should position the airline nicely to take advantage of the next upturn.

*Fuel hedging losses = management problem
Cargo price-fixing fines = management problem

hongkongfooey

1st Dec 2008, 08:48

No you don't have it right ( for :mad: sake ) , we are not talking about " every single year ", just this one and possibly the next before CX and KA start back into the record breaking profits. I am not talking about getting A scale pay, I am talking about not frigging losing what I have now, wether its a week or a month.
Can I be any clearer :confused:
Its a B U S I N E S S, there will be years when there are huge profits and years when there wont, since we do not get the profit shared among us equally, I don't think we should get the loss shared among us evenly, call me old fashioned.

Beta Light

1st Dec 2008, 15:34

I don't always agree with hKF, but on this post he's got it right.

Beta Light

1st Dec 2008, 15:46

Show me one Friday Telex that T.T did not have a big BUT in the intro. They plead poverty even during the fat years, therefore we became fatigued by their propaganda, and don't know what to believe and is sceptical about everything they say..

They cryed Wolf during the good years, so why believe them now?

Mooseflyer

1st Dec 2008, 16:53

"Because Moose, you are going to get the same amount of time off with the loved ones AND get paid for it if you don't apply for it"

Right - got it now.

As long as I'm composing a post, a (probably dumb) contract question regarding annual leave: I see that each day of leave is worth a few credit hours - if one were to take 2 weeks of leave in some month, he would still get the full 84 hour guarantee, correct? Not simply the credit actually flown during the month plus those few hours of credit for leave per day? Thanks.

Saturn

1st Dec 2008, 19:10

There are new hires collecting allowances and hotel paid and training. Financial crisis??? Yes, the Unpaid leave is a scam as all they are doing is getting us to work for free, similar to our reserve system. However, if you'd like to just get away from the crazies here on the 3rd and 9th floor, you have the opportunity. Remember, they paid back everyone during the SARS leave. There will not be any profit share next year anyway so like others have said it is voluntary. It is the new hires on course that seems a bit odd. Send them home and tell them maybe next year. That ain't happening though.

Oh yeah, thanks Nick for screwing all the cockpit crew lately.
:{

mephisto88

1st Dec 2008, 23:27

As one of the other gentlemen here alluded to, leading from the front would be a good idea, however I admit that would be somewhat of a novel concept in this circus.

One should never forget the dissparate standards applied with regard to responsibility and stuff ups.

One may wish to ponder on what would happen were we to cause millions of dollars damage to one of our ground defying punter carriers, if for example at the end of one of our well known and fatiguing patterns, said aluminium tube collided with something less forgiving whilst en route to dropping the pax off at the terminal. I would hazard a guess that we would be handing our uniforms back before the MOR hit the CAD's intray. I'm fairly certain that even were the damage to have been on the starboard side, it would still be me going for tea and biccies and a farewell chat, because the buck stops with those responsible. Well, it does in our profession anyway, and rightly so - I make the decisions, I carry the can.
If only the same principles applied in the corporate world....

You may care to compare that to the lack of falling on swords, or just plain old fashioned leadership that our current leaders fail to demonstrate on a regular and continual basis. How different responsibility becomes, when one moves into a suit and into the upper floors. I believe what others have intimated at is correct, in that some degree of accountability by individuals is required to show that such incompetance will not be tolerated and whilst I doubt they would ever have the courage to stand up and admit their own faults, (we can see and read about them anyway), that they should just take it on the chin, kiss goodbye to those exorbitent bonuses earned through wasting both the shareholders money and our efforts, and just do the honorable thing - resign!
If one can not lead efficiently and by example, at least one should demonstrate correct use of the exit strategy. Perhaps a well known bus skipper could lend one of his swords to someone upstairs in need of a hint.

Unfortunately, I have no doubt we will be waiting a long time to see some genuine leadership from those in the upper levels, if recent displays of hiding behind corporate decision making are anything to go by.

And back to the thread - LOA?, the AOA doesnt need to tell us not to do it, we are in this job to sort the wheat from the chaff, and generally, we do it well. Clearly therefore, it will not take individuals much time to ascertain themselves, wether or not they wish to take 'advantage' of this fine offer. Assuming most will not, they will still probably find themselves with a little less flying each month.
With luck I'll be back on the 450-500 hrs a year I flew on joining back in the 80's.:ok:

Brgds to all.

Voiceofreason

2nd Dec 2008, 00:24

Erm... you're not being asked to "share the loss". On this subject, people are asking for volunteers. As many people have pointed out, if you don't want it, don't take it.

And I love how everyone assumes they know exactly what bonuses, benefits, cars and perks management actually gets - I don't get to see their contracts... do you? How can we possibly guess exactly who gets what? It's a pretty bold assumption to say that all the employees are having their bonuses cut, but all directors aren't.

Voiceofreason

2nd Dec 2008, 00:29

Gentleman, please don't make the mistake the company wants you to make ( and clearly some of you are already convinced ), that is confusing saving the airline with maintaining high profits, I am all for the former when and if it happens, they can jam the latter up their collective http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

And just to return to my original point, you're saying it's the "high" or "record" profits that you object to, not necessarily making no money at all, right?

SMOC

2nd Dec 2008, 01:28

Seems like JALs CEO leads by example;

YouTube - Japan Airline's CEO Slashes his Pay Below the Pay of Pilots, other CEO Should Learn from Him ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF6lxILnRuE)

Ex Douglas Driver

2nd Dec 2008, 02:26

And I love how everyone assumes they know exactly what bonuses, benefits, cars and perks management actually gets - I don't get to see their contracts... do you? How can we possibly guess exactly who gets what?

No need to guess... it's disclosed in the annual report and a matter of public record.

e.g. from 2007 Annual Report
Nick Rhodes
Basic Salary_____________________1,575,000
Bonus__________________________1,300,000
Allowances and Benefits___________388,000
Retirement Contributions__________276,000
Bonus Paid to Retirement Scheme___745,000
Housing Benefits_________________2,308,000

Total for 2007__________________6,592,000
Total for 2006__________________5,657,000

Bonus disclosed is related to services for 2006 and paid in 2007. (i.e. Management bonuses won't be disclosed for this year's efforts until Mar 2010, but shareholders will see what bonus was paid following our record profit in 2007)

ACMS

2nd Dec 2008, 03:56

Now remember guys that this is a rumour network so don't shoot me.

I hear that all 55+ extendees are REQUIRED to take 6 weeks un paid leave.

Is this correct?

CMOTDibler

2nd Dec 2008, 04:14

surely not, the extendees are vital to the training programme. Without them the training could not be met and your commands would take longer, or so the spin goes.

bonajet

2nd Dec 2008, 04:54

Sorry to disappoint you ACMS but if you read the weekly info, you'll see that all new extensions will be for a one year term and the contract will include six weeks paid and six weeks unpaid leave. So, in effect, the extensions are only for 46 weeks. Present extendees are on the extension contracts they signed.

Voiceofreason

2nd Dec 2008, 05:55

Fair enough Ex, but my point was we don't know what the plans are in relation to the current situation.

1200firm

2nd Dec 2008, 13:18

The sad,strange fact of the matter is that with oil now at $47 a barrel,the monumental multi-billion dollar f**k-up in fuel hedging means that this contenscious "unpaid leave" is pure nickel & dime smokescreen.

Humber10

3rd Dec 2008, 00:02

voluntary leave; loss of most benefits after the 31st day (including travel, loss of licence, housing etc...), sounds like they're discouraging anyone to take it.

More expectation management I guess....

Five Green

3rd Dec 2008, 00:49

Well the upate says that anyone thinking of unpaid leave should make sure that the system has given out all the contractual leave for 2009. Otherwise if you take unpaid leave you will be robbing someone of contractual leave. Also note that the leave allowance for the year will reduced in a pro-rated formula and you will loose contractual leave.

This unpaid leave just gets more and more costly to take the more you look at it !!

Meanwhile they think that our COS only applies when the company sees fit. The current violation is that the co. has decided that SO by pass pay is not required as it does not reflect the companies current game plan !

FG

Kitsune

3rd Dec 2008, 06:37

Cathay puts aircraft orders on hold
By Raphael Minder in Hong Kong and Robin Kwong in Taipei
Published: November 28 2008 17:42 | Last updated: November 28 2008 17:42
Cathay Pacific announced cost-cutting measures on Friday, including the deferral of aircraft deliveries, as the Hong Kong-based airline faced a sharp slowdown in both passenger and cargo traffic.

The airline cut its forecast for 2009 passenger capacity growth to less than 1 per cent, from 6-7 per cent. Tony Tyler, Cathay’s chief executive, also warned that the financial crisis was having “a particularly severe” effect on freight, which accounts for about 30 per cent of its revenues.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
In depth: Airlines - Nov-27

As a result, the airline will ground two of its Boeing 747 cargo aircraft in the Californian desert and put on hold the HK$4.8bn (US$620m) construction of a Hong Kong cargo terminal. It will also offer cabin and cockpit crew unpaid leave next year.

Cathay has ordered 42 passenger and freighter aircraft from Boeing, originally scheduled to be delivered by 2012. Mr Tyler said the airline was talking to Boeing about deferring the deliveries and outstanding payments.

This week, Air France-KLM also announced that it would postpone taking delivery of new aircraft, a trend that is threatening Boeing and rival Airbus.

Jim Proulx, at Boeing Commercial Airplanes in Seattle, said several airline customers had moved their delivery dates but said the aircraft-maker was confident its $276bn-backlog of orders – the equivalent of seven years of sales – was a sufficient cushion to carry it through the downturn.

Mr Tyler indicated that more operational cuts might be required at Cathay given the difficult market conditions.

“We cannot see light at the end of the tunnel at this point,” he said.

The measures come less than a month after Cathay issued its second profit warning of the year, citing lower demand.

Cathay’s problems mirror those of airlines worldwide, but it is among the Asian carriers that are most vulnerable to falling business passenger traffic as a result of job cuts in the financial sector, as well as lower cargo traffic as Chinese manufacturing exports decline.

Earlier this month, David Turnbull, former chief executive of Cathay, told the Financial Times that cargo revenues for Asian airlines were likely to drop off after the Christmas shopping season and could fall as much as 20 per cent by the middle of next year.

The outlook for the Asian aviation sector has worsened rapidly, forcing rival airlines in India to discuss co-operation initiatives and two Chinese state-controlled airlines to seek emergency subsidies.

Separately, Malaysia Airlines reported on Friday that profit in the quarter ending September 30 fell 90 per cent to M$38.1m (US$10.5m), with flat revenues.

The Association of Asia Pacific Airlines recently forecast that capacity growth for Asian airlines would be flat next year compared with growth of 4-5 per cent this year.

Additional reporting by Hal Weitzman

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

JoeShmoe

6th Dec 2008, 23:12

monumental multi-billion dollar f**k-up in fuel hedging

On the contrary, it should be viewed as a premium on an insurance policy. If fuel had continued to go up in price the mangers(!) would be applauded.

This still doesn't absolve the mangers from asking staff to pay for their cargo fine.

IMO

ACMS

7th Dec 2008, 08:28

Even blind Freddy could see $150/b was not sustainable for the world to function in ANY way.

I hope we are hedging at the current jetfuel price of about $72/b for the next 20 years!! Even if it goes down to $50 big deal, I suspect it will NEVER be this cheap ever again.

HotDog

7th Dec 2008, 09:10

CPAFAU notice:

After the previous email to warn you about the Company’s announcement about Voluntary Unpaid Leave, we are writing to further caution you to THINK CAREFULLY before you apply for the ULV 2009 for the following reasons:-

For all Monthly Paid Crew, whether you are on 72 or 76 hours COS, if your ULV is not a complete month, you can be rostered to fly the full 72 or 76 hours for the rest of the month without being paid any Excess Flying Pay.

For those who are entitled to housing allowance, you will have to give up the allowance if you apply for more than 30 days.

Your retirement fund and annual bonus/profit sharing will be deducted according to the length of your Unpaid Leave days

Your annual leave will be ADVERSELY affected. Please read carefully the harsh terms in intraCX.

Unlike during SARS, the Company has not negotiated with FAU the reasonable terms when offering the unpaid leave this time – the terms are so harsh that it is as if you are begging them to let you help them or you are allowing to be DOUBLE punished for helping them out

Many flights are very full [average load factor above 80%!!]and some flights are even departing with crew shortage. Those who take UL will be effectively making the rest of us work harder – Management claim that they will endeavour to maintain integrity of network, how can we achieve this by ULV?

Management claim that even if flights are full they are still losing money, does it tell us something about mismanagement

If there is really a surplus of crew or the Company is going to reduce flight frequencies, then we will ALL get MORE time off on FULL PAY if we all DON’T take UL

We should NOT be asked to pay for Management’s bad decisions on price fixing and fuel hedging, voluntary taking unpaid leave is effectively transferring money from our pocket into their pocket for the problems they caused

If the Company is really in trouble and needs our help, why only ask CX HKG based aircrew to take UL? Why are KA employees or other CX employees groups not asked to share the pain, like during SARS

slapfaan

7th Dec 2008, 09:58

Well said FAU..

At least Becky and her team have the balls to speak up..unlike the absolute pathetic AOA..who,as usual,has said nothing about the unpaid leave scheme..:confused:

fire wall

7th Dec 2008, 10:53

Slapfaan, unpaid leave piece from Tue 2 Dec AOA update follows.
It gives me great pleasure to refute more of your bullsh1t.
Keep the lies coming Moron.

Unpaid Leave

We note with interest that the Company is attempting to weather the current economic storm by offering crew the opportunity to take unpaid leave, as we have, allegedly, a surfeit of pilots. Many of our members are wondering how this can be the case, when they are still unable to take the leave to which they are contractually entitled during 2009. Whilst we understand that individuals may want to make their own personal arrangements, we would suggest that our members explore every avenue towards taking their contractual entitlement to leave prior to applying for unpaid leave.

It is worth noting that individuals who take unpaid leave also have their paid leave entitlement pro-rated; 4 weeks unpaid leave will reduce the paid annual leave entitlement (of an Officer with 42 days leave per year) by 3 days.

CXtreme

7th Dec 2008, 12:42

SLAPFAAN:

unlike the absolute pathetic AOA..who,as usual,has said nothing about the unpaid leave scheme..

FIREWALL:

Slapfaan, unpaid leave piece from Tue 2 Dec AOA update follows.

See what happen when you're not in the union Slapfaan, ...........egg on your face. :ouch:

cpdude

7th Dec 2008, 13:35

Any claw-back of annual leave or work stacking with unpaid leave can always be compensated for and taken back ourselves. Good faith works both ways!:ok:

slapfaan

8th Dec 2008, 00:00

Well,what do ya know - IT'S ALIVE after all!!:D Just when everybody thought that the AOA was in it's final death kick..

The words that the AOA uses are very much pussy-foot though,so as not to upset anybody in management,unlike the FAU's response which gets right down to the point..
But then again,the AOA is in bed with CX management, in case anybody out there was wondering...:yuk:

So, congrats to FIRE WALL and CXtreme,looks like you girl scouts are finally getting something in return for all those subs so faithfully paid every month - a response (neither condemming nor endorsing) the unpaid leave scam!!:zzz:

Five Green

9th Dec 2008, 02:34

Slapstick :

I hope you realise what you sound like. I am willing to bet that, while down route, you would not have the balls to express you views in such a manner.

You come across as ill-informed and spitefull. Nothing to repect there at all.

You are welcome to your views. Many who share your point of view, have expressed it here with intelligence. If you cannot hold a discsussion without resorting to primary school type retorts and logic, then please don't waste any more of our time here on PPrune. This is after all the "Professional Pilot's Rumour Network"

Peace Out

FG

AD POSSE AD ESSE

9th Dec 2008, 12:07

So Five Green...if you are so fantastically intelligent and "professional" then why not write something relative to the topic here,instead of slanting off others,who,as you say,are entitled to their own opinions....you :mad:old prick...

Amazed to see how many people are lining up for the LOAs though,to help out the company in these dire financial times? or simply to enjoy the time off,one wonders!!

On the other hand,that means that the rest of us will be doing the same amount of flying every month,or perhaps even more..which means MORE money in the form of excess pay!!!:ok:

"Good night Mr Scott":zzz:

Kitsune

15th Dec 2008, 14:50

Airbus and Boeing plan loans for buyers - Times Online (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/engineering/article5342588.ece)

claire40

18th Dec 2008, 16:59

Have you lot worked out how much money they save.
Its cheaper to roster overtime so anybody not taking LOA will
be doing overtime

1200firm

19th Dec 2008, 15:54

$38 a barrel now.Another billion bites the dust.
I'll work on those econ descents.

armchairpilot94116

21st Dec 2008, 19:55

Taipei Times - archives (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2008/12/22/2003431809)

Hong Kong pilots, attendants rush to take unpaid leave

NO REGULAR LEAVE: A flight attendants union said that the colleagues of those that take unpaid leave will be left with an even heavier workload

DPA, HONG KONG
Monday, Dec 22, 2008, Page 12
Hong Kong’s main airline Cathay Pacific (國泰航空) said yesterday it had been swamped with more than 1,600 requests for unpaid leave next year from cabin crew and pilots.

The airline said it had received requests for more than 55,000 days off after making the controversial offer at the end of last month of non-salaried time off to combat the economic downturn.

Cabin crew have applied for a total of more than 50,000 days of unpaid leave next year — almost a full week for every flight attendant — while pilots had applied for more than 5,000 days.

The applications come from 1,062 flight attendants, some of who have made more than one application, and 200 pilots.

A Cathay Pacific spokeswoman said all the pilots’ requests would be honored while some of the airline’s 7,200 cabin crew would be asked to adjust their requests because of too much demand.

The Flight Attendants Union, which represents more than 5,000 cabin crew, said demand for unpaid leave showed many flight attendants were unable to get the time off they wanted through regular leave.

The union — which distributed a circular to members outlining 10 reasons not to apply for unpaid leave — warned that colleagues of flight attendants who take unpaid leave would be left with an even heavier workload.

The Cathay spokeswoman insisted the scheme was “entirely voluntary” and said flight attendants’ regular leave had been allocated for next year before unpaid leave offer was made.
This story has been viewed 133 times.