LAX and SFO

[GTC58]

Just heard a rumour that the California bases are under review as operating these bases might be cost prohibitive due to the current court case of some pilots vs CX.

I can't believe the rumour is true especially taking into consideration CX just onshored and negotiated a new CBA with the USAOA.

Any more info on this?

[Trafalgar]

"I can't believe this is true"..... How long have you been here...?? Let me lay this out for you: CX gets challenged by some of it's employees. CX then gets a group of psychologists and managers together to design and implement a strategy to regain the upper hand. In this case, they know that all of the other CX pilots on US bases will put pressure on the few who have launched the legal action to rescind said action (something I have heard they will not consider). CX would rather close all the bases than have their employees winning lawsuits in each jurisdiction. Even though there is a cost benefit to basing's for the company, CX cares more about 'control' than 'cost'. They would shut the bases down if they felt it helped promote their overall agenda. In case it has been missed, many basing slots have been vacated, through resignations and retirements. The company doesn't seem that interested in filling them, so you can draw your own conclusion about their end game for the basing concept. Frankly, if anyone is holding out for a base, I suggest they go to work for a company in their home country. Otherwise, you will be a poor, miserable and bitter pilot in HK on local terms. Something to look forward to. The best time to get out is always soonest....as those that leave ahead of you will be senior to you in the new airline. CX is done, and all they need to do is turn the lights out.

[Oasis]

Lawsuit is from people that already left CX, I've been told, closing a base won't actually accomplish anything.

[Natca]

Just take a look back to the dfos letter on the nyc t7 base, due to legal issues she didnt want to pursue that base. Couple that with A50 now flying to more of the usa ports and more coming you might see a copy of what happened in OZ.

[GTC58]

Lawsuit is from people that already left CX, I've been told, closing a base won't actually accomplish anything.

Not true, only one left, the other 4 are still with CX.

[Mill Worker]

Anybody want to explain in basic terms what the case is about?

[Bob Hawke]

No can not

[Average Fool]

Probably not hard to figure out.

I'm sure CX did something in the typical half-a##, arrogant fashion they always do things and someone has called them out.

Maybe the hedging team warmed up with "on shoring", or perhaps the EFB program.

Clearly winning.

[Trafalgar]

It's about overtime payments in California. Potentially VERY expensive for the company. And as you correctly surmised, it's due to CX's usual half-as*ed approach to planning, rules, laws and regulations. But we are not surprised, because we know we are blessed with the most amazing pool of management talent in the aviation industry. Just ask our fuel hedging partners :ugh:

[Progress Wanchai]

When CX was miffed about the number of ASR-F's being submitted on the PER base, they simply threatened to close the base and, voila, the problem disappeared overnight.


And what is the only Australian base to have slots opened up in the last decade?
PER of course.
The HKG based pilots couldn't be intimidated into not writing ASR-F's
QED CX style.

[GTC58]

The court documents can be found online. It is a possible class action case, if deemed class action and won by the plaintiffs it can easily exceed USD 100 million in backpay, damages and fines.

[cxorcist]

... and if that happens, the California bases, and maybe the whole US base, will be shuttered thereafter. Just like that, the US went from the base with the most growth potential to stagnation and perhaps even annihilation.

[GTC58]

I hope it does not come to that. Logic should prevent CX from trying to close the California bases due to the court case, as I am sure there would be a bunch of lawyers volunteering to take that case on contingency.

[Average Fool]

Logic has never prevented CX from doing anything, just the opposite really.

There is no legal requirement for them to have or keep a base.

[cxorcist]

They very likely will not close the bases during the litigation, but afterwards all bets are off. That could easily be many years from now, during which time US bases will wither on the vine.

[AtoBsafely]

All the more reason to go to Delta, SW, UPS, etc

[a370]

otherwise, you will be a poor, miserable and bitter pilot in HK on local terms.

Other than your fat housing( I mean mortgage allowance,) you pretty much summed up your own miserable life , winging trainer Traf😜

[Oasis]

I can't help but think that starting up lawsuits on a base can have the side-effect of the company just closing the base, if the deal isn't as good for them as before.

I wonder if the ones starting the lawsuit, discussed this with the USAOA and the potential rammifications for everyone else on the base, should things go sour.

[mngmt mole]

He may be a winging trainer, but at least he's not a management apologist cretin like yourself a370.

[Average Fool]

So which other TUs would have supported that had it been headed by the USAOA?

Or would that have been a separate "union" thing?

See the problem?

[Arfur Dent]

Sloppy due diligence and amateurish disregard of National requirements - exactly like the Paris debacle. And yet nobody is ever held to account. Don't the Swire Senior Execs in London ever intervene and at least find out why some of the Cathay leadership (sic) is basically not up to the task??

[Cpt. Underpants]

"Don't the Swire Senior Execs in London ever intervene and at least find out why some of the Cathay leadership (sic) is basically not up to the task?"

Of course not. That would be an admission of failure to perform due diligence on THEIR part. And we all know that they're never wrong.
On the subject of management incompetence, am I the only one who thinks it a little strange that 3 years AFTER being appointed a director, the DFO is off on a management course?

[betpump5]

3 years AFTER being appointed a director, the DFO is off on a management course

Be it resolved that all funds available to the AOA be used to hire the best Hacker in HKG to make the above statement the DFO's "out of office " auto reply.

[broadband circuit]

3 years AFTER being appointed a director, the DFO is off on a management course?

You mean she's actually on a management course? I thought that was just a cover story where they'd actually sent her away to get a CPL so that she meets the AOC requirement of the DFO being a pilot.....

[Cpt. Underpants]

We've had non flying DFO's before this one (remember the zoologist?) - I think this management course thing is, at least, plausible.
It's not the event itself that leaves me aghast and incredulous, it's the sheer arrogance of this bunch. Neither embarrassed nor remotely apologetic, they are a law unto themselves.
I'd pay almost anything to witness some of these fools and charlatans being led away in cuffs.

[mr did]

Pants, you're not counting RH as a flying DFO are you? He was the definition of a Swire sock puppet

[goathead]

Shes on her way out.
This will be the start of large eruptions similar to '99 .Nothing is out of bounds for this lot.
Cos '17 in your mailbox Sept /Oct.
You will need a week minimum of stress leave to contemplate if your a victim.Prepare for the pineapple ladies and gents

[Oasis]

I'm shaking in my boots! Please spare me!

[Average Fool]

^^^^
Sad but true.

Do they still tell them they can get a base?

[Trafalgar]

Pretty well defines the outrageous travesty that CX has become. They provide a description of an airline/career, that upon arriving in HK you soon find was a fictional construct that bears no relation to reality. Examples:

1) basings - in name only. in reality they stopped years ago
2) childs education - they don't mention the astronomical debenture costs to get your child a place in a proper school
3) staff travel - they don't tell you that it's almost inaccessible, and the cost is prohibitive for most of the staff. Your FOC's are a cynical joke, and worthless
4) career progression - constantly changing the goal posts, thereby making any planning a guessing game at best
5) medical care - constantly reducing the benefits to the point that most pilots are having to find their own coverage
6) housing - inflationary housing costs with no increase result in marginal housing expectations in the most expensive city in the world (but our managers live lie kings...and the odd queen)
7) retirement - non-existant, as you will barely be able to pay your bills each month, especially if married and/or have children.

So...continue to join this wonderful little unicorn of an airline called CX, and be the latest to find out that you joined a completely different company than the one you thought you were joining. :bored:

[Avinthenews]

The best bit, CX put shiny jets at #1 and no one reads the rest :ugh:

[Strewth]

Resolve 7th freedom issues, basings (http://users.monash.edu.au/~pforsyth/Papers/Unpublished%20Papers/7th%20Freedom.doc) Peter Forsyth, Monash University Oct 2008

CX mismanagement seem unable to play to their strengths, assumes they see them.

2tcKx2lqm7Y

[DropKnee]

Resolve 7th freedom issues, basings (http://users.monash.edu.au/~pforsyth/Papers/Unpublished%20Papers/7th%20Freedom.doc) Peter Forsyth, Monash University Oct 2008

CX mismanagement seem unable to play to their strengths, assumes they see them.

2tcKx2lqm7Y
The problem with letting anyone fly anywhere they want is that we would soon be on Sudan terms living in our airplanes. Just like many of the poor saps in the maritime industry. No thanks. Not all markets are the same.