PPruNe advertises CX IFALPA ban

[Alpha Leader]

Since quite recently, an advertising banner has appeared on this site for the IFALPA ban on recruitment at CX.

If you click for the facts you get no facts, just a reminder that there is a ban in place in support of some sacked pilots.

It's a pity the HKAOA still does not have the PR nous to explain its position and its objectives. It makes you wonder whether their officials are spending too much time at the pub located in the same building as their office:D

[6feetunder]

What more do you need? The position and objectives are pretty obvious.

[HotDog]

Alpha Leader, it's a pity you haven't been following the developments in this dispute which has been going on for the last eight months or so. However, not your fault. You can't be expected to voice an informative opinion in the short time you've been around in this forum. What's the weather like in China?

[Alpha Leader]

hot dog + 6feetunder:

Check out the many other threads about the ban and you will see that no one - not even HKAOA members - can coherently argue what their grievances are.

In fact, in one posting, an apparently very senior guy complained about not being able to spend Christmas at home with this family due to current rostering practices.

Do you really believe that this sort of frivolous whining about individual comfort levels is going to earn the HKAOA any support?

It's time the HKAOA either stated its grievances and objectives on not more than one A4 page or simply went away.

Asking pilots in serious need of a job to give CX a miss just because some daddy didn't get home for Xmas is unionism at its worst - sounds like the British car workers in the 60s!

And what's more hot dog: you will see from this forum that there are quite a number of ex-Ansett guys interested in joining CX. Regardless of the merits of the ban itself, it is obscene that the Aussie tax payer would then be supporting unemployed pilots who otherwise could be earning a decent living with CX.


:p

[HotDog]

Alpha Leader, you obviously can not grasp the issues. Very difficult unless you are earning your living as aircrew. Maybe you'll find your answers at : http://bbs.hkalpa.org/public/default.htm

[Alpha Leader]

Hot Dog:

Thanks for the thread - seen it before. Point is, if the HKAOA can't put their grievances and objectives on a piece of A4 paper (it's called an Executive Summary), then no one is going to bother reading minor details such as "49ers are given repatriation flights in Y class instead of C or J". Do you really think anyone gives a hoot about their creature comforts?

Once and for all: either the issues are sufficiently serious to call a strike - or they're not. Since there is no strike, the issues are obviously minor, and the IFALPA ban is totally unwarranted.

As has been put forward so many times in this forum: the credibility of the HKAOA and IFALAP went out of the window when no upgrade ban was implemented.

[411A]

...as the old stand-up comic, Rodney Dangerfield, has said many times......"just can't get no respect".
Fits the HKAOA to a tee.;)

[Wizofoz]

HKAOA "Will support the applications of pilots who respect the ban." Meaning? If management offers a settlement that does not include hiring people who have turned down jobs, but gets some or all of the 49ers jobs back, what will the HKAOA do? Turn it down? My suspicion is "Support" involves a heartfelt thankyou, then back to the dole queue...

[PicMas]

Maybe they will implement a recruitment ban in support of those that turned down a job offer?!?

[HIALS]

As an uninvolved person, I am trying hard to see both sides of this story.

What often strikes me is not WHAT people say but rather HOW they say it. Sometimes posts are almost breathlessly indignant. Suspiciously so.

I am reminded of Shakespeares famous line - me thinks the lady doth protest too much.

In the case of Alpha Leader, I am suspicious of the point you make about some supposed daddy who didn't get home for Xmas. Why would you want to characterise more than a thousand individuals in such a demeaning and trivialised way? I suspect it is in order to salve your guilty or confused conscience. Because, if you didn't have reason to do so, then I doubt you would stoop to such shallow and simplistic definitions.

[Lerxt]

It seem that some here have absolutely no idea what is going on. Or they work for Freehills...

http://bbs.hkalpa.org/public/49ers.htm

[Wizofoz]

Lerxt,

I have looked at the thread, read the banner, even sent a query to HKAOA and recieved a reply.

The constant thread is justification of the ban in terms of how badly Cathay managment has treated it's employees. This is not in dispute. The sacking of the 49ers is beneath contempt.

What is in dispute, and has never to my mind been satisfactorily explained is why the HKAOA has put the ENTIRE burden of industrial action on the shoulders of potential new recruits, many of whom are either unemployed or at the bottom rung of the aviation food chain.

None of us need to know how hard done by you are. We understand and recognise that. What we want to know is why you persist with an ineffective strategy which just creates more victims (either because they turned Cathay down, or because they took jobs and will be victimised by you!!) and will not achieve your aims.

Complaining about your lot will not improve it. Either take effective action, or, if it is the best available iption, live with the situation as it stands.

[Alpha Leader]

HIALS:

The reason I mentioned that "daddy" is because that is precisely the point one of the more senior CX guys raised in one of the (too) many threads in this forum when complaining about the current rostering practices.

This dispute is not about the threat of looming unemployment, or about any serious safety issues. It's about personal comfort levels, and thus frivolous.

Again, HIALS: if the issues were really serious, there would be a strike. As there is no strike, the issues cannot be serious - it's axiomatic. Therefore, there are no grounds for a recruitment ban and, thus, for throwing around terms such as "scab".

That, HIALS, is stooping to the lowest level - in fact, we have here so-called professionals using terminology that might befit wharfies (incidentally another group whose causes have more to do with preserving privileges rather than anything else).

Incidentally, I also notice that your purported date of joining PPruNe goes back to long before this forum existed, let alone you had access to the internet.....:o

[Daxon]

Alpha Leader

The senior guy you refer to I believe might just be telling the odd porkie.

Please re-read the "What about the senior guys" thread of several days back to get the idea.

Thank you.

[Alpha Leader]

Thank you for the reminder, Daxon. It was indeed TTM who brought up the "home for Xmas" issue.

[HIALS]

:confused:

Alpha Leader - you are showing your ignorance here son. The date of joining PPRuNe (registered date) is controlled by PPRuNe Towers. Whilst it's obvious (gee you're sooo observant) I didn't start reading this forum in 1969 - I had no input into that date whatsoever.

I guess that some time ago when they updated to a new software program, a lot of us oldies got some sort of default date. Look around, you'll see lot's of others with the same date. I like to think of us as the original PPRuNers.

What I can tell you is that I've been reading PPRuNe for more than 7 years. So please don't try to talk down to me.

Now, back to the matter at hand.

I repeat that you are too strident by far on this subject. You are too quick to grasp the simplistic device of assuming that more than a thousand pilots will lash their careers to protecting privilege. It's suspicious to me that you want it so conveniently cut and dried. They are greedy, self-interested and trivial. You are right, correct and will be vindicated...???

I for one don't believe the world to be such a straight forward place.

[jumpseat]

From ALPA's "Airline Pilot" publication April/June 2002.
https://www.alpa.org/internet/alp/2002/May-June_2002/may-june2002p20.html

Return to Hong Kong—Four Decades Later

Being treated like an international celebrity is fun.

When Capt. John "Curly" Culp of Delta asked if I would talk to the Cathay Pacific pilots, who were "great fans" of my books, I agreed. Talk’s mostly what professors do.

So on March 9, my wife Elaine and I touched down in Hong Kong for the first time in 39 years. In 1963, we spent a week of R&R there, courtesy of Uncle Sam.

A pilot with a classic Australian accent (nameless because of the climate of intimidation) escorted us to the Hong Kong Marco Polo Hotel. We needed rest after United’s nonstop flight from O’Hare (which is billed the world’s longest).

Recovering from jet lag by doing touristy things, we took a day trip to the city formerly known as Canton (something we couldn’t do when it was behind the Bamboo Curtain) and tried to watch the harbor again from the Peninsula Hotel bar in Kowloon. But new construction built on landfill now blocks that once-famous view.

Air pollution is serious. The view from atop the Victoria Peak Tramway was smog-obscured throughout February, raising news media alarm over its effect on tourism. The smog comes from mainland China, where pollution controls on industry do not exist.

Cathay Pacific’s pilots mostly live in the expatriate community on Lantau Island, far enough out to lessen the effect on their children’s health, a little. Even if IFALPA had not banned pilot recruitment at Cathay Pacific, I would warn any pilot with children about accepting a job there.

The Cathay Pacific pilot group is an extraordinarily capable bunch, likeable, gregarious, "shrimps on the barbie" types. They’re well-read and articulate, interested in history generally, not just ALPA’s.

The radicalization they’ve undergone resembles the similar awakening of United’s pilots in the 1980s and Delta’s in the 1990s. Cathay Pacific’s pilots are quick to draw parallels between Frank Lorenzo and David Turnbull, the "Swire Prince" whose assault on their wages and working conditions has destroyed what was once the premier pilot job in Asia. A "Swire Prince" is a "comer" in that corporation’s fiercely anti-union executive ranks.

During two lengthy "focus groups" with Cathay Pacific’s pilots, I was amazed at their knowledge of ALPA’s history. Comparisons of Lorenzo and Turnbull prefaced many questions. "Why do they do these things, so unnecessary and counterproductive?" was the recurrent theme. This rhetorical lament has a long history, as does the puzzling behavior of managers whom Cathay Pacific pilots call "pilot haters."

Why can’t the Lorenzos and Turnbulls of the world learn that warring on pilots, the most cooperative, management-oriented unionized workers in the world, is unwise? Did Lorenzo’s destruction of ALPA at Continental benefit him? Continental’s back in ALPA, and Lorenzo is disgraced—gone like Eastern, thanks to his own incompetence, documented by the bankruptcy court.

Many Cathay Pacific pilots are Aussie refugees from Ansett Airlines. In 1989, Ansett broke its pilots’ union. Cathay Pacific’s pilots are aware of the similarities between Sir Peter Abeles and Frank Lorenzo, between Prime Minister Bob Hawke and the senior George Bush. Management "won" both disputes, but with the same result. Ansett ceased to exist in February 2002, despite its nonunion pilot force. History repeating itself again—first as tragedy, then as farce.

Perhaps history’s "lesson" is that any manager who can’t find common ground with pilots, who have far more at stake in the success of their airlines than any manager ever will, cannot successfully manage an airline under any circumstance—unionized or not. Call it a "marker for failure," and you’re not far off the truth.

After meeting with nearly 200 Cathay Pacific pilots and their families, I’m more than ever convinced that Capt. Merle "Skip" Eglet (Northwest, Ret.) was right when he said: "If I live to be a hundred, I’ll never understand why Lorenzo did the things he did."

Cathay Pacific’s pilots are no closer to understanding Turnbull.—GH

[Alpha Leader]

HIALS:

Glad to hear you've been around for seven + years, makes two of us :D as I changed handle when moving to new server.


As to the matter in hand:

The world is, indeed, not a straightforward place, which is why the tactics of the HKAOA and its members are reprehensible. In particular, it is disturbing to see that a union that does not have the guts to call a strike then tries to enforce a recruitment ban (but, of course, not an upgrade ban) and then is quite happy to sit back an let its members - in this very forum - use the term "scab", which is a derisory word for "strikebreaker".

This leads to either of two possible conclusions: either those using this term are ignorant of its meaning, which would cast alarming doubt on the language proficiency of flightdeck crews - or the term is being knowingly used in an unwarranted way, which casts equally alarming doubts on the character profiles of flightdeck crews.

The point at which the word "scab" entered this forum is when overly simplistic (and aggressive, I should add) views began to surface.

[HotDog]

Alpha Leader, I'm surprised you are unaware of the Hong Kong Labour ordinace that stipulates that strikes are only allowed outside working hours or with the sanction of the company affected. In other words, for all practical purposes a strike is a non starter. Since you have such a ready opinion on everything that doesn't concern you, I am sure you would be proud to elaborate on your username of Alpha Leader. Were you a Colonel in the PC-7 team at Duebendorf or perhaps a Lt. Colonel with Patrouille Suisse? Personally, I doubt if you were aircrew or you wouldn't be so bloody negative about Cathay pilots.

[Alpha Leader]

Hi Hot Dog:

As a CX shareholder I think I have every right to be interested in this topic.

I am, however, surprised that you are unaware of Article 27 of the Basic Law, which - among other items - guarantees the right to join trade unions and to strike.

Are we talking about the same Hong Kong?

In any case, there are precedents (I think going back to the early 90's when CX F/As went on strike).

But again, we come back to the fundamentals: HK is not a union-friendly territory, and anyone who feels they are not getting a good deal can get out.

[HotDog]

I am not a lawyer but familiar with Article 27. However I am led to believe that unsanctioned strike action is prohibited.


Article 18
Freedom of association

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in the International Labour Organization Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize as it applies to Hong Kong.

"The Right to Organize as it applies to Hong Kong."

In any case, surely you would not welcome an outright strike as a CX shareholder, in spite of your suggestion of such an action in one of your previous posts?

By the way, you failed to answer my question regarding your lofty title of ALPHA LEADER ,or should that be Top Dog?:D

[Cypher]

What does a nick name have to do with a dispute between pilots, HKAOA, IFALPA, Cathay and God only knows who else?

:(

[Kaptin M]

Without detracting from, or trivialising, the debate between Hot Dog and Alpha Leader/Top Dog - I must admit that as an F/O, and later a junior captain, I EXPECTED (that) the senior Captain(s) would qualify to have Christmas with their family (or families - as is often the case by the time many reach Command staus), having missed out on that priviledge in the junior years.

Understandably, this type of psyche is foreign to the 9-5'ers, who are home EVERY night, week-end, and public holiday(s) with their wife and kids, and who DREAM of having a few nights AWAY from their marital bliss.
Countless stories abound from the cabin crew (male and female), confirm that the "office-bound" Johnnys/Jackies actively chase those they PERCIEVE offer them their best shot at playing the "misunderstood and lonely".

Pathetic, really, that something that is looked upon as a QUALITY by the majority of people- spending time with one's family - is publically derided on this forum, by mis-management!! :(

[Alpha Leader]

Kaptin M:

Good point. We obviously all wish to be with our families during times of special holidays, be it Xmas (or Chinese New Year in this part of the world). However, as in all lines of business, climbing the ladder (and the compensation scale) can also bring with it additional demands on time.

I've spent Xmas away from home on more than one occasion (and, in place of more junior employees) on business without harbouring ill feelings towards my company. It comes with the territory.

The issue I have with the "Xmas at home" grievance is that it is inevitably perceived by both management and the public at large as a minor one. CX pilots are considered to be in one of the higher income brackets as far as HK remuneration scales go. If there are serious grievances, then the HKAOA should air those - and only those. By adding "comfort issues" (and I include "Xmas at home" as well as "repatriation by Y class instead of J or C class") to their list of gripes, the HKAOA will never succeed in winning any support from the public, from bystanders and from shareholders, like myself. Invoking a recruitment ban to support such intangible demands is way OTT and frivolous at best, disingenuous at worst.

Cypher:

I apologize for the apparent hijacking of the thread with regard to the identity probe you refer to.

[HIALS]

Alpha Leader - as a shareholder you should be expending some of your considerable vernacular as well as your obviously free time, writing to CX management.

You should be imploring them to engage in sensible staff management practices in order to resolve the crisis of confidence that exists between themselves and their aircrew.

The management of CX is perceived as remote, autocratic and out of touch by the flight crew. This is the root cause of all the CX problems.

The matter at hand is merely a manifestation of the root cause.

If the Management at CX, and the shareholders, took a broader view and considered the stakeholders position, rather than simply the narrow shareholders, maybe things would improve.

[shortly]

I have enjoyed this thread. I must agree that the trivialisation of the 'dispute' is very counter productive for the AOA. The loss of the 49ers is the only real issue. The moving of some conditions from contract to company publications is entirely legal and with precedent both here and overseas. The right to then amend these is obviously implicit. With regard to the Basic Law in Hong Kong. I took advice from a legal friend, quite senior and current in constitutional law, naturally this was over a few cold ones - but not that many. From him, Article 27 of the basic law is explicit in allowing strike action in Hong Kong here it is in full. 'Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press and of publication; freedom of association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike'. He was very interested in Article 18 as detailed by Hot Dog in that it doesn't exist. Dis-information perhaps? Article 18 details that the Basic Law as outlined in that document will be in force. It states that National laws (mainland China) shall not be applied in Hong Kong, other than those listed in Annex III to that document. It states categorically that laws listed in Annex III shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of the autonomy of the Region as specified by this law (the Basic Law). He outlined several examples of strike action taken in Hong Kong. He further emphasised the strength of the Basic Law using the Falun Gong as an example. Caution though, even though strike action is allowed under the Basic Law, labour laws however would allow, legally, an employer to dismiss within contractual boundaries, any employee who strikes without stating that the strike act was the reason for dismissal. For us that means three months notice or pay in lieu.
I guess it boils down to whether there is really a grievance or not (other than the 49ers) and whether or not the action in place by the AOA is proving effective, which it clearly is not.
I have stated elsewhere and continue to believe that the only way ahead with a possibility of getting some 49ers back is by a change of committee of the AOA, a drop of all activity against the company and a cessation of the ludicrous ban.

[HotDog]

Shortly, I was refering to The Bill of Rights, Article 18. I should have made that clear but it really doesn't matter as you rightly state, that strike action would probably result in dismissal. Alpha Leader has been clamoring for an explanation for the lack of strike action, so there you go. Apart from that, the Pilot body lack the wharfie mentality, so it just wouldn't be a starter.

[mole]

I really don't want to get involved in arguing with anyone on this forum. There are clearly two sides with no space for any opinions which fall in between. However, I do want to ask shorty where he gets the authority to state:

"The moving of some conditions from contract to company publications is entirely legal and with precedent both here and overseas"

Is he an authority on the law in Hong Kong and every other jurisdiction overseas?

I would suggest that a contract is a legally binding document and cannot be changed without the agreement of all parties to that contract.

Time will tell of course, as this specific point will be addressed by the Hong Kong legal system in September.

[Alpha Leader]

Posting HK Bill of Rights, Article 18, in its entirety, without further comment:

Article 18

Freedom of association


(1) Everyone shall have the right to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the protection of his interest.

(2) No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those which are prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security or public safely, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on members of the armed forces and of the police in their exercise of this right.

(3) Nothing in this article authorizes legislative measures to be taken which would prejudice, or the law to be applied in such a manner as to prejudice, the guarantees provided for in the International Labour Organization Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize as it applies to Hong Kong.

[FlexibleResponse]

Shortly said:
Caution though, even though strike action is allowed under the Basic Law, labour laws however would allow, legally, an employer to dismiss within contractual boundaries, any employee who strikes without stating that the strike act was the reason for dismissal. For us that means three months notice or pay in lieu.
It’s ironic to observe that “shortly” of all the protagonists, finally seems to have provided an acceptable answer to the vexed question posed by Alpha Leader. Namely, “that the union that does not have the guts to call a strike”.

Dare one assume that Alpha Leader’s posting of Article 18 and his lack of further comment means that he has finally accepted the reality of big business and the law as practiced in Hong Kong?

Meanwhile, judging from all the fur and feathers flying, the AOA’s advertising on PPRune of the IFALPA Recruiting Black Ban at CX, seems to have been extraordinarily successful.

[ironbutt57]

The point is often missed /ignored by union pilots, because their union leadership is not clever enough to design campaigns that not only support the cause of the folks involved in the labor dispute, but also include the potential strike-breakers as "moral supporters" so as to minimize the potential of unemployed/ ga pilots crossing a picket line, or otherwise....the historic tactic of the union, has always been, once embroiled in a dispute, to threaten, name call, harass, etc. etc. pilots on the outside, instead of devising/implementing a campaign that would discourage strike breaking in a positive note, with presentations, adverts, presenting facts, and REAL reasons the dispute is in the best interests of ALL piloting careers. Lorenzo, Ferris, E.L. Cord, the names go on and on,new ones replace old ones (and they get worse) and the inability of the unions to gain support from the flying public has waned as well, as disputes have shifted from safety campaigns, to money-grabbing exercises by the unions (deserved or not).....the recruitment ban is about the most hypocritical I've seen in 24 years of flying, (watched lots of strikes from a bystander's viewpoint)....even good old ALPO took care of the United newhires in '85....got 'em in the door, then out on the line....and won their jobs and seniority in court.....AoA ban? but still accept commands?.then tough **** we can't help you? .good grief...you guys are an embarrasment.

[6feetunder]

Emabarrassment to who? You? Where do you work?

[ironbutt57]

It's an embarrasment to any pilot with a modicum of common sense....CX management, and others as well must be laughing their hiney's off....:confused: :(

[6feetunder]

And you work where?

[Alpha Leader]

FlexibleResponse:

Welcome to the debate.

My posting of BOR Article 18 was simply in response to some fragments of it having been posted by others in order to explain away HKAOA's reluctance to call a strike.

Striking is not illegal in HK, period. You can now make up your own mind why we have an IFALPA recruitment ban, no upgrade ban, and no strike.

[FlexibleResponse]

Well it seems that we have agreement on the following:

1 Striking is not illegal in HK, period; but
2 Sacking an employee for Striking is also not illegal in HK, period.

Therefore, it wouldn’t seem advisable for the HKAOA to recommend Strike action to its members.

I am sure we also have agreement that the HKAOA’s advertising on PPRune of the IFALPA Recruiting Black Ban at CX is legal in HK, period.

Someone has previously stated that an upgrade ban would cause CX management to retaliate by recruiting direct entry Captains and First Officers.

I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.

So, what other tactics can the Professional Pilots on this forum suggest that the HKAOA carry out that are also legal?

[HotDog]

Precisely! Chew on this one for a while, Alpha Leader.

[Alpha Leader]

Hot Dog:

It means one thing - and one thing only:

Conditions at CX are not sufficiently bad for most to contemplate leaving the company voluntarily or, in the event of a strike, by being fired.

Evidence 1: no strike.
Evidence 2: plenty of applicants waiting in line (with attempts to scare them off via a ban).
Evidence 3: we're all happy to take upgrades at the cost of sacked colleagues (but we don't want newcomers joining us at the trough)

Why is an airline different from any other commercial operation? If you have employees in your company constantly moaning about their working conditions and remuneration, the logical advice you'd give them is to either shut up and get on with their jobs, or to leave.

[FlexibleResponse]

Alpha Leader said:
Why is an airline different from any other commercial operation?
Alpha, you have a lot of Airline Pilots and Airline Management chaps raising their eyebrows over this statement.

Rather lets the cat out of the bag, old chap.

[Alpha Leader]

FlexibleResponse:

I understand your comment from the point of view of passion one might have for flying, but we are talking about an industrial dispute where, rightly or wrongly, the commercial realities are the main focus. Particularly in Hong Kong, the language is $$$$.

[FlexibleResponse]

Nope. You don't understand my comment at all.

The noose was loosened little and instead of pulling your head out, you just stuck it in further.

[southflyer]

Flex says:
Well it seems that we have agreement on the following:
1 Striking is not illegal in HK, period; but
2 Sacking an employee for Striking is also not illegal in HK, period.

I think:
That seems like a couple of fair statements!

Flex says:
I am sure we also have agreement that the HKAOA’s advertising on PPRune of the IFALPA Recruiting Black Ban at CX is legal in HK, period.

I say:
Really??, does IFALPA encourage its members to discriminate against other pilots? That sounds wrong...I hope my dues are not being spent on that! What a waste.

Flex says:
Someone has previously stated that an upgrade ban would cause CX management to retaliate by recruiting direct entry Captains and First Officers.

Aha, I say:
So what you are really worried about is your position on the roster, he??

FleX says:
I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.

I say:
Would you care to expand onthis point..., it just does not seem to make any sense.

Flex says:
So, what other tactics can the Professional Pilots on this forum suggest that the HKAOA carry out that are also legal?

EASY: Pick on someone your own size! Eating the young is not going to make you stronger, or more Professional, like you say, for that matter.

[HotDog]

FleX says:
I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.

I say:
Would you care to expand onthis point..., it just does not seem to make any sense.

Southflyer, had you bothered to read and digest this entire thread, it would have made a lot of sense to you.

[Alpha Leader]

FR:

Then you may wish to explain your comment. As it stands, you clearly do not view an airline as a commercial operation.

:confused:

[southflyer]

PerroCaliente,

Perhaps you can explain it better then...

This dispute is between CX management and HKAOA.

You have not been able to reach an agreement.

Instead of making new friends to help you in your dispute, you choose, with the support of world wide union power, to start a crusade against your own peers?? Still does not make sense to me...

Don't hate your enemies, it impairs your judgement.

[Kaptin M]

"So, what other tactics can the Professional Pilots on this forum suggest that the HKAOA carry out that are also legal?"

You could try sticking to your ORIGINAL plan of flying strictly by the O.M. - however, what's the point in doing that, when just yesterday I (again) heard a CX aircraft [CX531 ?] request, and these were his precise words "Request ANY direct tracking". Unfortunately for him, none was available.

[FlexibleResponse]

Alpha Leader said:

Then you may wish to explain your comment. As it stands, you clearly do not view an airline as a commercial operation.

Alpha,

Thank you for your response. I certainly do view an airline as a commercial operation. My comment was related to your question “Why is an airline different from any other commercial operation?” I was drawing you out a little to see where you were coming from and if you were pushing you own wheelbarrow or someone else’s.

As you are an aviation components specialist and CX shareholder living in Hong Kong for the last 12 years, I can appreciate your concern as to the present situation with regards the Human Resource management in Cathay Pacific. We all would like this problem to go away and get back to the business of making money and pushing the share price up the $25 level that it should be at.

The answer to your question is the seniority system that a “career airline” uses to regulate career management, financial reward and ultimately promotion of pilots within that airline. This system is unique to each airline and it is not possible to change between different airlines and retain a seniority number or even rank. The effect of this would mean that the most senior Check and Training Captain at CX who would have spent 25-30 years at CX, would only be qualified to take the most junior Second Officer position (and starting pay) at another career airline such as Qantas (assuming that QF would take such an old applicant).

It’s a bit like a company Director changing jobs and having to start again as a mail boy in the admin office. But further complicated by a numbers system that ensured that he would not become a Director again until he completed a further 10-15 years at the new company. Therefore, once a pilot has invested 5-10 years in a career airline, he becomes a career and economic conscript.

For a younger pilot with at least 15 years to go till retirement, it is possible for him to change horses and start over again, albeit with probable financial loss, and delayed career advancement. I understand that this is starting to happen at CX in that four pilots have left in the last couple of weeks. This is already a huge loss of assets for CX, which can be expressed in financial terms, and is likely to become greater.

As I assume that you are an ex Swiss Air Force Officer, I think you would enjoy reading Ernest K. Gann’s “Fate is the Hunter” which beside outlining the early days of airlines and the scourge of the seniority system, is a truly gripping true-life adventure.

Glad to have you on the team, Alpha. You are a valued and essential part of the operation, which would not function without you.

[FlexibleResponse]

Kaptin M,

Thank you for your suggestion which i will pass on.

In answer to your comment on "direct tracking" etc, the HKAOA lifted all Industrial Action in October 2001 to try and get management to talk. The mangement sat down for one meeting which went very well. Subsequently, direction came down from the highest levels of Swire that no further talks would take place.

See you on the airwaves!

[Capt PPRuNe]

FYI:

I have been in contact with the Captain of that flight (CX531) and he states categorically that no such "direct anywhere" requests were made.

[Kaptin M]

The flight I made reference to was a CX flight on Saturday evening at about 1800 Tokyo time (0900z) - it was on Tokyo Area Control frequency, either 123.9 or 120.5. Another CX aircraft came on frequency shortly (within 5 minutes) after the "Request ANY direct tracking" was made by the first CX aircraft.
So if it wasn't CX531 (and I apologise if I have made a mistake there), then it was the other aircraft.

No "if's, but's" or "maybe's", that was the PRECISE terminology used!

[Alpha Leader]

FR:

Thank you for your most recent posting. I now understand your point of view with the concerns you have regarding the seniority system.

Up to 25 or so years ago, almost all types of companies in all industries used the seniority system for promotion, particularly in Central Europe and (to some extent even now) in Asia. Life-long employment and loyalty was, in many companies, a given.

Managers and employees at all levels and in all types of industries have had to come to terms with the fact that the premise under which they started their careers 20 years ago have changed fundamentally.

If I look at our operations, we have moved more than 70% of all manufacturing jobs from Europe and the US over the last 10 years, first (unsuccessfully to Indonesia) and now (very successfully to South China). The manufacturing jobs we could not and cannot move are the ones linked to defence contracts in the US and in Europe. For those middle and senior managers fortunate enough to have been offered positions in Asia, the intangible benefits have changed dramatically; you’re not a mere hour from a ski-ing slope or a surfing beach any more. Family life and social life are no longer the same. And some, indeed, did not take up the offer of change and chose to seek out other opportunities, including graduates who had borrowed money for their tertiary education. Not all of them managed to find positions with identical or better seniority (and the respective remuneration levels), as their market value might have gone down.

But if we had managers here at our operations in Southern China that had transferred out and were now incessantly complaining about the downside out here, we would ask them to leave, as the effect on morale would be unacceptable, and we could and would hire replacements, quite possibly with significantly lower remuneration packages.

At CX, there are conceivably a number of pilots who regret being with the company now. At an earlier point in time, a number of up and coming airlines would have welcomed each and every CX captain, f/o and s/o on a direct entry basis and with a reasonable package. Now, there are very few choices, if any at all.

My point is that every industry, including aviation, is undergoing massive changes that can impact financially as well as on lifestyle, and the market value of a particular profession can go up and down.

But when it goes down, does that entitle you to industrial action? Some may argue in favour of that, but then you should go through with it and not abandon the high moral ground, which is precisely what the HKAOA has done. Facing the economic reality that most of the current pilots would be unable to find similar packages anywhere else, striking is an option that has studiously been avoided, even after mass sackings. Instead, HKAOA members have no inhibitions to accept upgrades, yet ask other pilots – many of them unemployed and clearly of the opinion that the packages currently on offer at CX are not that bad – not to join CX.

You could conduct a poll today in Hong Kong, and no more than 5% of respondents would have any idea what the HKAOA is actually campaigning for. Read the document published on their website, and it’s full of trivial and frivolous complaints. It lost the PR battle long ago, not only because CX pilots continue to be viewed by the public at large as being in a privileged remuneration bracket on the one hand and clearly no one is at risk of losing employment due to mass retrenchment on the other. If this view is wrong, then the HKAOA has work to do to prove the contrary; however, given the current recruitment drive for 350 pilots, this would be a tough call.

With no strike, no upgrade ban, and a recruitment ban, the HKAOA has also lost the high moral ground. (You can even see from the poll at this very site that it has a backing of just under 30%, and I would guess that figure would be significantly lower among the wider population).

As a CX shareholder who bought in at the IPO, I certainly do not wish to see my investment diminished. However, it’s time to call the HKAOA’s bluff. You cannot whine for years on end without losing your credibility.

I’m grateful to you for your stimulating comments, FR. I’ve tried to put my thoughts on no more than one A4 page and hope they come across reasonably concise. I’m enjoying this thread very much thanks to input such as your own.

(Many thanks for your book recommendation; I managed to read a review on the internet and shall order the book – looks like great reading!). Cheers

[FlexibleResponse]

Dear Alpha,

I am loath to reply to your comments, as I am deeply suspicious of your motivations and true intent of your posting on this forum. But, on the off chance that you are the genuine part number rather than a bogus spare, I will give it a try.

The Director of Flight Operations recently confirmed in a letter to HKAOA that CX was indeed a career airline for pilots and intended to remain that way. Therefore the first part of your reply, while of passing interest, is not applicable to CX.

The second part of your reply relates to the HKAOA not winning the PR war with the Hong Kong public. The HKAOA does not have a problem with the Hong Kong public. The HKAOA does have a problem with CX management. But, CX management now has an international problem with labour relations.

Due to conflicting evidence and too slick presentation, the Hong Kong mass media has become rather circumspect about any CX press releases regarding its dealings with its employees. Additionally, CX pushed the extent of the economic fallout following 11 Sep very forcefully. Recently CX suddenly reversed its position and announced that all seven parked aircraft would be returned to service and six more aircraft would be ordered in addition to the imminent deliveries of three A340-600s. This has served to deepen public suspicions about the accuracy of CX press releases.

On the other hand, the true PR battle could be measured as a factor of the CX share price. In examination of the price trends over the last year, I rather think that you will find that the Hong Kong public is a lot smarter than you give them credit for.

If indeed your basic concern is over your investment, then you might consider selling your CX shares and buying HSBC. Then buy back into CX when you hear that a resolution has been agreed between CX management and the HKAOA.

Read the book that I recommended. And then reflect on what happened at 15:28hrs on 25 May 2002, while most other souls were having tea and biscuits.

[VR-HFX]

Dear Anne Landers

Direct tracking works for me. Gets me to the Dakota earlier so I don't miss the discussions....they're a lot more interesting than the TV at the Headland.

After 20+ years it's good to see the old spirit returning. Used to be getting fired at the Aero Club was common routine...then the spirit faded.

Used to be the only sector you got was when the weather was iffy...now I'm giving them away.

Can you help me?? Should I sell my CX shares??

[HotDog]

Yes, I got fired a couple of times at the Aero Club, which as you say, was fairly routine. However, I doubt if anyone else has the distinction of being fired, totally naked in the Sandsailer jacuzzi at Palmdale by my equally naked boss! :D :D

[VR-HFX]

Yes cardinal Puff aka FLUB certainly did have his own way of imparting the naked truth as well as the odd TV toss off the balcony!!