What's the damage?

[Sam Ting Wong]

Rejecting 2.5% in 2017 could cost:

assumed average salary 120 000

20 years

capital growth 3.5 %

= 1 037 369 HK$



No increase in 2018 either:

= 2 000 543 HK$

[tiger321]

........buying ourselves a couple more years of not doing 3 man long haul.........PRICELESS!

It's not always just about $$$

[MENELAUS]

Those clowns, as you would have it, are office staff some of whom have been here in excess of 30 years; they're about to get **** canned in typical CX fashion and deserve our sympathy and respect, certainly more than you engender with this sort of horse****. I suspect very few of the pilot mangers will get culled.
And STW is not PM.

[ron burgandy]

Are you kidding me? Office staff who have been here for 30 years doing SFA. Denly don't know how a perfect example. Donald do know how did more in 6 months than his predecessor did in 4 decades.

CX city is mostly occupied by dead wood. Look at their titles; everyone is a manager or 'executive'. There's hardly any actual 'doers'.

9 floors that could and should be reduced to 2 or 3.
Lease the rest of the space and make some money......

[clear.right]

Are you kidding me? Office staff who have been here for 30 years doing SFA. Denly don't know how a perfect example. Donald do know how did more in 6 months than his predecessor did in 4 decades.

CX city is mostly occupied by dead wood. Look at their titles; everyone is a manager or 'executive'. There's hardly any actual 'doers'.

9 floors that could and should be reduced to 2 or 3.
Lease the rest of the space and make some money......

Way out of line Ron. People could be losing their jobs, and you make incredibly insensitive comments. Who knows, maybe you are next in line.

Try using a little tact, instead of being an obnoxious prat.

[Hugo Peroni the IV]

You're joking, aren't you?

Ron has it 100% spot on. There is a waste of space everywhere you look in Cathay City.....perhaps you are one too?


Way out of line Ron. People could be losing their jobs, and you make incredibly insensitive comments. Who knows, maybe you are next in line.

Try using a little tact, instead of being an obnoxious prat.

[BlunderBus]

If they were indispensable they wouldn't be going!!

[Bangaluru]

clear.right,

There's a good chance ron is one of the doers. They might have finally realised they don't need more managers and they can't afford to sack the doers. And yep, ron is absolutely correct.

[GTC58]

The first round of lay-offs starts on the 3rd week of May. 800-1200 level C and D staff.

[Zapp_Brannigan]

The first round of lay-offs starts on the 3rd week of May. 800-1200 level C and D staff.

Disgusting... Unless of course those 800-1200 staff were responsible for the 8b$ fuel hedging losses!

[clear.right]

Hear hear: Getting rid of underperforming, "cannot" mentality, bloated management is vital to a more prosperous future.

The only problem is that all those who have benefitted from the Peter Principle will be the ones deciding which of their fellow Peters will be culled.

No sympathy from me: As a group, they've done more than enough damage already, while patting each other on the back with promotions and bonuses. It will take years to unwind just a fraction of the nonsense they have created.

Time to Win!

I'm sorry, but you still don't get it....
tact - noun
skill and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
"the inspector broke the news to me with tact and consideration"
synonyms: sensitivity, understanding, thoughtfulness, consideration, delicacy, diplomacy, discretion, discernment, judgement, prudence, judiciousness, perception, subtlety, wisdom

You may also want to look up "diplomacy" and "discretion".

"They" are our fellow co-workers, who are all wondering what is going to happen to their lives. Reading you gloat on about them deserving it really makes me question your upbringing and stunning lack of empathy.

Perhaps focus your attention on the people who allowed this situation to occur, instead of the people about to pay the price.

I'm saddened that some of my fellow "professionals" are such di*ks.

[Progress Wanchai]

Disgusting... Unless of course those 800-1200 staff were responsible for the 8b$ fuel hedging losses!


And these narcissistic, incompetent fools title sacking a bunch of their own staff to pay for their own mistakes as "Time to Win".

It's perverse.
They're sick.

If they really want the respect of their peers and staff they'd resign. Until then they'll get exactly the help they deserve. None.

[Trafalgar]

Sam. If I was a management plant, I would put up posts that read exactly as yours do. If I was not a management plant, you might want to ponder what i've just said. :rolleyes:

[MENELAUS]

Absolutely right Staggers. As for Ron and his f@cktard mates, they are laying off line engineers, clerical staff, despatch staff etc etc. People who actually make the place run. Not in the least bit responsible for this current balls up. And they earn next to f'all. Probably less than the education allowances Ron and Bangalaru squander on their kids, because some arse allowed them to breed.
The fuel hedging is done. Done and dusted. A fait accompli. Get over it. Those actually responsible will never be held to account for it. In the race to slash and burn, this scorched earth policy will affect the little guy, until they come after our benefits. They already are if you happen to be an OT & P patient for example. Bailey and Jackson next ? Airport report.
Shameful. And we wonder why our profession is held in such scant regard ?

[GTC58]

Staggers and Globocnik

Level C and D staff are made redundant in May, these positions are management positions. Rumour has that level A and B staff redundancies are coming in August. Lets face it, if you compare CX to any other airline in similar size CX has nearly twice as many office employees and way too many managers. The reason why? CX never invested in IT technology. Believe it or not there are still many tasks accomplished by hand, white board and Excel. Many of the internal supporting IT systems run on MS DOS. I wonder who knows how to maintain these systems. Competing airlines running integrated IT systems, which take care of everything, even calculating individual cost indices per flight resulting in minimum total cost for the flight. Taking in consideration, crew cost, fuel burn, maintenance cost, administrative, leasing, capital cost and many more factors. There are several vendors out there offering these systems. Jeppesen is one of those vendors, however CX in their great wisdom decided to buy only one module (CMP) and will decide on the PBS system in the near future. All other modules of this system are not even considered.
The question is how many level A and B employees can be made redundant with no proper IT technology in place. It will take many years and 100's of million USD to fix the IT infrastructure. Without fixing the IT hardware and software structure CX will never be competitive in the new asian airline market place.

[mngmt mole]

GTC, what a concise summation of the tragic basket case this airline has become. It's probably too late to save it now. It will be eaten alive by the relentless competition. It's done. Stick a fork in it.

[Sam Ting Wong]

GTC's summary is everything but "concise". It's plain wrong and based on assumptions alone. Zero facts, no evidence, nothing.

Alternative facts, anyone?

1) Cathay has "nearly twice as many employees as airlines with similar size"

Singapore Airlines group revenue 15 228 $ Million S$ / total employees 21 534
= 707 160 S$ / employee or
= 3 939 296 HK$ / employee

Japan Airlines group revenue 1 344 000 Million Yen / 31 534 employees
= 42 Million yen / employee
= 2 901 847 HK$ / employee

American airlines group revenue 42,2 Billion US$ / 122 300 employees
= 345 053 US$ / employee
= 2 685 271 HK$ / employee

Cathay Pacific group revenue 92 751 Million HK$ / total employees 26 000
= 3 567 346 HK$ / employee

2) To claim " Cathay never invested in IT " is so ridiculous I won't even bother to argue.

3) The "individual cost factor" is the answer. So in other words, if we would not fly with 50 or 60, but with the correct 57,3456 we would make a huuuuuuuge profit, right? What a joke.

4) buying Jeppeson. Sure. because you like the ILS charts this MUST be a good company. Any airline without their service " will never be competitive in the Asian market". Makes total sense.

( by the way, did you notice that most of your "arguments" are somewhat related to your job, to the pilot's view. And all the problems are somewhere else. You think this is a coincidence?? )

[Sam Ting Wong]

Trafalgar,

why is my thread the product of a "management plant"?

If you and the rest would not have voted down my payrise, the company would now spend MORE on pilots then they do today.

That is a fact.

[GTC58]

GTC's summary is everything but "concise". It's plain wrong and based on assumptions alone. Zero facts, no evidence, nothing.

Alternative facts, anyone?

1) Cathay has "nearly twice as many employees as airlines with similar size"

Singapore Airlines group revenue 15 228 $ Million S$ / total employees 21 534
= 707 160 S$ / employee or
= 3 939 296 HK$ / employee

Japan Airlines group revenue 1 344 000 Million Yen / 31 534 employees
= 42 Million yen / employee
= 2 901 847 HK$ / employee

American airlines group revenue 42,2 Billion US$ / 122 300 employees
= 345 053 US$ / employee
= 2 685 271 HK$ / employee

Cathay Pacific group revenue 92 751 Million HK$ / total employees 26 000
= 3 567 346 HK$ / employee

2) To claim " Cathay never invested in IT " is so ridiculous I won't even bother to argue.

3) The "individual cost factor" is the answer. So in other words, if we would not fly with 50 or 60, but with the correct 57,3456 we would make a huuuuuuuge profit, right? What a joke.

4) buying Jeppeson. Sure. because you like the ILS charts this MUST be a good company. Any airline without their service " will never be competitive in the Asian market". Makes total sense.

( by the way, did you notice that most of your "arguments" are somewhat related to your job, to the pilot's view. And all the problems are somewhere else. You think this is a coincidence?? )

Sam Ting Wong

If you quote me, quote me correct.

I posted "CX has nearly twice as many office employees and way too many managers".

Office employees and managers! Not total employees, not pilots, not cabin crew, not airport staff, not maintenance employees. I was posting about "office employees and managers" Get it???


Your numbers of revenue generated per employee do mean nothing. The bottom line matters and if revenue is less then cost you are losing money.


As for IT technology, it clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Modern airlines have integrated IT systems, no redundant data, all departments interfaced with a free flow of information.

CX has various stand-alone systems, some are interfaced others are not, same data is stored redundant in various systems and might be updated in one system and outdated in another. Many workflows are done manually or with 25 year old MS DOS systems. Data and information of the various CX departments have limited interfaces and information flow between departments is basically non existent.

As for Jeppesen, I barely pointed out there are several vendors who sell complete Airline solutions like Amadeus, Sabre, Jeppesen and so on. I could care less if they buy a Jeppesen solution. However, I was trying to make a point that CX still does not understand the cost savings associated with a proper IT infrastructure.

I am talking about big picture here. Here is an example how an airline with a modern IT system works, from a pilots perspective.

The system is integrated, meaning it knows how many pax are on the flight, how much cargo, how much revenue was generated for this specific flight (ticket sales is part of the system or interfaced). The system is integrated into the maintenance system and knows how much maintenance will cost for this flight. It also knows if the engines and APU are leased or owned for the aircraft used for this flight. The system knows if the aircraft is owned or leased and the capital cost associated. The system knows exactly how much the cockpit and cabin crew will cost for this flight. The system is also integrated in the flight planning system. It will calculate the most cost effective solution for this flight by choosing a particular flight route and selecting the most cost effective cost index.
It might be cheaper to fly faster burn more fuel or because of winds, but save a lot of leasing and maintenance cost if the engines are powered by the hour. Or it might be cheaper to fly slower save fuel if maintenance and capital cost have a lesser factor. The system knows this as it has access to all the data. To put it in simple terms, the system tries to calculate the lowest variable cost for the airline. Administration is a fixed cost and as such factors not into these calculations.

The above is just a small area what integrated systems can do. Average time to process a crew swap request at CX? 4.8 days (processed manually by a human), with a computer solution 4 seconds.

Pattern optimizers are run several times daily at other airlines. CX will have one when CMP comes online, but the other half of this process still missing..

Productivity losses for cockpit cabin crew are huge. On the 747 fleet alone aircraft utilization losses due to aircraft sitting on the ground waiting for crew to be available was past 100 million USD last 12 months.

I could go on and on ....

CX has none of the above. All these tasks are done manually (or not at all) or by separate IT systems which are not or only limited interfaced.

BTW, I am not talking from a pilot perspective. I am talking from the position of someone who helps organizations in restructuring, analyzing and defining data model, work flows, processes and organizational hierarchy, build an appropriate IT infrastructure and as a result reduce fixed cost by several percentage points.

[Sam Ting Wong]

I am not impressed. You still have not produced any evidence, all your "arguments" are unbased assumptions.

How do you know other airlines have less "office staff" ? Can you give me the respective numbers of the Cathay group please ? And those of the competition as well, while you are at it.

The idea that some magic "integrated" IT solution is missing, while our competitors have that of course, and this would make the difference is simply proposterous. How exactly? Where? When? What IT system has Singapore Airlines please? JAL? HK Airlines?

100 000 000 USD loss on the 747, very interesting, how did you calculate that number please? Why are you so afraid of showing your data and the respective calculation?

I respect your opinion, I really do, but you need to come up with something substantial, so far I have seen nothing.

[GTC58]

STW

The 100 million USD aircraft utilization losses due to 747 sitting on ground delayed waiting for crews, I did not calculate the numbers, heard it directly from a manager.

As for the rest of my post, we can revisit this post getting closer to the end of this year.

[Sam Ting Wong]

You gotta be kidding.

[GTC58]

Not really. You will see by the number of redundancies how wrong I was.

[Brown Nose]

Sam Ting Wong stop stealing oxygen from those that deserve it more.....

[mngmt mole]

STW. You are an apologist. Again, what office are you in on the third floor? Can I call your secretary to book an appointment? I assume only Friday afternoons after 4 are available, as the rest of the week you are huddled with AT and RH planning your next transparent attempts to agitate on PPrune.

[EFIS Check]

GTC58 this is just for you and other Americans
...... "I could care less if they buy a Jeppesen solution" ........


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw


But really, I could NOT care less !


Sorry for the drift

[mngmt mole]

Haha. Thanks EFIS. One of those things in life that just bugs the heck out of me. Even top news anchors in the USA use "I could care less". No hope....

[Oval3Holer]

Sam Ting Wong, you too low, way too low.

[GTC58]

EFIS

now that's funny. Well I guess I couldn't care less from now on.

[Sam Ting Wong]

So, it's official. The pay offer from the company is ZERO.

Well, I hope those who voted down the 5 % plus HKPA , I really hope you are all proud of yourself.

Congratulations, well played.



:D:D:D

[tiger321]

That was an aoaEurope update numnuts.

[boxjockey]

If only he would move to Europe....

box

[raven11]

He's like a dog with a bone....:rolleyes:

[BlunderBus]

It wasn't JUST a 5% pay rise dickheads!! Did you even read the rest of the agenda. ??
Oh yeah southwest just gave their guys 30% backdated 3 years and a fully funded retirement that staff do NOT need to contribute to. Tell me honestly would a tiny pay rise fix the issues here? Stand there and tell me this company isn't a continuing drive downhill for its staff ?? Ask around you'll see.

[BlunderBus]

Oh yeah STW.. as an example take a look at the meaning of a 'fully dispatched airline' and see exactly what we are not when it comes to IT. Holy crap we just changed out of windows xp!!!

[BlunderBus]

Finally I know how to save 7.5 BILLION $USD.... sack the finance guys that took a naked swap on fuel !!! Didahh

[Sam Ting Wong]

It was foolish and stupid beyond belief to decline the 5 % plus HKPA increase.

I said it from the beginning and all of you hypocrites now pretend the offer was not real, the conditions not right, other airlines get more, blablabla.

The truth is:

you naively and foolishly thought you can impress the company with CC and a training ban.

Again, from the beginning I told you: this will not work.

And to add insult to injury, you guys STILL don't have a critical look at yourself, you STILL blame others for your poor judgement.

This is business! Pride, emotions, etc have no place in that entire discussion.

It was purely about choosing between A and B , but you guys continue to dream about a C that isn't on the table and never will be!

Absolutely hopeless.

[Trafalgar]

It's ok STW. History is replete with people who will sell themselves for the first shekel on offer, and principle and integrity become secondary. There is more to life than money. Apparently that is your main driving force. Rage on brother....

[Farman Biplane]

STW, it is precisely because of the previous generations of CX pilots accepting what they were given (or not given) that we are now in a position that requires some more affirmative action, hence the CC/TB support.
You imply that CC/TB will lead to our collective demise, however, most see CC/TB as a speed bump in that very same road. Buying some avoidance time in the race to the bottom is a worthwhile cost to many.

[cxorcist]

STW = Judas Iscariot, except he is selling out himself rather than Jesus. Maybe the end result will be the same???

[Bob Hawke]

STW you selfish ****. You never read nor fully understood the TA as offered. It wasn't about the money.

[Sam Ting Wong]

FB, I can assure you we have the same goal, I want better conditions as much as you do.

We just disagree on the strategy.

[Sam Ting Wong]

Ok, fair point. I will delete my post.

[Captain Dart]

I've deleted mine also. Now, don't do it again.