VR Thread

[UnaMas]

What happened to it? Not all of us spend every waking moment on here but last I looked it was here, now, not so much.

[cxorcist]

What happened to it? Not all of us spend every waking moment on here but last I looked it was here, now, not so much.
The long arm of the (fill in the blank) is what happened. Calling a spade a spade and saying that experience matters has become politically incorrect. Up is down, down is up with this new generation of magenta following warriors. They are proud of their poor compensation and think taxpayers should make up the difference. Well paid pilots are greedy, capitalist pigs. Far better to be Marxist paupers pretending to be aviation professionals. This does NOT end well...

[Angel 8]

What happened to it? Not all of us spend every waking moment on here but last I looked it was here, now, not so much.

I deleted it as it started to get a bit of who can pee farther competition.

Not much of information as I was hoping to get, as I am based, so didn’t get the memo directly from the company.
Unfortunately this seems to happen often, rether than help each other, we seem to attach each other, rightly or wrongly, it should never be personal.

So, people can still discuss the Early Retirement Offer, but please keep it professional.

[Angel 8]

Rather.... instead of rether

attack.... instead of attach

[74woko]

Aw, I was enjoying that !

[Slasher1]

I deleted it as it started to get a bit of who can pee farther competition.

Not much of information as I was hoping to get, as I am based, so didn’t get the memo directly from the company.
Unfortunately this seems to happen often, rether than help each other, we seem to attach each other, rightly or wrongly, it should never be personal.

So, people can still discuss the Early Retirement Offer, but please keep it professional.

Baby out with the bath water and I’d grow a pair. It’s not hard to skip the tripe and sift through things to glean something useful.

Basically one year pay maximum. With a clean break in September. No medical. Compared with many based carriers ****e offer. If someone was planning to leave anyway in October might be worth a look.

If you are based and can enforce your contract with LIFO required on a master seniority list it’s not worth a second look (and the master seniority list is airline wide; not base specific). You get six months pay protection anyway, sick and vacation leave on top of that, etc so are better off to force a lay-off. When they ultimately violate the EA/CA/CBA provisions by violating the lay-off procedures you’ll have legal recourse. And it’s not like they could close a base to deliberately shirk the lay-off/recall provisions without it coming back at them in court.

Not to mention the CX offer (at least leaked versions) is a lump sum in September. This would probably kill someone on a base in taxes and any based offer — if done at all — would have to have some type of deferred option or payout over the term to get out of the present tax year. As written a based individual would lose one third to half of the money in taxes negating any advantage to simply being laid off.

Most US carriers have gone with early out schemes very close to two years and full medical when you crunch the numbers as an average. It’s a little more complex than that depending on carrier but given the based contracts that’s not a bad target for an early out offer to get in the front door at all.

[Xfiles]

Baby out with the bath water and I’d grow a pair. It’s not hard to skip the tripe and sift through things to glean something useful.

Basically one year pay maximum. With a clean break in September. No medical. Compared with many based carriers ****e offer. If someone was planning to leave anyway in October might be worth a look.

If you are based and can enforce your contract with LIFO required on a master seniority list it’s not worth a second look (and the master seniority list is airline wide; not base specific). You get six months pay protection anyway, sick and vacation leave on top of that, etc so are better off to force a lay-off. When they ultimately violate the EA/CA/CBA provisions by violating the lay-off procedures you’ll have legal recourse. And it’s not like they could close a base to deliberately shirk the lay-off/recall provisions without it coming back at them in court.

Not to mention the CX offer (at least leaked versions) is a lump sum in September. This would probably kill someone on a base in taxes and any based offer — if done at all — would have to have some type of deferred option or payout over the term to get out of the present tax year. As written a based individual would lose one third to half of the money in taxes negating any advantage to simply being laid off.

Most US carriers have gone with early out schemes very close to two years and full medical when you crunch the numbers as an average. It’s a little more complex than that depending on carrier but given the based contracts that’s not a bad target for an early out offer to get in the front door at all.

The VR offer was only made to HK based

[Shot Nancy]

If someone was planning to leave anyway in October might be worth a look.

If you were leaving in October then you gave notice in July and I suspect not eligible for the package.
If you were planning on leaving soon after October the package might make you financially better off but you miss out on a few months of normal pay.
Food for thought.

[Farman Biplane]

It is not a Voluntary Redundancy scheme it is an Early Retirement Scheme, which is perhaps why it was pitched at such low value as they knew that the only people interested would be the ones leaving soon anyway. Perhaps just a box ticking appeasement?
There would only be about 10% of pilots eligible anyway?

[Busbitch]

No matter what happens to our Senior Crew members, I ain't going to miss the "Voldemort", the most toxic person I've met in my time! I'm having a drink to celebrate tonight coz I'll never see him again.

[pill]

Maybe your not very good at this ..... Was volleyball that bad?

[Hugo Peroni the V]

Busbitch, has he left or have you?

No matter what happens to our Senior Crew members, I ain't going to miss the "Voldemort", the most toxic person I've met in my time! I'm having a drink to celebrate tonight coz I'll never see him again.

[Busbitch]

He's gone. I witnessed him compleatly humiliate a couple of FO's with my own eyes, pretty hard to be on that flight deck, it was disgraceful. I know for a fact he ended more than his fair share of Command courses & JFO's too. His standard was pretty average half the time too. There is no place for people who breed that culture of fear & intimidation or bully junior staff. A manager told me once "we need guys like that sometimes" they basically green lit him, but I say Good riddance to him, aviation is safer without him.

[Numero Crunchero]

I am sure anyone interested/eligible has already done the maths(or mathematics for the grandma nazis - grammar was never my thing - just maths).

So I have more than 4 years to my RA - so I would be eligible for 12months basic salary. No PF- no Housing - no Medical - no HDP etc.

If I was on full salary, no EFP but say full HDP, I would cost the company the same amount from 1st Sep 20 - 31st Mar 21. (yes add one month to both dates now that it is 30Sep start date)

So - how much is it costing CX? If you assume say 100 pilots take it(I doubt that it will be that high but Ive been wrong before) then that is probably about 10% of all Captains. So if you think the work rate in Hong Kong will be less than 90% from now till March next year, then it costs the company nothing to offer this. After that it saves them money.

With SLS2 (and presumably SLS3 in January 2021) the date slips out by another few weeks.


So my 'gut' instinct is that this is just an opportunity to get rid of some of us expensive guys for the eventual recovery. Plenty of time to train up the replacements - and new joiners will be DEFO/DESO on cos18.

So a very smart business decision IMHO.

[D.B.er]

What do you mean it is now end of september? I am KA and I have not seen that?

[Xfiles]

So my 'gut' instinct is that this is just an opportunity to get rid of some of us expensive guys for the eventual recovery. Plenty of time to train up the replacements - and new joiners will be DEFO/DESO on cos18.

So a very smart business decision IMHO.[/QUOTE]

That's all I ever thought it was. Am I missing something?

[MENELAUS]

What do you mean it is now end of september? I am KA and I have not seen that?

The Hub. FAQ re ERS. And other acronyms.
TTFN.

[Memorylapse]

What do you mean it is now end of september? I am KA and I have not seen that?

He is CX, you are KA. Forget about that now - time to start packing.

[D.B.er]

He is CX, you are KA. Forget about that now - time to start packing.
So has CX had an announcement?

[Memorylapse]

So has CX had an announcement?

No one said that? Do you need some boxes?

[Numero Crunchero]

What do you mean it is now end of september? I am KA and I have not seen that?

Yeah on an update they have said the WEF date is now 30Sep20.


Yeah maybe it was obvious to others that this was just a long term money grab - but my initial instinct was that any VR or ERS scheme costs money in the short term but saves money in the long term. But after doing a little 'back of the fag packet' this ERS costs nothing at all other than bringing expenses forward from say end of April next year back to 30 Sep this year.

Now to put this into more perspective - my best guess is that there was $10-15B in cash by the time the government bailout happened. Add another $39B - total today of say $45-50B.

SLS 2, assuming 100% uptake by pilots, would have saved around $200-250M. (I don't know what the uptake rate was - but clearly not 100% because of the freighter).

If 100 pilots take ERS let's say $100-200M in salary&benefit payments brought forward from Oct20 -Apr21. So basically, we have funded our own ERS.

If all Hong Kong pilots worked for free - we would go from losing $1.5B a month to losing about $1.15B per month.


Net conclusion of all the previous numbers I have just thrown around? Deck chairs on the titanic metaphor springs to mind.

[Dragon Pacific]

What do you mean it is now end of september? I am KA and I have not seen that?
It’s there Iain on the Hub. KA too now 30th Sept. another month’s pay for doing not much.

[D.B.er]

Does not help me as I am on 4 months UPL but thanks I will try and do battle with the Hub...Deep breaths....I CAN do this....

[Memorylapse]

Does not help me as I am on 4 months UPL but thanks I will try and do battle with the Hub...Deep breaths....I CAN do this....

You can do it Iain!

[cxorcist]

Yeah on an update they have said the WEF date is now 30Sep20.


Yeah maybe it was obvious to others that this was just a long term money grab - but my initial instinct was that any VR or ERS scheme costs money in the short term but saves money in the long term. But after doing a little 'back of the fag packet' this ERS costs nothing at all other than bringing expenses forward from say end of April next year back to 30 Sep this year.

Now to put this into more perspective - my best guess is that there was $10-15B in cash by the time the government bailout happened. Add another $39B - total today of say $45-50B.

SLS 2, assuming 100% uptake by pilots, would have saved around $200-250M. (I don't know what the uptake rate was - but clearly not 100% because of the freighter).

If 100 pilots take ERS let's say $100-200M in salary&benefit payments brought forward from Oct20 -Apr21. So basically, we have funded our own ERS.

If all Hong Kong pilots worked for free - we would go from losing $1.5B a month to losing about $1.15B per month.


Net conclusion of all the previous numbers I have just thrown around? Deck chairs on the titanic metaphor springs to mind.

With the exception of a few dozen 777 pilots going to the 747, the Company is not conducting training to get ahead of the seemingly very slow recovery. Clearly, the A350 will be deployed entirely before the 777 is brought back in a meaningful fashion. Therefore, it would make sense to me to start training A350 crews sufficiently senior to backfill those who may be made redundant. I believe we have 1000-1500 too many pilots for the foreseeable future.

Why isn’t the Company setting itself up for furloughs? Are they just planning to pay everyone until the money is gone and claim they did their best via SLS, VR, and pay cuts for based pax crews? It makes no sense and seems they are waiting for visibility that is not necessarily forthcoming. Put another way, it’s a massive gamble (we know they are capable of gambles via the fuel hedging debacle, 30B+ HKD disappeared from the CX ledger). They are betting the entire airline on a travel recovery that isn’t materializing thus far.

[Sam Ting Wong]

The matter is way more complicated than you suggest. The governmental cash injection might have been attached to certain conditions, just as an example.

I also would suggest you abandon your pilot-centric perspective, this crisis is not about which pilot is on which aircraft, it is so much bigger.

The entire Network configurations of our hub and spoke model, including subsidaries, codeshares etc, need to be recalculated, slots and traffic rights might expire if not used, aircraft leasing contracts need to be adhered to, order status and obligations need to be evaluated, legal hurdles considered, shareholder interests must be balanced, political influence needs to be managed etc etc.

You are seriously underestimating the challenge on hand.

Additionally, you don't know what options are on the table and discussed right now.

I am very happy I don't live in the hire-and-fire culture of your home country. Layoffs destroy lives and families, I hope we agree this should be an absolute last resort.

So if you are asking for furloughs... beware what you wish for, it could come true ( and possibly not the way you like it).

[SanMig]

CX has been sewing the seeds of their own destruction for years now. This pandemic has highlighted the companies problem of too many contracts. They would like to lay-off 1000 pilots, but the can’t because the D scale pilots are the first to go and those are the cheap pilots they want to keep. They are also mostly the locally hired pilots and the HK Government would not look kindly on a mass lay-off of local staff. CX would like to close the bases and try to get rid of the remaining A scale pilots, but due to collective agreements that would mean the potential return of some very expensive staff to HK making them more expensive. The company is stuck with a manning issue they created. So they come up with the same solution they always do, throw some money at the problem with an early retirement scheme. One years salary sounds pretty attractive, until one does some of the math and figures out it really isn’t much more than one would get through sickness and 3 months notice. No thanks, either sweeten the offer or stick to the contractual terms.

[fly1981]

CX has been sewing the seeds of their own destruction for years now. This pandemic has highlighted the companies problem of too many contracts. They would like to lay-off 1000 pilots, but the can’t because the D scale pilots are the first to go and those are the cheap pilots they want to keep. They are also mostly the locally hired pilots and the HK Government would not look kindly on a mass lay-off of local staff. CX would like to close the bases and try to get rid of the remaining A scale pilots, but due to collective agreements that would mean the potential return of some very expensive staff to HK making them more expensive. The company is stuck with a manning issue they created. So they come up with the same solution they always do, throw some money at the problem with an early retirement scheme. One years salary sounds pretty attractive, until one does some of the math and figures out it really isn’t much more than one would get through sickness and 3 months notice. No thanks, either sweeten the offer or stick to the contractual terms.

the offer will not be sweetened...options down the line could be much worse.

[Angel 8]

The matter is way more complicated than you suggest. The governmental cash injection might have been attached to certain conditions, just as an example.

I also would suggest you abandon your pilot-centric perspective, this crisis is not about which pilot is on which aircraft, it is so much bigger.

The entire Network configurations of our hub and spoke model, including subsidaries, codeshares etc, need to be recalculated, slots and traffic rights might expire if not used, aircraft leasing contracts need to be adhered to, order status and obligations need to be evaluated, legal hurdles considered, shareholder interests must be balanced, political influence needs to be managed etc etc.

You are seriously underestimating the challenge on hand.

Additionally, you don't know what options are on the table and discussed right now.

I am very happy I don't live in the hire-and-fire culture of your home country. Layoffs destroy lives and families, I hope we agree this should be an absolute last resort.

So if you are asking for furloughs... beware what you wish for, it could come true ( and possibly not the way you like it).

All that should’ve been done in a week, as we are blessed with over 36000 employees, half of which are Managers and office/planning teams.
No one is asking for “furloughs”, pilots like to, and are trained to plan ahead.

[cxorcist]

The matter is way more complicated than you suggest. The governmental cash injection might have been attached to certain conditions, just as an example.

I also would suggest you abandon your pilot-centric perspective, this crisis is not about which pilot is on which aircraft, it is so much bigger.

The entire Network configurations of our hub and spoke model, including subsidaries, codeshares etc, need to be recalculated, slots and traffic rights might expire if not used, aircraft leasing contracts need to be adhered to, order status and obligations need to be evaluated, legal hurdles considered, shareholder interests must be balanced, political influence needs to be managed etc etc.

You are seriously underestimating the challenge on hand.

Additionally, you don't know what options are on the table and discussed right now.

I am very happy I don't live in the hire-and-fire culture of your home country. Layoffs destroy lives and families, I hope we agree this should be an absolute last resort.

So if you are asking for furloughs... beware what you wish for, it could come true ( and possibly not the way you like it).
In the end, it doesn’t much matter if the airline goes belly up. Keeping thousands on the CX dole whilst running out of money is bad for everyone, including those potentially furloughed because they have no employer to return to.

As for the thinly veiled threat of out of seniority redundancies, bring it on. The bases would have a field day in court if that were to occur, and most of the based unions are sitting on heaps of cash to pay for legals.

Closing the bases is certainly possible, but the expense to the company would be significant, as previously discussed.

STW, I’m afraid your dreams of a command inside 20 years are no closer to reality, but actually much farther off than before the pandemic.

[Numero Crunchero]

cxorcist - I admire your optimism on the power of courts in other jurisdictions imposing their will on a communist company in a communist enclave in the worlds most populous, and arguably most powerful(communist), country.

Let me think - in a 1st world country an airline leader shut the airline down to show who was boss. Consequence? "you shouldn't have done that - that was naughty" verbal remonstration by FWA.

AMS and PAR laws too difficult for CX to deal with - shut the bases down. Consequence? Small change payout on Paris though a profligate former chairman almost bankrupted the union with his blank cheque legal agenda fighting this.(would have been cheaper for the AOA to just pay the legal money spent to the plaintiffs)

Fire for no particular reason - a bunch of pilots to show who is boss - result, after many many years of court (up to highest court) - 3-4months salary should have been paid.



So yeah - tell yourself that Canadian courts, US courts, Australian courts etc will give a **** about trying to get a fairer outcome for a few pilots if they are laid off. All CX has to say is "it is not ideal to have people based" which is actually true. From a rostering point of view - it is sub optimal. From a financial point of view - they save money because expat pilots are expensive. So you have to prove to court it wasn't done for a commercial reason - good luck.

But hey - what if they could get 100s of pilots for cheap due to an oversupply - what if they were all experienced and desperate for a job? We could have heaps of DEFOs come in to replace the HKPA pilots being upgraded to CN. Now imagine if they all lived in HK? Rostering is easier!


So yeah - there is a doomsday scenario for you. Of course I could be wrong - the US, Canada and Australian courts will have plenty of free time after covid- plus there is nothing more important to them than 'million dollar morons' living in their country working for a foreign carrier. I mean seriously - why should anything else be more important than the 0.0006% of Australians working for Cathay as pilots based in Australia. Or the 0.000076% of Americans living in the US working for Cathay. I mean - in a close election - that 0.00076% could make all the difference.


So if you think we have bases open because of fear of courts - you are mistaken. It makes sense to have bases for two reasons - it saves money on expat terms - it makes CX a more attractive employer as you know you have the chance for one (maybe).

[Zapp_Brannigan]

(...)

AMS and PAR laws too difficult for CX to deal with - shut the bases down. Consequence? Small change payout on Paris though a profligate former chairman almost bankrupted the union with his blank cheque legal agenda fighting this.(would have been cheaper for the AOA to just pay the legal money spent to the plaintiffs)


So yeah - tell yourself that Canadian courts, US courts, Australian courts etc will give a **** about trying to get a fairer outcome for a few pilots if they are laid off. All CX has to say is "it is not ideal to have people based" which is actually true. From a rostering point of view - it is sub optimal. From a financial point of view - they save money because expat pilots are expensive. So you have to prove to court it wasn't done for a commercial reason - good luck.

So yeah - there is a doomsday scenario for you. Of course I could be wrong - the US, Canada and Australian courts will have plenty of free time after covid- plus there is nothing more important to them than 'million dollar morons' living in their country working for a foreign carrier. I mean seriously - why should anything else be more important than the 0.0006% of Australians working for Cathay as pilots based in Australia. Or the 0.000076% of Americans living in the US working for Cathay. I mean - in a close election - that 0.00076% could make all the difference.
.

That's a stupid statement. Thousands of court cases are just about one individual. Should a good verdict only be given if you do a class action representing millions of individuals?

Didn't the company settle in the PAR case because they were about to lose? That plus a huge fine.
Didn't a manager (or two) get fired over this?

If the union can't even fund some lawyers, what's the point of being in a union?
IMO, the past chairman was bloody right to make the union fund a court case.

There are good excuses in closing the bases now. Why haven't they done it? Maybe not as easy/legal as you suggest?

[FlyingNun]

That's a stupid statement. Thousands of court cases are just about one individual. Should a good verdict only be given if you do a class action representing millions of individuals?

Didn't the company settle in the PAR case because they were about to lose? That plus a huge fine.
Didn't a manager (or two) get fired over this?

If the union can't even fund some lawyers, what's the point of being in a union?
IMO, the past chairman was bloody right to make the union fund a court case.

There are good excuses in closing the bases now. Why haven't they done it? Maybe not as easy/legal as you suggest?

Apart from the legal stuff, didn’t they say that the new rostering software actually recommended that 60% of pilots should be based in order to save costs?

[positionalpor]

On this one one I agree with Zapp. Sorry numero

[cxorcist]

cxorcist - I admire your optimism on the power of courts in other jurisdictions imposing their will on a communist company in a communist enclave in the worlds most populous, and arguably most powerful(communist), country.

Let me think - in a 1st world country an airline leader shut the airline down to show who was boss. Consequence? "you shouldn't have done that - that was naughty" verbal remonstration by FWA.

AMS and PAR laws too difficult for CX to deal with - shut the bases down. Consequence? Small change payout on Paris though a profligate former chairman almost bankrupted the union with his blank cheque legal agenda fighting this.(would have been cheaper for the AOA to just pay the legal money spent to the plaintiffs)

Fire for no particular reason - a bunch of pilots to show who is boss - result, after many many years of court (up to highest court) - 3-4months salary should have been paid.



So yeah - tell yourself that Canadian courts, US courts, Australian courts etc will give a **** about trying to get a fairer outcome for a few pilots if they are laid off. All CX has to say is "it is not ideal to have people based" which is actually true. From a rostering point of view - it is sub optimal. From a financial point of view - they save money because expat pilots are expensive. So you have to prove to court it wasn't done for a commercial reason - good luck.

But hey - what if they could get 100s of pilots for cheap due to an oversupply - what if they were all experienced and desperate for a job? We could have heaps of DEFOs come in to replace the HKPA pilots being upgraded to CN. Now imagine if they all lived in HK? Rostering is easier!


So yeah - there is a doomsday scenario for you. Of course I could be wrong - the US, Canada and Australian courts will have plenty of free time after covid- plus there is nothing more important to them than 'million dollar morons' living in their country working for a foreign carrier. I mean seriously - why should anything else be more important than the 0.0006% of Australians working for Cathay as pilots based in Australia. Or the 0.000076% of Americans living in the US working for Cathay. I mean - in a close election - that 0.00076% could make all the difference.


So if you think we have bases open because of fear of courts - you are mistaken. It makes sense to have bases for two reasons - it saves money on expat terms - it makes CX a more attractive employer as you know you have the chance for one (maybe).
You’re losing it NC. The numbers don’t matter in this case, the law does. CX can certainly close any or all bases, but you cannot furlough (make redundant) out of seniority while they are still open. There would be a lawsuit, and the Company would lose, even fantastically perhaps. They know this and don’t want to get themselves in the proverbial poo AGAIN with western courts. They’ve got enough on their plate at the moment, and closing the bases would destroy any remaining pilot morale at CX, including in Hong Kong.

This isn’t about democracy or demographics. It’s about rights. Cathay pilots on the bases have rights, period. I know CX doesn’t like that, but they’ve learned, the hard way in some cases, that doesn’t matter. Shut the bases... fine, but do it legally or get ready for a court fight. It really is that simple. Your numbers don’t mean squat. CX wants to keep flying to the US, Canada, Australia, etc. So I think they are stuck playing by their rules if CX is going to keep employing people in these countries.

[ACMS]

NC was on a base WHEN IT SUITED HIM until it suited him to go back to HK to make more.......

Next.

[mngmt mole]

Pretty childish response ACMS. NC is entitled to be on a base, not be on a base etc as per HIS CONTRACT. Nothing wrong no matter what he decides. His opinion on the facts is valid, and is something to seriously consider. Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Always the last resort of those who have nothing positive to contribute to the debate.

[MENELAUS]

And NC happens to be right; pinning anyone’s hopes on future legal action in these straitened times assumes that there’ll be an entity left to sue for one thing. And is specious at best. Further, it hasn’t worked for Balpa, Unite, VC, SNPL, VNV etc.etc. all of whom are facing layoffs, despite their efforts. In most cases out of seniority and dictated by fleet, merit, supposed demerits and within countries that have allegedly superior contract “protections”.
The legal system here will be a shadow shortly of what it once was, and hamstrung by new interpretations of various laws, referred to a ‘ higher power’ just because they don’t like the result. We are ‘guest’ employees here. Always have been, always will be. Just dressed up to look slightly better than the ME3. And look how they’ve behaved.

[Fly747]

NC was on a base WHEN IT SUITED HIM until it suited him to go back to HK to make more.......

Next.
And don’t forget it was also in accordance with his seniority. So what’s the problem ACMS?

[OK4Wire]

What are you talking about, ACMS? Everyone I know is on a base because it suits them!

[Gidddyup]

CX has been sewing the seeds of their own destruction for years now. This pandemic has highlighted the companies problem of too many contracts. They would like to lay-off 1000 pilots, but the can’t because the D scale pilots are the first to go and those are the cheap pilots they want to keep. They are also mostly the locally hired pilots and the HK Government would not look kindly on a mass lay-off of local staff. CX would like to close the bases and try to get rid of the remaining A scale pilots, but due to collective agreements that would mean the potential return of some very expensive staff to HK making them more expensive. The company is stuck with a manning issue they created. So they come up with the same solution they always do, throw some money at the problem with an early retirement scheme. One years salary sounds pretty attractive, until one does some of the math and figures out it really isn’t much more than one would get through sickness and 3 months notice. No thanks, either sweeten the offer or stick to the contractual terms.

"No thanks, either sweeten the offer or stick to the contractual terms"

I think it's been made clear Cathay are restructuring. HK restructuring laws don't leave many options for employees, and applying "contractual terms" don't appear to be one of them.

[CodyBlade]

"right sizing" sounds scary

[Pickuptruck]

And NC happens to be right; pinning anyone’s hopes on future legal action in these straitened times assumes that there’ll be an entity left to sue for one thing. And is specious at best. Further, it hasn’t worked for Balpa, Unite, VC, SNPL, VNV etc.etc. all of whom are facing layoffs, despite their efforts. In most cases out of seniority and dictated by fleet, merit, supposed demerits and within countries that have allegedly superior contract “protections”.
The legal system here will be a shadow shortly of what it once was, and hamstrung by new interpretations of various laws, referred to a ‘ higher power’ just because they don’t like the result. We are ‘guest’ employees here. Always have been, always will be. Just dressed up to look slightly better than the ME3. And look how they’ve behaved.
That's the fun part.10 years of gushing forth about the workers rights pretty much everywhere else but Hong Kong. Now that the difficult financial realities are enveloping airlines we're all finding out there aren't any workers rights in the face of Covid in Oz or the UK or a bunch of places. Anyone who thinks the company is going to lose a court case over who it employs and who it doesn't is completely clueless. As history repeatedly has shown.

[Flex88]

That's the fun part.10 years of gushing forth about the workers rights pretty much everywhere else but Hong Kong. Now that the difficult financial realities are enveloping airlines we're all finding out there aren't any workers rights in the face of Covid in Oz or the UK or a bunch of places. Anyone who thinks the company is going to lose a court case over who it employs and who it doesn't is completely clueless. As history repeatedly has shown.

China reneged on it's agreements regarding Hong Kong so HK courts, government & corporations now have legal president to 'Screw At Will" you might say..
The legal protections citizens and corporations "HAD" in HK were happily ceded to its Northern masters leaving you all with not a pot to piss in. Sadly.

[Numero Crunchero]

I am at heart an optimist- but then the joke goes that a pessimist is just an optimist with life experience. My views on the 'protections' on the base are coloured by my own personal union experiences with 'legal' protections in past union work.
Just because I don't think I will have a cargo fire or engine failure, doesn't mean I shouldn't be prepared for them. Hence my clarion call warning of relying on legal protection on bases - or anywhere for that matter. Anyway - enough of the pessimism.

My optimistic viewpoint.

Assumptions.

There are vaccines that work - they have not been approved. Maybe none will - but given the shear number of them, and the political and economic impetus to have them approved, we are likely to have them being administered by years end. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty on this - I just want to paint the landscape behind my predictions.

Training 4 SOs on the line is the same workload as upgrading one SO to FO, one FO to CN, or one DEFO. So I have factored the SO recruitment numbers by 4 to make the training load equivalent to upgrades.

We will have no problem recruiting pilots for the next 18months regardless of COS etc considerations.

With the vaccine assumption I assume we will be back to a significant percentage of flights by say December 2021.

For the sake of argument, let's assume we are back to 90% of schedule Dec 2021 (my personal view is closer to 100%).

Right now the 747 is about 25% of our pilots - the pax fleet is operating at say 5%-10% of normal - so overall we are probably doing say 30% of regular flying.

So August 2020 at 30% finishing this year at say, 35-40%, then increasing to say 90% by December 2021.

Now I have only done analysis of training for the last 10 years. The only year we ran at 100% training capacity was 2015. In that year our training rate was 13.6%. Two years later, thanks to moving some a/c over to KA, our training rate was 7.3% (Training captain numbers had fallen - by just over 10% I think - but training footprints had been rationalised, so I assume a theoretical max of around 12-13%).

(By Training rate I mean, in 2015, we can replace 13.6 out of every 100 pilots. This is via 4 SOs=1, or 1 DEFO, 1 SO-FO upgrade or 1 FO-CN upgrade) (The limiting factor being line training)

So if we need 90% of our workforce by end of 2021, we must have 77% of our workforce by 1/1/21 as it will take all year to train the 13.6/100.

Our training department is fully manned- in fact I was informed Dec last year it was actually over manned based on the pre covid training plan for 2020. Training Captain Numbers today are close to 2015 AFAICT (as far as I can tell).

Every 10% reduction of pilots saves, very roughly, $500m per year.

The opportunity cost for being undermanned by say 10% is in excess of 10Billion. And given we have the same number of total aircraft that we are paying leases on/depreciating etc, that 10B would roughly translate into 5B of (marginal)profitability. This might not sound like it makes sense - think of a taxi fleet of 10 cars and 30 drivers. When work is down, you fire 3 of them. Then work picks up - you cant drive them all, for all the time. So you miss out on revenue- yet maintenance, lease payments etc are based on 10 cars. The extra 3 drivers cost you salary, extra fuel/tolls but the revenue, from those last 3 drivers, is highly profitable.

Conclusions

First one - garbage in, garbage out. Like all the mathematical covid models - reality has turned out very different as Sweden is testament to. They should have lost 100,000s of people - they have lost around 7,000 (vs the other 70,000 that have died from all other causes in the last 6 months)

If we need 90% by end of 2021, we have to start the year with at least 77% (so a max of 23% can be laid off between now and years end. Given 3 months pay in lieu, that means we save one months salary this year(Dec) or very roughly $100m. We start with 77% and end up with 90% so we average 84% next year - so we save 16% for the year which is roughly $800m.

So, if we KNEW we would be at 90% end of 2021, we would save close to $1billion. If we were wrong and things ramped up by say 30June21 to 100%, then we would be out of pocket about 10B in revenue(less say 5B in fuel/route operating costs) in the first half and say $6.5B(less say $3.2B in fuel/op costs) in the second half. So we would have saved $1B on pilot costs, and lost 16.5B in revenue (or $8.2profit after marginal costs).

That's a big gamble to take - save a penny, lose a dime. the ratio is 8 to 1 in my previous example.

So my belief, based on this type of thinking, is they will keep the 'team' together - there will be some trimming but that can be done through ERS/more SLS and RORO. And maybe some culling of some dead wood while the opportunity is there. But I do not believe Damocles sword will lop off an arm or leg - just a haircut at worst.

Or as financial analysts like to say, the risk is to the upside. It is asymmetric risk - a little extra cost (keeping pilots) is an order of magnitude less than the loss to profitability of the most pessimistic outcomes are wrong.


BTW, I have no inside knowledge - I am no longer in the union - I am not in management - I am just doing observational analysis.


So, no job/base is safe, but that doesn't mean anything is likely to happen either. Assume the worst, hope for the best!



(Did I mention I am an optimist? I hope my optimism isn't misplaced!)

[Numero Crunchero]

I said keep the team together -I didn't say on what terms. But I wanted to keep the previous post optimistic.

[missingblade]

I am at heart an optimist- but then the joke goes that a pessimist is just an optimist with life experience. My views on the 'protections' on the base are coloured by my own personal union experiences with 'legal' protections in past union work.
Just because I don't think I will have a cargo fire or engine failure, doesn't mean I shouldn't be prepared for them. Hence my clarion call warning of relying on legal protection on bases - or anywhere for that matter. Anyway - enough of the pessimism.

My optimistic viewpoint.

Assumptions.

There are vaccines that work - they have not been approved. Maybe none will - but given the shear number of them, and the political and economic impetus to have them approved, we are likely to have them being administered by years end. I don't want to get into the nitty gritty on this - I just want to paint the landscape behind my predictions.

Training 4 SOs on the line is the same workload as upgrading one SO to FO, one FO to CN, or one DEFO. So I have factored the SO recruitment numbers by 4 to make the training load equivalent to upgrades.

We will have no problem recruiting pilots for the next 18months regardless of COS etc considerations.

With the vaccine assumption I assume we will be back to a significant percentage of flights by say December 2021.

For the sake of argument, let's assume we are back to 90% of schedule Dec 2021 (my personal view is closer to 100%).

Right now the 747 is about 25% of our pilots - the pax fleet is operating at say 5%-10% of normal - so overall we are probably doing say 30% of regular flying.

So August 2020 at 30% finishing this year at say, 35-40%, then increasing to say 90% by December 2021.

Now I have only done analysis of training for the last 10 years. The only year we ran at 100% training capacity was 2015. In that year our training rate was 13.6%. Two years later, thanks to moving some a/c over to KA, our training rate was 7.3% (Training captain numbers had fallen - by just over 10% I think - but training footprints had been rationalised, so I assume a theoretical max of around 12-13%).

(By Training rate I mean, in 2015, we can replace 13.6 out of every 100 pilots. This is via 4 SOs=1, or 1 DEFO, 1 SO-FO upgrade or 1 FO-CN upgrade) (The limiting factor being line training)

So if we need 90% of our workforce by end of 2021, we must have 77% of our workforce by 1/1/21 as it will take all year to train the 13.6/100.

Our training department is fully manned- in fact I was informed Dec last year it was actually over manned based on the pre covid training plan for 2020. Training Captain Numbers today are close to 2015 AFAICT (as far as I can tell).

Every 10% reduction of pilots saves, very roughly, $500m per year.

The opportunity cost for being undermanned by say 10% is in excess of 10Billion. And given we have the same number of total aircraft that we are paying leases on/depreciating etc, that 10B would roughly translate into 5B of (marginal)profitability. This might not sound like it makes sense - think of a taxi fleet of 10 cars and 30 drivers. When work is down, you fire 3 of them. Then work picks up - you cant drive them all, for all the time. So you miss out on revenue- yet maintenance, lease payments etc are based on 10 cars. The extra 3 drivers cost you salary, extra fuel/tolls but the revenue, from those last 3 drivers, is highly profitable.

Conclusions

First one - garbage in, garbage out. Like all the mathematical covid models - reality has turned out very different as Sweden is testament to. They should have lost 100,000s of people - they have lost around 7,000 (vs the other 70,000 that have died from all other course in the last 6 months)

If we need 90% by end of 2021, we have to start the year with at least 77% (so a max of 23% can be laid off between now and years end. Given 3 months pay in lieu, that means we save one months salary this year(Dec) or very roughly $100m. We start with 77% and end up with 90% so we average 84% next year - so we save 16% for the year which is roughly $800m.

So, if we KNEW we would be at 90% end of 2021, we would save close to $1billion. If we were wrong and things ramped up by say 30June21 to 100%, then we would be out of pocket about 10B in revenue(less say 5B in fuel/route operating costs) in the first half and say $6.5B(less say $3.2B in fuel/op costs) in the second half. So we would have saved $1B on pilot costs, and lost 16.5B in revenue (or $8.2profit after marginal costs).

That's a big gamble to take - save a penny, lose a dime. the ratio is 8 to 1 in my previous example.

So my belief, based on this type of thinking, is they will keep the 'team' together - there will be some trimming but that can be done through ERS/more SLS and RORO. And maybe some culling of some dead wood while the opportunity is there. But I do not believe Damocles sword will lop off an arm or leg - just a haircut at worst.

Or as financial analysts like to say, the risk is to the upside. It is asymmetric risk - a little extra cost (keeping pilots) is an order of magnitude less than the loss to profitability of the most pessimistic outcomes are wrong.


BTW, I have no inside knowledge - I am no longer in the union - I am not in management - I am just doing observational analysis.


So, no job/base is safe, but that doesn't mean anything is likely to happen either. Assume the worst, hope for the best!



(Did I mention I am an optimist? I hope my optimism isn't misplaced!)


So what is Emirates thinking laying off ( not furlough- laid off permanently) about 1500 to 1800 of their 4500 pilots???
If the above applies to major airlines in general what are they thinking?

[Numero Crunchero]

So what is Emirates thinking laying off ( not furlough- laid off permanently) about 1500 to 1800 of their 4500 pilots???
If the above applies to major airlines in general what are they thinking?

Good question - clearly they have a different viewpoint to me.

What I will say - they had over 10% attrition a couple of years ago. Plus they were growing. So I suspect their training 'machine' might be 15-20% not 13% like ours. And if they haven't been laying off trainers then that means they can train 450-900 pilots per year. So - will anyone be 'voluntarily' leaving an airline any time soon? No jobs to go to. So they can ramp up 900+ pilots per year (assuming their training was at max capacity when I last looked). Looks like they think they will be at say 80% by end of 2021 and maybe close to 100% end of 2022.

It all comes down to the assumptions. Which is why, IMHO, there is no plan for us at the moment. Who knows what will happen 6 months from now let alone 18 months from now. That lack of knowledge doesn't stop people making predictions (myself included)

[Progress Wanchai]

NC,

I’ve always respected your opinion and do this time too. But any good pilot solves a problem by clarifying what the problem is. While a vaccine will undoubtedly save many lives, the problem the airline industry faces is the same problem every business and family is facing. A financial one, and the virus has let the debt bubble genie out of the bottle. Putting the cork back in won’t help.

With respect you’ve spent virtually your entire working life as either a public servant or at an airline that has run itself like a good government bureaucracy. Your above calculations could have come straight from Canberra. Back in the real world in a major recession most people get hurt badly. Those that are fortunate enough to keep their jobs do so on a lowered remuneration package while watching their perceived wealth vanish as asset prices drop, leading to banks issuing margin calls and the spiral dive begins.

It takes a few years for a recession to be reflected in unemployment numbers and the negative influence this has on expiring EBA’s. (Only public servants get their 2 to 3% a year regardless of what’s happening in the real world).
The belt tightening hasn’t really started as it generally doesn’t until the pay check falls or disappears, but when it does then aviation, tourism, business spending etc drops off dramatically.

This pandemic hasn’t occurred in a vacuum. There was a very good reason the world entered 2020 with money being virtually free for anyone who wanted it. The world economy was completely broken. Once the virus is controlled the world economy will still be broken, just even more so. Believing we can simply reset to a previous date like resetting a computer is overly simplistic. Even if we could do that, why pick a date when it was broken anyway? Why not pick a date when things were semi normal. Pre-GFC would be a good start. And that would be my guess as to the size of most airlines post-virus.

[OK4Wire]

Nice work, NC.

If only we had had that kind of analysis during the "commitment days" instead of airy-fairy non-dimensional graphs showing costs intersecting with revenue at some point in the future...........

How much commercial risk would there be for a company like CX to be transparent with this type of planning? ie, how commercially sensitive could it be, and how would a (potential) competitor use this info?

[Dan Winterland]

With the vaccine assumption I assume we will be back to a significant percentage of flights by say December 2021. For the sake of argument, let's assume we are back to 90% of schedule Dec 2021 (my personal view is closer to 100%).

This is factoring only the virus into the equation . I reckon it's going to be worse if you take into account the damage caused by the political situation.

[Numero Crunchero]

Good point Dan - but I think that was already factored by Dec 2019. Hence the reason for us having too many trainers for the plan for 2020 onwards - I assume that was in response to the political situation. Though it is arguable whether it is now better, worse or the same as it looked in Dec 2019 with all the travel disrupting protests going on at the time.

[Farman Biplane]

Meanwhile ICAO, and other major airlines, predicting a return to preCOVID air travel levels in 2022, then 2023, and now 2024.
On what real basis can NC make the assumption that CX will return to 90% preCOVID levels by end of 2021?
Is this solely based on an effective vaccination program for billions of people in the first few months of 2021?
“Keep the team together” concept is a great excuse for unilateral imposition of lower contracts. Never miss the opportunity of a crisis.....

[Numero Crunchero]

Icao put out a report yesterday - with many predictions going out to Mar2021.

On 12Aug20, overall, the industry is down 60% on 2019 seat capacity (btw, as pilots, we care about ASK because they pay us to fly not make revenue - RPK/yield is profitability - profitable or not, we will be flying more).

For December 2020 there are a range of scenarios predicting 56-89% of 2019 levels. (the high level assumes V shaped recovery etc)

For end of March 2021, their range of scenarios predict 66-89% of flights (seat capacity - actual figures are 63-85% when compared to what was originally planned for 2021 pre covid - so taking off that 2019-2021 growth gives you comparison to 2019 numbers).

US domestic and Asia Pacific flying has been far more resilient than just international according to them(reduction of 20-25% less than international).

Interesting other figures from their report yesterday - China was flying 85% in July 2020 vs July 2019.

Middle East flying is down by about 75% vs last year - Asia Pacific is down 50% vs last year. That might explain EK's more draconian actions.



And just for fun, and to fill in my SLS2 time, I went back and looked at air travel post 9/11. It took 6 months for ASK to recover 90% of pre 9/11 numbers - it took 3 years for it to recover 100%.


TLDR - ICAO predict 66-89% flying end of March 2021. I am assuming they will pick up another 1-24% in the following 9 months to make my 90% assumption accurate.


So yeah - I am pretty happy with my 90%+ prediction for 17months from now.

PS Farman yes it might be several years longer to get to 100% 2019 levels - just like it took 6months to get to 90% post 9/11 but another 2.5 years to get back to 100%. But hardly a reason to be so pessimistic.

[Sam Ting Wong]

NC, as always an interesting post.

I would argue there is one major difference to any of the previous scenarios however.

There is no solution yet, and nobody knows if and when we will have one. It is not a singular shock as 911, it is a constantly present suppression.

Which makes prediction pure guess work.

PS 85% of Chinese domestical (!) traffic returned, not 85 % of the total

[Progress Wanchai]

Icao put out a report yesterday - with many predictions going out to Mar2021.

On 12Aug20, overall, the industry is down 60% on 2019 seat capacity (btw, as pilots, we care about ASK because they pay us to fly not make revenue - RPK/yield is profitability - profitable or not, we will be flying more).

For December 2020 there are a range of scenarios predicting 56-89% of 2019 levels. (the high level assumes V shaped recovery etc)

For end of March 2021, their range of scenarios predict 66-89% of flights (seat capacity - actual figures are 63-85% when compared to what was originally planned for 2021 pre covid - so taking off that 2019-2021 growth gives you comparison to 2019 numbers).

US domestic and Asia Pacific flying has been far more resilient than just international according to them(reduction of 20-25% less than international).

Interesting other figures from their report yesterday - China was flying 85% in July 2020 vs July 2019.

Middle East flying is down by about 75% vs last year - Asia Pacific is down 50% vs last year. That might explain EK's more draconian actions.



And just for fun, and to fill in my SLS2 time, I went back and looked at air travel post 9/11. It took 6 months for ASK to recover 90% of pre 9/11 numbers - it took 3 years for it to recover 100%.


TLDR - ICAO predict 66-89% flying end of March 2021. I am assuming they will pick up another 1-24% in the following 9 months to make my 90% assumption accurate.


So yeah - I am pretty happy with my 90%+ prediction for 17months from now.

PS Farman yes it might be several years longer to get to 100% 2019 levels - just like it took 6months to get to 90% post 9/11 but another 2.5 years to get back to 100%. But hardly a reason to be so pessimistic.

The economy was in reasonable condition prior to 9/11 leaving a lot of room for reserve banks to adjust monetary policy. This time central banks are mere spectators to this slow motion train crash.

[Numero Crunchero]

The economy was in reasonable condition prior to 9/11 leaving a lot of room for reserve banks to adjust monetary policy. This time central banks are mere spectators to this slow motion train crash.


Ha ha ha.
Ok you guys win - either ICAO is too pessimistic or too optimistic. Farman - you are right - ICAO is pessimistic enough - Progress Wanchai you are also right - ICAO are too optimistic ;-)

[Progress Wanchai]

Ha ha ha.
Ok you guys win - either ICAO is too pessimistic or too optimistic. Farman - you are right - ICAO is pessimistic enough - Progress Wanchai you are also right - ICAO are too optimistic ;-)

I was tempted to comment that reply is beneath you until I remembered you were raised as a public servant ;)

A pre-GFC sized airline would be about a 30% to 40% reduction on current size. Broadly inline with the adjustment other international airlines are making. Hardly an unreasonable stab in the dark.

[Flex88]

In all the above posts most every note and response is made or predicted entirely on the ebbing of this #ChinaVirus apocalypse and that, on its demise, spending, travel and populations thoughts processes will magically pop back to pre #WuhanVirus days.
CX sits bleeding cash micro managing these events, events that cannot be "managed' , hoping and betting (CX has a spectacular history in losing BILLIONS on bets) that when the virus is under control, "most' of pre virus business will return.
If this is the case, then why have many very large airlines already announced or affected massive layoffs? Has CX missed something or is the 9th floor Prince brigade stuck in a wishful thought vortex ?

One thing not mentioned is the global drop in GDP. The US for example will lose ~ 5% GDP in 2020 equating to 1.07 TRILLION dollars. This is money that will not be manufactured, sold, invested, earned as salary etc. it simply evaporates from the economy and its population.
The US accounts for ~ 15% of world GDP making the loss of world GDP at ~ 7.14 TRILLION dollars :eek: Mind numbing numbers to be sure however this estimate is on the absolute low side as many countries may be near a 20% drop (as is the UK).

What does this mean?

Many economists posit that these drops in GDP will take 4 > 10 years to recover to pre virus days due to the fundamental damage the virus is wreaking on global economies and it's not hard to extrapolate the above numbers over a longer term while of course (hopefully) decreasing over time.
Economists are also speculating that this virus driven armageddon may cause "permanent" changes to a populations spending habits.. ??

The UK's 20% 2nd quarter drop in GDP was, as quoted, a result of a 70% drop in "Private Consumption" e.g. travel and vacation i.e. DISCRETIONAL SPENDING

I am sure each and every one of you have already had thoughts or family talks on cutting Discretional Spending AS HAVE every other person and corporation in the world.. Consider how this will affect travel, both personal AND corporate, and vacation spending over the next 5 > 10 years and perhaps forever ?
Also consider how this virus has eviscerated personal and corporate savings/balance sheets worldwide and the cumulative effect this will have on all types of travel !!

Thoughts ?

[Rie]

Not quite sure where this would fit in the forums but I received this one early this morning. Doing its rounds by the looks of it.

All cockpit crews on COS99, COS08 & COS18 will sign COS20, COS20 will be roughly the same as COS18, and both are based on productivity, but the basic pay will be 10% less than COS18. All COS99 or COS08 ghost expat Housing will be the same as the LEP, and the new HKPA will add 15% to all ranks. As for the education allowance, HKD50,000 will be given to each child, up to 3. In terms of P-fund, everyone will be maxed by 15%. Reduced to 8%. Annual leave captain 36 days; FO 24 days; SO 18 days. After the company is summoned, it will be given two weeks to consider whether to sign over, and those who refuse will be compensated for three months of labor in accordance with the labor law. On long term service payment.
As for KA cockpit, the company will streamline 40% of its staff. In other words, it will be based on seniority to cut, and the other 60% will sign COS20. If the other 60% of the employees choose to leave, it will be reduced by 40%. If seniority makes up, if you cannot join back, employees will be compensated in accordance with labor laws. 40% of colleagues who leave will also be given priority in the future.
UO cockpit crew also needs to sign COS20, but there is no need for reduction.
All CX, KA & UO cockpit crew companies have the final decision to be assigned to any company.

[OK4Wire]

No comment about the content. but the syntax and grammar seem a bit off.

[Slasher1]

In all the above posts most every note and response is made or predicted entirely on the ebbing of this #ChinaVirus apocalypse and that, on its demise, spending, travel and populations thoughts processes will magically pop back to pre #WuhanVirus days.
CX sits bleeding cash micro managing these events, events that cannot be "managed' , hoping and betting (CX has a spectacular history in losing BILLIONS on bets) that when the virus is under control, "most' of pre virus business will return.
If this is the case, then why have many very large airlines already announced or affected massive layoffs? Has CX missed something or is the 9th floor Prince brigade stuck in a wishful thought vortex ?

One thing not mentioned is the global drop in GDP. The US for example will lose ~ 5% GDP in 2020 equating to 1.07 TRILLION dollars. This is money that will not be manufactured, sold, invested, earned as salary etc. it simply evaporates from the economy and its population.
The US accounts for ~ 15% of world GDP making the loss of world GDP at ~ 7.14 TRILLION dollars :eek: Mind numbing numbers to be sure however this estimate is on the absolute low side as many countries may be near a 20% drop (as is the UK).

What does this mean?

Many economists posit that these drops in GDP will take 4 > 10 years to recover to pre virus days due to the fundamental damage the virus is wreaking on global economies and it's not hard to extrapolate the above numbers over a longer term while of course (hopefully) decreasing over time.
Economists are also speculating that this virus driven armageddon may cause "permanent" changes to a populations spending habits.. ??

The UK's 20% 2nd quarter drop in GDP was, as quoted, a result of a 70% drop in "Private Consumption" e.g. travel and vacation i.e. DISCRETIONAL SPENDING

I am sure each and every one of you have already had thoughts or family talks on cutting Discretional Spending AS HAVE every other person and corporation in the world.. Consider how this will affect travel, both personal AND corporate, and vacation spending over the next 5 > 10 years and perhaps forever ?
Also consider how this virus has eviscerated personal and corporate savings/balance sheets worldwide and the cumulative effect this will have on all types of travel !!

Thoughts ?

The way the various governments have handled the WuFlu hasn't worked out so well (except perhaps Sweden and the like). But most governments are one-note Charlies when they get difficult situations over which they have limited control. Meaning that crossing any types of international borders is likely to remain cumbersome and difficult for quite some time into the foreseeable future.

If YOU had the possibility of being thrown into a gulag (excuse me, hospital) on the results of a test entering a nation (or even some cumbersome paperwork to fill out) would you be inclined to travel into that country if you didn't have to ? Or had to quarantine, etc ? So inclusive of all the propaganda and fear we have real difficulty simply getting into and out of countries in an airline in which EVERY trip is an international one. So this ain't going away anytime soon. And with the massive damage done to the working segments of economies (closing down restaurants, bars, gyms, cumbersome junk in manufacturing procedures, lines on floors and masks, etc) and inefficiencies interjected (as well as infusion money that doesn't really exist blown into it) this is a self-created armageddon. While capital markets might recover quickly (largely due to infusion money) there are huge segments being paid to idle from money that doesn't exist. How does that turn out ?

So, no, don't see many airline trips or cruise ship vacations anytime soon. People might stock up on 'stuff' or take trips in an RV (where they have control over their destiny) but I don't see alot of interest in discretionary income for vacations anytime soon. Or spending money for business travel and meetings when one can Zoom.

[Jetdream]

So based on the above no crew would be able to afford to live in Hong Kong, and many would face financial ruin. Sounds like a great plan going forward.

All I’ll say about these rumours is that a few months ago it was doom and gloom, new CoS, mergers etc but the one thing no one mentioned (bailout) occurred.

Im not saying we won’t feel some pain, but I find these rumours can add a lot of stress to an already stressful time. And I’m not just referring to pprune.

[Slasher1]

So based on the above no crew would be able to afford to live in Hong Kong, and many would face financial ruin. Sounds like a great plan going forward.

All I’ll say about these rumours is that a few months ago it was doom and gloom, new CoS, mergers etc but the one thing no one mentioned (bailout) occurred.

Im not saying we won’t feel some pain, but I find these rumours can add a lot of stress to an already stressful time. And I’m not just referring to pprune.

I wouldn’t say it’s stress just realism. There is no indication that any of the major world governments will reach their senses anytime soon and as such cumbersome and expensive procedures of testing, quarantine, bureaucratic paperwork, and various ‘Wesley Mouch’ es trying to outdo each other with useless top down inefficient strategeries to mitigate spread which are wholly ineffective will be coming down the pike for quite some time. Feel good BS like the US TSA on steroids trying to reach into all facets of everyday life accomplishing nothing except hurting economies and life in general.

This particularly hard hits people attempting to transit international borders and will be in place for quite some time. With the media having the primary goal to scare the hell out of everyone and advocating bubble wrapping a world that cannot be bubble wrapped. Nor will this fade from memory any time soon.

And where does all this bailout money come from ? In reality it only exists temporarily up to the point people realize it has to be backed by something real and tangible — a something that is not nor ever will be there. If you’re not making things, doing things, and going places you’re not generating any real capital. Eventually the bill comes due.

[MENELAUS]

No comment about the content. but the syntax and grammar seem a bit off.


Patently Google translated from it’s native Mongolian.

[Tappingtheadmiral]

Patently Google translated from it’s native Mongolian.


It’s supposedly being spread by a local manager hence the “translation”.

[doolay]

A tactical leak. Expectation management 101.