Doom & Gloom

[SMOC]

Cathay Pacific forecast to see earnings dive | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/business/companies/article/1187868/cathay-pacific-forecast-see-earnings-dive)

The airline, hit by high fuel costs, weak demand and uncertain economic conditions, is expected to report 90 per cent fall in profit for last year

[dogleg]

I guess that means we'll get 90% less profit share. What does that work out to? 2.4 hours profit share?? :ugh:

[Captain Dart]

I wonder if that includes provision for the potential fines for flouting French labor law (Paris base closure), reputedly some tens of millions of euros.

Once again behaving as if the world is one big Hong Kong, they have managed to 'p' off a broke, English-hating country that has a Socialist government.

No doubt that once again, the flight crew will be asked to 'take one for the team'.

[broadband circuit]

Oh my God!!!

Times are tough! I know they've been saying that every year for the past 20, but surely this time it must be true.

I mean, with all the challenges they face:

No money in freight
softening yields
high fuel prices
exchange rates working against us
fines in Paris

(please feel free to add more....)

[Virtual Reality]

I guess that means we'll get 90% less profit share. What does that work out to? 2.4 hours profit share??


........ please don't forget to include HKD 6000 or half month salary, whichever is lower ..:D


VR :cool:

[Me Myself]

Cpt Dart

I am trying to guess how old you are reading your rant about the french.......I've stopped counting.
You break a law.......you get a slap....a financial slap. That's how the world godes mate. Just wake up and smell the coffee.

[Captain Dart]

I pitched it and you missed it, 'mate'. No 'rant' intended. I actually agree with the French stance and am stating that the employees may be asked to pay for the airline's management not complying with French law.

Read my post again, and while you are at it, check your own rant and fix the appalling syntax and spelling.

[cxorcist]

Making almost a billion HKDs in a difficult year despite all the capital investments seems like a sign of health more than anything. The cargo terminal, cabin / lounge improvements, aircraft retirements and acquisitions were but a few investments CX made this year. Top that off with stubbornly high fuel prices, a down cargo market, and difficulty maintaining passenger yield; it is little wonder that the profit was significantly less than last year's.

[711]

Cxorcist,

an investment in aircrafts or cargo terminals has little effect on the operational loss/profit.

[CX-HOR]

Really no affect eh?

My skimming of the results noted that a/c depreciation/leasing costs increased by 10% over the previous year (almost 100 Million HKD). Yet our fleet size didn't, I trust we saved at least this amount in fuel from the re-balancing of the fleet.

[bm330]

How long has the results of Dragon and the Mainline been combined? Is there somewhere that the two are seperated?

The load factor on CX livery seems to be more than enough to cover costs and if mid 80% doesn't get you into the black, what will?

[JammedStab]

Plunging Cathay profits: What went wrong?

With Cathay Pacific Airways, one of the world’s leading airlines, announcing an 83% plunge in annual profit, one must begin to wonder what went wrong.

Almost five years since the onset of the global economic crisis, the fortunes of the airlines can be best alluded to the unpredictable movements of the yo-yo. It was only at the end of last year that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) could with some confidence finally revise its profit forecasts upwards instead of downwards: from US$4.1 billion to US$6.1 billion for 2012, and from US$7.5 billion to US$8.4 billion for the current year.

Could Cathay be an exception to the rule? For all the hype about product improvement all round including the new Premium Economy class and a new regional business class, the Hong Kong-based airline posted a net profit of HK$916 million (US$118 million), down from HK$5.5 billion a year ago.

Cathay has attributed its poorer performance to a number of factors.

First, higher fuel costs. Cathay reported that throughout much of 2012, fuel prices were at sustained high levels and the Cathay Group’s fuel costs increased by 0.8% compared to 2011. What’s new anyway, when this should similarly affect all airlines across the industry? Yet, in spite of that, some airlines such as Japan Airlines (JAL) are reporting improved performances. The volatility of the fuel price has been an easy target to blame no matter what degree its impact is on performance. It may not apply to Cathay, but in fact the average jet fuel price had been falling from September to December 2012 before rising again.

What is more of a concern is the reason for the decline in the fuel price, as explained by IATA chief executive and director general Tony Tyler: “The reduction in fuel prices is a great thing for the airline industry but they are coming down because of concerns over world economic activity. If the world enters an economic slump, that will be even worse for the industry than the higher fuel price was on its own.”

Second, a drop in demand for corporate travel. This is a more cogent argument as the industry continues to be hard hit by the economic stagnation or slow recovery if at all it is happening, particularly in Europe and the United States. Cathay, which banks on its premium product, is naturally affected more than other airlines that thrive on the low-end traffic.

In a statement issued by the airline, Cathay Pacific chairman Christopher Pratt said: “Premium class yields were affected by travel restrictions imposed by corporations.

Again, this is not a new lesson gleaned only yesterday but widely recognised during the global financial crisis which all but favours cheaper alternatives. Cathay is not alone in this predicament; rivals such as Singapore Airlines (SIA) and Qantas face the same threat.

In a counter-move, Cathay introduced the premium economy class to retain downgraders and attract those who are prepared to pay a little more but not that much more to upgrade to enjoy the frills of an in-between class. It is tempting to conclude that this strategy – perhaps to the relief of SIA which has until now snubbed the idea – is not working judging by the results posted by Cathay, but its full impact is yet to be realised. If the global economy continues to weigh down, it may well prove to be Cathay’s lifeline.

That brings us to the third point as to what went wrong then. Cathay attributes it to increased competition. Pratt said: “An increasingly competitive environment added to the difficulties.” That may be true, but when an airline such as Cathay which is among the world’s most successful carriers resigns to that, it comes across as being somewhat less plausible and lame, and smacks of something amiss.

Competition is a given in this industry. So what has Cathay done or is doing to check the competition? To be fair, it has done much more than most airlines. It has rolled out new product improvements and improved its in-flight service. The airline is ranked consistently among the industry’s favourites, particularly its business class, by air travellers. By all account, its strategy should place it in the forefront of the competition, so what is missing that it should ascribe its falling performance to increased competition? If there’s such a thing as a success formula to suit different environments, has it got the equation not quite right?

Fourth, the weak cargo demand in major markets, particularly from Asia to Europe. No doubt this has affected Cathay’s overall profitability. If it is any consolation, close rival SIA is also similarly afflicted. There are no clear signs that the situation will improve substantially in the near term. In light of the weaker outlook, Cathay has cancelled an order for eight Boeing 777-200F freighters but instead placed an order for three Boeing 747-8F freighters which will carry 16% more revenue-producing freight than predecessor Boeing 747-400. Cathay Pacific chief executive John Slosar said the larger airplane would result in fuel savings for the revamped fleet.

Fifth, high operating costs, especially of the long haul routes that according to Pratt were dominated by “older, less fuel-efficient Boeing 747-400 and Airbus A340-300 aircraft”. Last year, the company announced plans to accelerate retirement of the less fuel-efficient 747-400 as it continues with the fleet upgrading programme for both airlines in its fold – Cathay and Dragonair. In January, Cathay ordered 10 Airbus A350-1000 and converted 16 of its existing order for A350-900 to the larger A350-1000. These 350-seaters will ply high-density routes which include non-stop flights to Europe and North America.

The future should look rosier. Slosar said: “This is an important strategic development for Cathay Pacific. The A350-1000 aircraft will bring us world-beating fuel efficiency.”

Last, incommensurate cost-cutting measures that include offering unpaid leave to crew and reducing capacity on some routes which unfortunately, according to Pratt, “were not enough to offset in full the effects of high fuel prices and weak revenues.”

And we have come one full circle. So what makes one airline more likely to succeed than another when almost every one of them alike ascribes its failed performance to the same factors?

Pratt said: “Our core strengths remain the same ever: a superb team, a strong international network, exceptional standards of customer service, a strong relationship with Air China and our position in Hong Kong. These will help to ensure the success of the Cathay Pacific Group in the long term.”

Sounds familiar, you may say, except for specific references applicable only to Cathay

Plunging Cathay profits: What went wrong? | Aspire Aviation (http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/03/19/plunging-cathay-profits-what-went-wrong/)

[Threethirty]

What went wrong, it's simple we don't fly to emerging markets such as Africa and Brazil. Service standards have dropped despite what they say. We don't offer the passengers the experience of the A380 whilst our competitors were quick to jump on the bandwagon. Finally the middle east has far and away surpassed the competition in terms of being the air transport hub of the world; plus it's respective airlines provide service and cabin standards that are superior to that of CX.

[AQIS Boigu]

The lack of innovation at this place is scary...

[SMOC]

Innovation often requires outside the box thinking, not something you'll ever find in CX.

[twotigers]

The fact our senior management may have worked at Coca Cola last year, and BuonAqua next must all play into. Not being committed to the airline, but only looking to minimize exposure during your tenure doesn't really lend itself audious planning

[BillytheKid]

If you're all so smart, why don't you go and start your own airline to compete with Cathay?

Anyone who thinks that getting the super jumbo is the key to profitability is truly clueless. While it may attract 2 or 3 more business travelers than a 777, it still has operating costs that far exceed those 2 or 3 pax. To make money on that aircraft, you have to fill it..which leads me to my point: Cathay is struggling due to a downturn in premium travelers as well as high fuel costs.

[cxorcist]

I'm with Billy on this one. Seldom heard are pilots' views that include anything other than expanding the cost side of the balance sheet. Fancy new destinations and super jumbo aircraft all sound great to the drivers up front, but the bean counters see it differently. They assess massive risk in those moves. Their jobs are to maximize ROI (return on investment) while minimizing risk. Are they overly cautious sometimes? Of course, but I prefer that to some ego maniac up there with hair-brained schemes that might blow the whole thing up.

[twotigers]

So.. EK, BA, THAI ect.. are all flying about with no one in F or J?

Of course not. We are NOT attracting the customers. Its that simple.

Whether due to our ****ty FA's, poor seats, bad food, or whatever..
People are flying. We have record passengers traveling thru HKIA.

BUT .. they aren't choosing CX.

[bushveld]

Two Tigers. What does Coca Cola have to do with it, other than being a massive global brand? Slosar started as Cathay, and is now back, having broadened his knowledge and experience.

Have you?

[SMOC]

Personally I think their choice of A/C is correct, as much as id like them to buy more, however they have no innovation when it comes to service nor do they listen to the front line staff. Anybody could have seen that the cradle EY seats were a bad idea and it took them 3 goes to finally get the J class seat correct at what $$$, eticketing they were forced to join that revolution by the date agreed by all 1W carriers, IFE that's available during boarding? ID travel clothing, iPads in the cockpit vs EFB the list goes on. Any decent suggestion is met with CANNOT somewhere along the line.

[BusyB]

BillytheKid,

We were told that Boeing says a -8i with 300pax has the same operating cost as a 777ER. Apparently 4 Class would be 385pax.:ok:

[twotigers]

I've been around a tad longer than Slosar thank you.
And I stand by my statement that by rotating management, Swire is only encouraging immediate results and discouraging risk taking.

You neglect my second point where many other carriers have full J and F classes. Why isn't CX getting this custom? It's not the crews, it's the product and service

[cxorcist]

BB,

I have not heard that stat, but if it is true... it is game, set, match 747-8I. That makes 85+ seats of gravy and a decent (though not as much as 77W) belly capacity for cargo. CX has to compete with A380 operators on trunk routes (HKG-LHR, SFO, LAX, etc). I believe high quality sound proofing and a well done interior on the -8I will give CX a very competitive product without all the risks associated with a fleet of A380s.

[Threethirty]

Two Tigers is bang on, EK are flying around with A380's full to the gunnels, so there is no real excuse on that front. The other point is, have you ever tried to get on J class recently, it's nigh on impossible, there are plenty of premium travellers as far as I can see. Filling a 380 is not the problem, plenty of others are doing just that, the problem for Cathay is providing a comparable service to the likes of EK once said pax are on board.

[geh065]

I always thought it was about yields and not load factors.
Besides, the A380 seems good if you can fill it but what if you can't? Cathay has always been on the conservative side. They would rather have smaller planes filled all the time than bigger planes filled part of the time, even if it means turning away a lot of passengers when times are good. Seems to have worked for the last 67 years or so.

[Threethirty]

I thought the point of this thread is that it may no longer be working according to company results...

[Flying Mechanic]

Also having 5 flights to a day London is still more appealing to passengers, frequency offers flexibility.

[geh065]

I thought the point of this thread is that it may no longer be working according to company results...

Good point. I think it might be a little early to tell if our corporate strategy isn't working for us anymore. If the friday telexes are to believed you do get a sense that they are much more optimistic about things recently. If it continues I think this year could be a modestly improved one.

[BusyB]

Flying Mechanic

There is no flexibility if they go within 20 mins of each other:confused:

[SloppyJoe]

I find it funny when people say CX uses a different tactic out of LHR offering multiple departure times rather than large aircraft. The following aircraft belonging to EK depart LHR daily.

EK8 A380 at 0840
EK2 A380 at 1415
EK30 A380 at 1700
EK4 A380 at 2040
EK6 A380 at 2215

[cxorcist]

Sloppy Joe,

Let's think about that one for a moment. You point to the use of 5 A380s by EK, I presume, as evidence that CX should be doing the same. There are a few points to consider upon examining that logic...

Emirates' Dubai hub offers far more connection opportunities than does Hong Kong. Think about connecting to Middle Eastern cities, the Subcontinent, and Africa. Those passengers are not going to be buying tickets through HKG. Yet Emirates can still connect LHR passengers to all of CX's markets from Dubai. Think NZ, OZ, China, SE and NE Asia. It's a simple matter of geography. So it is not really a fair comparison, is it?

For CX, cargo matters, especially on the LHR route. With reduced European freighter frequencies these days, those 5 777s represent about 100-125T worth of daily cargo capacity (or about one 747's payload). If CX were to be running 5 A380s to LHR, there would be about half that much capacity (volumetric). Emirates is much less reliant on cargo revenues than is CX. Again, it is a simple matter of geography. The Chinese make stuff that folks in the UK want. The Arabs... not so much.

Also, there exists the issue of load factors and yields. If the company is to be believed - the problem in 2012 was cargo, premium passenger yield (not load factors), and high fuel prices. So, would an A380 (and its superior product) fix the yield issue? Are CX passengers going to pay more to sit in the A380 J seat as opposed to the 777 J seat? What would the A380 do to the load factors? Increase them because everyone wants to fly the A380 so much? I think not. The only thing an A380 does well is lower seat costs, but only if it is full.

I, for one, am glad pilots don't run our airline. We'd put CX right into a tailspin by bringing on massive capacity and flying it half full to all types of exotic locations. As geh065 pointed out, there are undoubtedly passengers out there that CX could be serving but doesn't. Those passengers go to other airlines when they fly, but their demand is very elastic. The yield they offer is usually low, and they go away when the economy turns sour. Let EK, Thai, and the like have them.

[twotigers]

I'm not suggesting we get A380's (though I enjoy travelling on them). In fact other than LHR and JFK, and perhaps some short haul TPE/PVG/PEK we really couldn't use it anymore effectively than a B777er.

I am suggesting that we look at Africa and S.America for one, and that if we are departing with empty seats in F and J its not due to the economy or whatever.. Other carriers seem to be able to attract customers.. just stealing 5-10 of them per flight would be a huge win for CX.

Sadly the management would rather cry about the economy and fuel prices, than understand people are simply choosing another carrier.

[cxorcist]

TT,

Filling seats is never a problem if the airline is willing to destroy yield. An incorrect assumption is that a 100% full airplane makes more than say a 90% full airplane. Optimal revenue, from a macro perspective, does not come from selling every single seat in the network. In fact, keeping seats for sale until the last minute is the only way to serve the walk-up fare. These are a very important part of the revenue equation. Sometimes seats go unsold. That's OK.

Look at what happened to Oasis... They did not have a load factor problem. Their flights were constantly full, and it certainly wasn't because their product was amazing. They had a revenue (yield) problem because they could not cover the rising fuel prices in 2008.

I'm glad CX charges a lot for their seats. Not only do we make more money that way, it gives me the occasional opportunity to go places during my very limited time off. I do not think the price inelastic passengers, business travelers, are choosing other carriers. We may very well be losing connecting passengers to other carriers, but I don't think those are worth fussing about.

Keep doing what you're doing CX! It makes sense to me. Now about HKG's inflation and that raise...

[twotigers]

Again, I never said lower the price,

I said others are selling their expensive F and J seats.

That's it.

People ARE flying and choosing to pay high fares. They are not choosing us.

That is a fact.

This discussion should be why.

( and yes.. My salary has eroded significantly and we need 8-9% increase to make up for that.)

[cxorcist]

TT,

Do you have any data to support your facts? Or are they based on anecdotal evidence? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that your claim is hard to prove. I don't think anecdotal evidence is enough.

If CX's F and J load factors are considerably lagging our competitors on routes where we fly head to head, then I think you probably have a good argument.

[sorvad]

Cxorcist, very very good posts....at the risk of sounding a bit redneck there's way too many armchair quarterbacks on this forum who seem unable to see further than a full aeroplane ...we all like to bemoan our management, but as pilots, who are we to debate the viability of any particular route without not only the details but also the expertise to analyse those details .....there are whole departments and sophisticated computer programmes that crunch the numbers constantly to assess weather or not we should serve Lagos or Nairobi, Barcelona, or Honolulu, and if the projections don't stack up, then we don't do it...surely better to be cautious and keep money in the bank than expand exponentially and with gay abandon like someone like Virgin whose staff are constantly under the threat of the next round of redundancies because of the uncertainties this modern world casts upon the thinner than thin margins they have on a route that seemed a good idea 2 years ago.......now ..as for the product...well that's an entirely different matter

[broadband circuit]

Whilst I agree with many in the debate that it's about yield, not LF, it leads to another paradox.

Other than during the low seasons, most flights I operate are at 95%+ LF, and yet we still hear them crying poor. So, charge more for the tickets!!!!

I know that sounds simplistic, but dropping the LF to 85 - 90%, but with a slightly higher price would undoubtedly return more yield. The comment about them having people in the office with computers working all this out is no doubt true, but are they doing a good job??

The ultimate step on this path is pay cuts & employee concessions because times are tough. Don't blame me, blame the person who set the price too low.

Someone (I think it was NC) one time posted some here calculations here that if we had charged an extra US$10 per seat network wide, what the difference would be. Think about that, that's just under HK$80. We might lose a few price sensitive passengers, but I couldn't imagine the total yield would be less.

[BusyB]

BC,

I totally agree. If the percentage of the time the LHR services are full is as much as it appears to me there must be more money to be made on fares.
The multiple 777 services per day are counter-productive as they have the a/c changed at short notice from ones with F to ones without F but more J.
This alienates both F & J pax so the fact that we are still full says that we aren't charging enough.
It also makes the case for an a/c like the -8i with guaranteed F class cabin.

Wouldn't do staff travel any harm either:ok:

[BillytheKid]

If you look up the fares on any of the ticketing sites like kayak or expedia it shows that while Cathay charges similarly to BA on LHR-HKG-LHR routes, all of the other carriers offer radically reduced fares due to having to make connections. Also, keep in mind that it is the total system revenue that is taken into account versus only the sector by sector view. This means that one pax traveling to HKG as a final destination may be worth more than one who is connecting to DPS. Nonetheless, the amount of competition of lower fares for the mainland carriers is quite fierce; therefore, simply raising the fares won't do anything but exacerbate the revenue issue.

There is a fundamental problem that CX faces, but it won't be solved by an a-380 or by slightly raising fares. Let me clarify that last part: you cannot just raise fares with such high competition without doing something to the product. The a-380 would be a change to the product, but due to its high operating cost the resulting rise in revenue would be offset.

But I have been wrong before.

[broadband circuit]

you cannot just raise fares with such high competition without doing something to the product.

Agreed!!!

As this all began with a debate about management crying about the difficult challenges we face, let's take a 10 year re-cap of the product "evolution", and the results of the short term outlook of managers lloking to secure this year's bonus:


- Cabin crew are an integral part of the "product", yet we've seen a continual degredation of conditions for them.

Although it will never be admitted, the recruitment profile has changed to attract enough people at the new package. Sure, there are some very good ones there, but averaged overall, the standard of applicant is lower than ever. Next time you go flying, ask the hourly paid crew about their package. It will shock you! Comments on another thread about if you doubled their pay, they'd still complain are correct, because it'll still be the same employees. Things need to start at the entry level with higher standards.

We used to market ourselves as an International Airline with a Chinese flavour, which was (and still can be) unique. However, as a result of the draconian cost cutting, for about 8 or 9 years, there was no non-HK recuitment. Nothing against the Honkees, but we started to lose our diversity, and drifted towards looking like another mainland carrier every day. Thankfully, someone deided a few years ago to start recruiting outside HK again. BUT, in a "brilliant" moment, they decided to give these non-HK crew 7 years of housing. So, at the end of that 7 year period, many (not all) will probably leave, diluting the long-term diversity and experience pool of the crew.

- Cabin product is no doubt a major selling point, but look at the ongoing debacles with ours.

At least 3 attempts to get a "new" business class. Each time they tout how good it is in intra-CX, yet they've been a total disaster, and at how much cost??? $$$$$$$$$$$

It seems that they might have got it right on this latest one, time will tell.

Economy "shell" seats. Good in theory, but not very comfotable on anything other than a regional sector.

P-EY, basically using the old regional business class style seat. Bit early to tell, but it seems feed back is mixed, at best.

IFE, what a disaster. No IFE on the ground, in fact nothing until about 20 minutes after take-off, and then nothing for the final 20 minutes on descent. I know the cabin is being secured for landing, but premium passengers get to watch IFE on the ground with other airlines

And the reliability of the IFE systems is very patchy. Come on guys, in this modern day worls of solid-state electrical devices, surly you can find a more reliable system. In fact, some of the regional fleet are still fitted with a bank of VCR tape player. Who the hell still uses those??? No wonder IFE is poor.

- Cockpit crew are still one of the major marketing factors for CX, yet look at the way our conditions have deteriorated over the past years. Very occasional raises, nowhere near the inflation rate, although, according to management, our increments are our pay raise. Reduced benefits for new joiners - experienced expats on local terms, and bonded for 6 years. Lets see what happens in 6 years when they have about 1000 hrs in the right seat of a widebody. The concept of 0 hour local cadets (ie HKID card holders) being on some sort of local package makes sense, but to exend that philosophy across the board makes the short term balance sheet look good, but the long term detriment to the experience pool is devastating.

- Treatment of customers is key to a service business like ours, so someone in an office has decided that OTP is the god to which we should all bow, and use as a metric of our customer performance. Yes, OTP is important to the customer, but having ground staff get the last few passengers to run down the air-bridge is not only a safety issue, but what sort of image does it give of the company??

So, to summarize, in a competitive market in a service industry, you need a top notch product. CX's overall product has taken a downward slide for many years - death by a thousand paper cuts.

For years, long-term staff (such as pilots) have been predicting that the people who've earned big bonuses for short-term savings won't be here when the real effects bear fruit. I'm pretty sure that messers Turnbull, Chen & Tyler are no longer with CX

So, next time JS and the managers start bemoaning the fact that premium traffic is down, let's suggest that they seek a repayment back to the company of the bonuses given for the decisions that have lead us here.

[Captain Dart]

I've posted this once and I'll post it again. When I joined CX more years ago than I care to remember, even the advertising included, 'our flight attendants come from (then) ten different Asian lands'.

Under subsequent CEO's the airline has endured, particularly P.C., it became 'Mong Kok Airways'. Within three hours' flying of two thirds of the planet's population, the airline still identifies itself with a pimple on the backside of China that boasts 7 million people. The poor standard of some HKG cabin crews' English has to be experienced to be believed.

A friend of mine regularly commutes on Emirates. Their J class is light-years ahead of CX's offering. How can CX compete with their 'anytime' menu service, just like a restaurant, and their A380's walk-up bar?

And when I joined the airline mainly recruited highly experienced pilots, and paid and managed them properly (and guess what? They'd 'help out' on the occasional G Day).

To mix metaphors, the death of a thousand paper cuts is bringing some chickens home to roost.

[Cpt. Underpants]

Any amount of A380's won't solve a thing...

We have systemic issues beyond a shiny new hull and revamped uniforms.

Besides, WHEN (not IF - dang, I'm beginning to sound like monster330) the depression comes, they will be a huge liability and they'll be a dime a dozen at Marana...

[Freehills]

Agree, the CX business model is under attack, by LCC in the region & by Gulf carriers for West bound traffic.

US carriers have adapted, and are now profitable. AF/KL & LH are also now going through the pain. At some point, it will be CX turn to either adapt, or wither away/ get bought by someone with deeper pockets (Air China being main candidate)

Frankly, I'm astounded that Swire have persevered in such a bad/ tough industry for so long. More sensible people would have sold out to Air China long ago, and built more shopping malls...

[SMOC]

0 hour local cadets (ie HKID card holders) being on some sort of local package makes sense,

Out of interest what should a 100hr expat get?

[Captain Dart]

...not a job with Cathay Pacific.

[broadband circuit]

Out of interest what should a 100hr expat get?

...not a job with Cathay Pacific.

Says it all. That's not the recruiting profile we want or need.

However, to answer you in full, if a local HKID card holder has 100 hrs, then he/she would be recruited as a full ab initio student, ie as if they had 0 hrs.

[SMOC]

Says it all. That's not the recruiting profile we want or need.

That may be true but times have changed (for worse I agree) airlines no longer care about experience, pprune is littered with post from guys with thousands of hours unable to get a job because of ab initio pilots and pay to fly. I know military pilots leaving aviation because they can't compete with the afore mentioned new joiners or accepting life desk jobs in the military.

And you know what our ab initio or cadet pilots will do after their 6yr bond.

They'll stay exactly where they are because guess who they'll be competing against.

Younger version of themselves willing to be paid little to nothing for a foot in the door.

I'm afraid until the day where seniority is chucked out the door (which will never happen) and experienced pilots can leave for higher pay or better conditions/lifestyle will the cycle be broken.

[Flying Mechanic]

I am surprised CX has not gone down the pay to fly road, would be a accountants dream. Thankfully in the corporate world the owner wants a minimum of 3000 hrs in the right seat, and 6000 in the left. As for fare paying pax, they have no idea who is up the front.

[Yeager]

FM,

Yup. :ok:

The punters in comm's just want a cheap ticket :D