No Such Thing As Crew Shortage - Only Lost Opportunities!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unpopular minority??
This leaves me in the unpopular minority here that thinks ST's doing an OK job given what he's got to work with. Let's sit tight and not let the company lead us up the industrial action path.
You, and me perhaps, may be in an unpopular minority but that is of a minority so who gives a f***? No doubt NC can give us a mathematical formula to show that PPrune accurately reflects that a minority really is a majority.
ST has been doing a good job with what he has to work with. Sitting tight and slowly pushing will get better results than is advocated by subscribers to PPrune.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Such Thing As Crew Shortage - Only Lost Opportunities
I think this saying will become as famous (or is it infamous) as the saying "There's No Money In Freight"
Well done NR, finally something to remember you by when you move on!
I think this saying will become as famous (or is it infamous) as the saying "There's No Money In Freight"
Well done NR, finally something to remember you by when you move on!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: asia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A navigator for China's headwinds- Tony Tyler
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: a few places
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the full article
A navigator for China's headwinds
By Raphael Minder
Published: February 11 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 11 2008 02:00
Last Thursday, Tony Tyler, chief executive of Cathay Pacific Airways, reported to work at 7.30am on Chinese New Year. He then spent much of his day walking around Hong Kong airport and some of his airline's offices in the city, handing out to staff on duty the traditional lai see , or little red packets containing a token cash gift.
"It's the least I can do for them, given that they're working on a holiday after already having had some very, very tough days to cope with," he says. "It's really been round-the-clock work for many people."
Such generosity is at odds with Mr Tyler's reputation for costcutting. But it is a sign of the difficulties Cathay has experienced in the last three weeks. Freezing weather has forced mass cancellations of commercial and cargo flights, as well as paralysed part of China's road and rail network, at a time when tens of millions of people were trying to travel home for the Lunar New Year.
It is too early to measure the impact of the winter chaos on earnings, Mr Tyler says, but it will mean a return to belt-tightening for airlines. "Anybody who was not making good money last year is really going to get hit," he predicts. Furthermore, it shows that "there is no easy money to be made operating in China". Even without freak weather, "Chinese yields are low, competition is very fierce and traffic is seasonal," he says.
Although most of his attention is now devoted to China, Mr Tyler, 52, is a product of Swire, the London-based family conglomerate that controls Cathay Pacific. Joining Swire straight from Oxford University, where he studied law, he grasped the opportunity to work in the Asia-Pacific region, where it had built up its empire, far from the UK. "Britain in the mid-70s was a depressing place to be," he says. "Politically and economically it was just awful, so I applied to lots of jobs that would take me abroad."
Homesickness has not set in, despite past reports in the British press that had linked him to a return at the helm of British Airways. "Obviously the [BA] letter got lost in the post," he jokes. "I would love to do this [Cathay] job for another four years." (Cathay's retirement age is 57.)
In the 30 years since he joined Cathay, the Hong-Kong based carrier has become the second-most profitable airline in Asia after Singapore Airlines. That success has been boosted recently by growth in air traffic, but Mr Tyler is cautious when it comes to reading the Chinese tea leaves, calling speculation over its economy "the China hype". While conceding the Beijing Olympics should boost travel and tourism to China, he does not believe it will be a bumper year. Instead, he says airlines should prepare for "a virtual cessation of business travel" to Beijing this summer, normally a peak season.
Still, after watching from the sidelines as his Chinese partner airline, Air China, pursued a controversial takeover offer for its smaller rival China Eastern, Mr Tyler is now considering stepping into the ring by helping to fund a bid by Air China, with which Cathay has a cross-shareholding. Such a bid would follow last month's rejection by Air China and other shareholders of a tie-up between China Eastern and Singapore Airlines that had already been cleared by Beijing.
Whatever the outcome of the takeover battle, Mr Tyler welcomes this unexpected proof that market forces are at work in China. "It has taken a lot of people by surprise that you've got two essentially state-owned enterprises arguing publicly about the best way forward for aviation in China," he says. "Although China is not a market economy, certainly in this instance it seems to be behaving a bit like one. That sort of degree of openness to public debate can only be a good thing."
Though Cathay has benefited considerably from its incumbent status in Hong Kong, Mr Tyler is scornful of rivals that benefit from government financial support. In his line of fire stand Middle Eastern competitors - Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways - which, he argues, are expanding on an economically unsustainable scale that is "bad news for the industry".
He adds: "The European governments at least didn't have a lot of cash to burn but these [Middle Eastern] governments have got infinitely deep pockets, so the airlines that they are building don't have to worry about cost of capital."
Of lesser concern is the emergence of Asian low-cost carriers (LCCs) such as AirAsia of Malaysia and Tiger Airways, part-owned by Singapore Airlines. Mr Tyler predicts that it will take years before Asia will have the common aviation legislation needed for such no-frills airlines to match the success of Ryanair and EasyJet in Europe. Some pundits, however, believe Mr Tyler is being obstinately blind to a business threat.
Peter Harbison, executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, a Sydney-based consultancy, says: "Tony is clearly a strong leader, who has navigated a good course through a difficult period. I guess the thing about him that surprises me is that he not only made a totally wrong call on the prospects for LCCs in this region, but he apparently still - for whatever reason - staunchly maintains that they have no future . . . Pragmatism might not be his greatest strength."
Apart from his first year with Swire, when he was sent to Australia to work for its refrigerated transport business, Mr Tyler has always worked at Cathay. "Looking back I rather wish that I'd spent a bit more time outside in another part of the group," he remarks.
What he seems never to miss, however, is a chance to indulge his passion for sports, although he has switched to indoor rowing rather than rugby, a sport that has left him wearing for the past 18 years a copper bangle, given to him by his mother to combat arthritis caused by repeated bashing on the rugby field.
At Cathay, most of the bruising has come from confrontations with pilots and other staff over cost cuts. Just before Christmas, the airline averted another strike threat by cabin crew over its medical insurance policy. His tough stance has given him a reputation for intransigence among staff that jars with his easy-going manner in an interview, as well as his sociable side - he also leads a rock band that started in Cathay's engineering department, called Night Flight.
Labour conflicts may have become par for the course for airline executives worldwide, but they remain an anomaly in Hong Kong, where the trade union movement is generally weak. "There are a lot of cocktail-party experts here who tell me what I should be doing but have never been near a union in their lives," Mr Tyler says with a wry smile.
This week Mr Tyler is on his annual skiing vacation in Whistler, Canada. Last year he returned from there with three broken ribs and a dislocated shoulder. Was he too intrepid or just not as good at skiing as other sports? "No, I'm a good skier but in fact it was equipment failure."
It is the kind of explanation one would expect from an airline industry veteran.
'You can leave the company but you cannot leave the club'
As an Oxford University-educated son of an army officer, Tony Tyler was comfortably installed in the British establishment even before joining Swire, a family business whose history is intimately linked to that of the British empire in Asia. Even now, Mr Tyler argues, Swire remains "an unusual company," akin to a British gentlemen's club with "a very, very strong culture of belonging".
Late last year, when he hosted a boating and partying weekend in Hong Kong to celebrate his 30 years with Swire, his whole intake showed up, even though only one of them is still working for Swire. "You can leave the company but you cannot leave the club," Mr Tyler says.
But since the British handover of Hong Kong in 1997, Mr Tyler has had to work hard to integrate another organisation, that of the Chinese Communist party. The approach has been to play down British ties and instead emphasise Cathay's hybrid status as an airline that is foreign-controlled but whose aircraft fly under Chinese registration. Describing the courtship process, Mr Tyler says: "We are not outside the tent but I would not go as far as to say that we're in the inner sanctum."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
By Raphael Minder
Published: February 11 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 11 2008 02:00
Last Thursday, Tony Tyler, chief executive of Cathay Pacific Airways, reported to work at 7.30am on Chinese New Year. He then spent much of his day walking around Hong Kong airport and some of his airline's offices in the city, handing out to staff on duty the traditional lai see , or little red packets containing a token cash gift.
"It's the least I can do for them, given that they're working on a holiday after already having had some very, very tough days to cope with," he says. "It's really been round-the-clock work for many people."
Such generosity is at odds with Mr Tyler's reputation for costcutting. But it is a sign of the difficulties Cathay has experienced in the last three weeks. Freezing weather has forced mass cancellations of commercial and cargo flights, as well as paralysed part of China's road and rail network, at a time when tens of millions of people were trying to travel home for the Lunar New Year.
It is too early to measure the impact of the winter chaos on earnings, Mr Tyler says, but it will mean a return to belt-tightening for airlines. "Anybody who was not making good money last year is really going to get hit," he predicts. Furthermore, it shows that "there is no easy money to be made operating in China". Even without freak weather, "Chinese yields are low, competition is very fierce and traffic is seasonal," he says.
Although most of his attention is now devoted to China, Mr Tyler, 52, is a product of Swire, the London-based family conglomerate that controls Cathay Pacific. Joining Swire straight from Oxford University, where he studied law, he grasped the opportunity to work in the Asia-Pacific region, where it had built up its empire, far from the UK. "Britain in the mid-70s was a depressing place to be," he says. "Politically and economically it was just awful, so I applied to lots of jobs that would take me abroad."
Homesickness has not set in, despite past reports in the British press that had linked him to a return at the helm of British Airways. "Obviously the [BA] letter got lost in the post," he jokes. "I would love to do this [Cathay] job for another four years." (Cathay's retirement age is 57.)
In the 30 years since he joined Cathay, the Hong-Kong based carrier has become the second-most profitable airline in Asia after Singapore Airlines. That success has been boosted recently by growth in air traffic, but Mr Tyler is cautious when it comes to reading the Chinese tea leaves, calling speculation over its economy "the China hype". While conceding the Beijing Olympics should boost travel and tourism to China, he does not believe it will be a bumper year. Instead, he says airlines should prepare for "a virtual cessation of business travel" to Beijing this summer, normally a peak season.
Still, after watching from the sidelines as his Chinese partner airline, Air China, pursued a controversial takeover offer for its smaller rival China Eastern, Mr Tyler is now considering stepping into the ring by helping to fund a bid by Air China, with which Cathay has a cross-shareholding. Such a bid would follow last month's rejection by Air China and other shareholders of a tie-up between China Eastern and Singapore Airlines that had already been cleared by Beijing.
Whatever the outcome of the takeover battle, Mr Tyler welcomes this unexpected proof that market forces are at work in China. "It has taken a lot of people by surprise that you've got two essentially state-owned enterprises arguing publicly about the best way forward for aviation in China," he says. "Although China is not a market economy, certainly in this instance it seems to be behaving a bit like one. That sort of degree of openness to public debate can only be a good thing."
Though Cathay has benefited considerably from its incumbent status in Hong Kong, Mr Tyler is scornful of rivals that benefit from government financial support. In his line of fire stand Middle Eastern competitors - Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airways - which, he argues, are expanding on an economically unsustainable scale that is "bad news for the industry".
He adds: "The European governments at least didn't have a lot of cash to burn but these [Middle Eastern] governments have got infinitely deep pockets, so the airlines that they are building don't have to worry about cost of capital."
Of lesser concern is the emergence of Asian low-cost carriers (LCCs) such as AirAsia of Malaysia and Tiger Airways, part-owned by Singapore Airlines. Mr Tyler predicts that it will take years before Asia will have the common aviation legislation needed for such no-frills airlines to match the success of Ryanair and EasyJet in Europe. Some pundits, however, believe Mr Tyler is being obstinately blind to a business threat.
Peter Harbison, executive chairman of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation, a Sydney-based consultancy, says: "Tony is clearly a strong leader, who has navigated a good course through a difficult period. I guess the thing about him that surprises me is that he not only made a totally wrong call on the prospects for LCCs in this region, but he apparently still - for whatever reason - staunchly maintains that they have no future . . . Pragmatism might not be his greatest strength."
Apart from his first year with Swire, when he was sent to Australia to work for its refrigerated transport business, Mr Tyler has always worked at Cathay. "Looking back I rather wish that I'd spent a bit more time outside in another part of the group," he remarks.
What he seems never to miss, however, is a chance to indulge his passion for sports, although he has switched to indoor rowing rather than rugby, a sport that has left him wearing for the past 18 years a copper bangle, given to him by his mother to combat arthritis caused by repeated bashing on the rugby field.
At Cathay, most of the bruising has come from confrontations with pilots and other staff over cost cuts. Just before Christmas, the airline averted another strike threat by cabin crew over its medical insurance policy. His tough stance has given him a reputation for intransigence among staff that jars with his easy-going manner in an interview, as well as his sociable side - he also leads a rock band that started in Cathay's engineering department, called Night Flight.
Labour conflicts may have become par for the course for airline executives worldwide, but they remain an anomaly in Hong Kong, where the trade union movement is generally weak. "There are a lot of cocktail-party experts here who tell me what I should be doing but have never been near a union in their lives," Mr Tyler says with a wry smile.
This week Mr Tyler is on his annual skiing vacation in Whistler, Canada. Last year he returned from there with three broken ribs and a dislocated shoulder. Was he too intrepid or just not as good at skiing as other sports? "No, I'm a good skier but in fact it was equipment failure."
It is the kind of explanation one would expect from an airline industry veteran.
'You can leave the company but you cannot leave the club'
As an Oxford University-educated son of an army officer, Tony Tyler was comfortably installed in the British establishment even before joining Swire, a family business whose history is intimately linked to that of the British empire in Asia. Even now, Mr Tyler argues, Swire remains "an unusual company," akin to a British gentlemen's club with "a very, very strong culture of belonging".
Late last year, when he hosted a boating and partying weekend in Hong Kong to celebrate his 30 years with Swire, his whole intake showed up, even though only one of them is still working for Swire. "You can leave the company but you cannot leave the club," Mr Tyler says.
But since the British handover of Hong Kong in 1997, Mr Tyler has had to work hard to integrate another organisation, that of the Chinese Communist party. The approach has been to play down British ties and instead emphasise Cathay's hybrid status as an airline that is foreign-controlled but whose aircraft fly under Chinese registration. Describing the courtship process, Mr Tyler says: "We are not outside the tent but I would not go as far as to say that we're in the inner sanctum."
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pprune; representative?
Amusedreader,
there are two points of view with regards to Pprune posters...1, they represent the majority, or 2, they represent the minority and should be ignored. I know which view most of the GC have.
I go on straw polling...I work on the principle that people I fly with and meet down route are a representative sample of what the majority are thinking. Based on that, and not what is said on Pprune, I have chosen to say certain things. I have received 1 email from someone that is very happy with the way things are...but then he is approaching 55 and on a base so I can see why he would like recent imposed changes!
So whether the majority or minority are represented by Pprune, lets look at the 'runs on the board' of past actions.
Over the last decade the biggest payrises have occurred/resulted from? our must industrial actions. I seem to remember the B scalers getting 5/4/3% in 1999 and 5%HDP in 2001. Since then we have co-operated extensively with management...in fact we had 3 proposals that had to be resubmitted to the membership since the membership gave the wrong vote on first go (49ers, housing, RP07). For some reason the DEFO vote was only given once...but then the company didn't really need our vote on unilaterally changing CoS for new joiners - same as 1993!
So, ignoring maths and hyperbole, which path has reaped the greatest reward? Two industrial actions (that cost 49jobs) and got 17% over 25months or 6 years of cooperation that got 3-5%?
The majority of pilots dont want industrial warfare, but they sure as hell don't want to stay in the canine position much longer!
there are two points of view with regards to Pprune posters...1, they represent the majority, or 2, they represent the minority and should be ignored. I know which view most of the GC have.
I go on straw polling...I work on the principle that people I fly with and meet down route are a representative sample of what the majority are thinking. Based on that, and not what is said on Pprune, I have chosen to say certain things. I have received 1 email from someone that is very happy with the way things are...but then he is approaching 55 and on a base so I can see why he would like recent imposed changes!
So whether the majority or minority are represented by Pprune, lets look at the 'runs on the board' of past actions.
Over the last decade the biggest payrises have occurred/resulted from? our must industrial actions. I seem to remember the B scalers getting 5/4/3% in 1999 and 5%HDP in 2001. Since then we have co-operated extensively with management...in fact we had 3 proposals that had to be resubmitted to the membership since the membership gave the wrong vote on first go (49ers, housing, RP07). For some reason the DEFO vote was only given once...but then the company didn't really need our vote on unilaterally changing CoS for new joiners - same as 1993!
So, ignoring maths and hyperbole, which path has reaped the greatest reward? Two industrial actions (that cost 49jobs) and got 17% over 25months or 6 years of cooperation that got 3-5%?
The majority of pilots dont want industrial warfare, but they sure as hell don't want to stay in the canine position much longer!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dragon69.....read the post....particularly the "point part". I'll spell it out for you...less applicants=fewer available pilots=shortage of crew=better salaries and Cos. (not rocket science, just business). So, read it again, and hopefully you'll know what to do.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ignoring maths and hyperbole
NC, now you prove that you have really lost the plot. Biggest payrises have come from industrial action? What a joke. Unless I’m mistaken I took a large pay cut in 1999, although not as much as my mates on a Base – yes, 1999, the year of the A scalers PAY CUTS, not pay rises.
The industrial action I remember is over 600 A scalers running scared and a last minute deal, or was it a capitulation? What would have happened had not many FOs and B scalers suffered from stress?
Most of my so called 5% HDP pay rise in 2001 went towards keeping the 49ers and their families in a home and with food and I did not begrudge it. There was more than 5% on the table but the leadership decided not to take it because they wanted a fight. Really successful industrial action.
Unless of course you want to do it again and are prepared to see another 49 jobs go so that you can have a 5% increase in HDP.
So, I’m afraid the ignoring of maths and hyperbole (or is it the twisting of maths and hyperbole?) comes from you.
Lastly I assume the doggy position you refer to is not the one of lying on its back, legs akimbo and having its tummy rubbed, because that’s the real situation out there.
The industrial action I remember is over 600 A scalers running scared and a last minute deal, or was it a capitulation? What would have happened had not many FOs and B scalers suffered from stress?
Most of my so called 5% HDP pay rise in 2001 went towards keeping the 49ers and their families in a home and with food and I did not begrudge it. There was more than 5% on the table but the leadership decided not to take it because they wanted a fight. Really successful industrial action.
Unless of course you want to do it again and are prepared to see another 49 jobs go so that you can have a 5% increase in HDP.
So, I’m afraid the ignoring of maths and hyperbole (or is it the twisting of maths and hyperbole?) comes from you.
Lastly I assume the doggy position you refer to is not the one of lying on its back, legs akimbo and having its tummy rubbed, because that’s the real situation out there.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless of course you want to do it again and are prepared to see another 49 jobs go so that you can have a 5% increase in HDP.
Why?
CX's name in the pilot employment market is poor now. Imagine how low it would be if the try sacking pilots again.
CX is desperately short of crew. Just ask how many guys are getting called on G days. See how many flights are not crewed when the roster is printed each month.
Missed Opportunity's says NR. How much longer is Swire going to tolerate this? Do you think Swire would tolerate NR losing even more opportunities due to mass sacking of pilots. No bloody way!!!
The times have changed. Today sees many great job options available outside of CX. NR's & his clan are well aware of this.
Stop living in fear...
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The real minority
Hi amused reader,
I don't think 1700+ CX pilots really care that you and I took a pay cut in 1999 and got 80,000-200,000 CX options with a $7.47 exercise price, in compensation. We are in the minority of 20% who earn 20+% more than their peers for doing the same work. I would try somewhere else other than Pprune if you are looking for sympathy.
The last minute offer in 2001 was for higher HDP rates above 56hrs. I haven't checked but I suspect they are the same numbers we now 'enjoy'. Funny how the big payrises came after CC and the threat of LIA, not when we had no CC or IA. I guess another way to look at it was that CX didn't want any more industrial fights so fired 49 guys to scare us into acquiescence....I would say that tactic worked.
I don't think 1700+ CX pilots really care that you and I took a pay cut in 1999 and got 80,000-200,000 CX options with a $7.47 exercise price, in compensation. We are in the minority of 20% who earn 20+% more than their peers for doing the same work. I would try somewhere else other than Pprune if you are looking for sympathy.
The last minute offer in 2001 was for higher HDP rates above 56hrs. I haven't checked but I suspect they are the same numbers we now 'enjoy'. Funny how the big payrises came after CC and the threat of LIA, not when we had no CC or IA. I guess another way to look at it was that CX didn't want any more industrial fights so fired 49 guys to scare us into acquiescence....I would say that tactic worked.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cost Cutter
Check out the Cabin Crew site on Intra CX. GM Inflight Services is thanking cabin crew for helping out on G days. Company are not short of cabin crew, you understand, but there is an unusually high level of sickness. As any manager will tell you a high sickness rate equals low morale. There is clearly something wrong. Perhaps the CEO should cancel all leave until morale improves. The GMIS goes on to say that some flights have departed with less than the full complement of crew and that crew not normally qualified in a particular role are occupying unfamiliar positions. To cope with these problems, the company have simplified the service plan, whilst, at the same time, retaining the premium service. Can anyone spot the disconnect? Of course you can. Premium service will obviously suffer if aircraft are short of crew, crew are working out of position and the service plan is simplified. Did the managers think we wouldn’t notice? What is more to the point, will those folk who travel around the world sampling airlines products, deciding who is airline of the year also fail to notice? I very much doubt it. When you add a ‘simplified’ cabin service to the unserviceability of passenger amenities, about which the cabin crew regularly complain, it doesn’t take long before the CX image is tarnished. It takes weeks to lose a good reputation and years to get it back. In my opinion we have terrific cabin crew, as good as any I have flown with, but they are being ground down by the relentless cutting by the company into their terms and conditions. Combine that with constantly having to apologise to passengers because equipment doesn’t work and in no time at all your sickness levels will skyrocket.
The GMIS article should be read in conjunction with NR’s article in Crews News in which he admits that opportunities are being lost. That is not like CX. What has gone wrong? How can the company see an opportunity in the market place and not take whatever steps are necessary in order to take advantage of that opportunity? How can a vibrant company use lack of crew as the excuse for falling behind the competition? I know of at least one route we are not starting this year for lack of crew and yet we have lost more than 80 badly needed pilots this year. If NR is not sure why they are leaving I can tell him as can everyone else on this site; it’s the money. CX are no longer competitive. Whereas we used to be the premium airline to work for, we are now scrambling for crew along with everyone else. In fact, we are losing out to the serious opposition and that same opposition is attracting away our trained crew. One trained and very competent pilot who left us to join Virgin after 12 months in the company said that the starting package with Virgin paid more than the CX package even after one year with CX. Furthermore, whilst I like Hong Kong, there are those who would need an inducement to leave home shores to work here. When you factor that into the equation, along with having to run the gauntlet in training, you should realise, if you are a manager, that a significant amount of cash is required to balance the scales. CX used to pay a significant amount of cash and had a minimal turnover of crew. Now 4 per cent is seen as an acceptable attrition rate. The cost of reducing the attrition rate with extra money is clearly not seen as being worthwhile, yet income is being lost because we cannot fly routes that are available to us. So as long as we do not expand, we are not short of crew.
In order to save money on crew costs, the company is throwing money away in lost opportunities. It does not make economic sense.
I have some sympathy with NR and the other managers tasked with hanging on to the money. They are being driven by their managers. At this point it is worth reading the article in the Financial Times about our CEO. In the article it mentions our CEO’s reputation for cost-cutting. The fact that his reputation is mentioned in the article suggests that he is proud of being seen as a cost cutter. Business costs must be kept under control, but if a business is to thrive in a growing market it must also spend. Notwithstanding the imminent mild recession, South East Asia will continue to grow, a fact recognised by the management in their aircraft buying policies. Cost cutting has its place, but the cost cutting now taking place at CX will cost money in lost opportunities. NR has said as much. Meanwhile CX is rotting away from the inside. I doubt that the GM Inflight Services would disagree as he struggles with the consequences of low morale. If CX fail to win accolades this year for their cabin service, the GMIS will take the blame. But we only need to read the article in the Financial Times to see where the blame should lie. If the airline cannot grow next year due to lack of crew, affecting the bottom line, will that be NR’s fault for failing to attract enough crew. Not in my view it won’t. The FT says it all.
The GMIS article should be read in conjunction with NR’s article in Crews News in which he admits that opportunities are being lost. That is not like CX. What has gone wrong? How can the company see an opportunity in the market place and not take whatever steps are necessary in order to take advantage of that opportunity? How can a vibrant company use lack of crew as the excuse for falling behind the competition? I know of at least one route we are not starting this year for lack of crew and yet we have lost more than 80 badly needed pilots this year. If NR is not sure why they are leaving I can tell him as can everyone else on this site; it’s the money. CX are no longer competitive. Whereas we used to be the premium airline to work for, we are now scrambling for crew along with everyone else. In fact, we are losing out to the serious opposition and that same opposition is attracting away our trained crew. One trained and very competent pilot who left us to join Virgin after 12 months in the company said that the starting package with Virgin paid more than the CX package even after one year with CX. Furthermore, whilst I like Hong Kong, there are those who would need an inducement to leave home shores to work here. When you factor that into the equation, along with having to run the gauntlet in training, you should realise, if you are a manager, that a significant amount of cash is required to balance the scales. CX used to pay a significant amount of cash and had a minimal turnover of crew. Now 4 per cent is seen as an acceptable attrition rate. The cost of reducing the attrition rate with extra money is clearly not seen as being worthwhile, yet income is being lost because we cannot fly routes that are available to us. So as long as we do not expand, we are not short of crew.
In order to save money on crew costs, the company is throwing money away in lost opportunities. It does not make economic sense.
I have some sympathy with NR and the other managers tasked with hanging on to the money. They are being driven by their managers. At this point it is worth reading the article in the Financial Times about our CEO. In the article it mentions our CEO’s reputation for cost-cutting. The fact that his reputation is mentioned in the article suggests that he is proud of being seen as a cost cutter. Business costs must be kept under control, but if a business is to thrive in a growing market it must also spend. Notwithstanding the imminent mild recession, South East Asia will continue to grow, a fact recognised by the management in their aircraft buying policies. Cost cutting has its place, but the cost cutting now taking place at CX will cost money in lost opportunities. NR has said as much. Meanwhile CX is rotting away from the inside. I doubt that the GM Inflight Services would disagree as he struggles with the consequences of low morale. If CX fail to win accolades this year for their cabin service, the GMIS will take the blame. But we only need to read the article in the Financial Times to see where the blame should lie. If the airline cannot grow next year due to lack of crew, affecting the bottom line, will that be NR’s fault for failing to attract enough crew. Not in my view it won’t. The FT says it all.
Last edited by Turn and Burn; 18th Feb 2008 at 19:31.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The GMIS goes on to say that some flights have departed with less than the full complement of crew and that crew not normally qualified in a particular role are occupying unfamiliar positions.
To cope with these problems, the company have simplified the service plan, whilst, at the same time, retaining the premium service.
To cope with these problems, the company have simplified the service plan, whilst, at the same time, retaining the premium service.
ISM offered the crew left over passenger meals. She mentioned she would be taking her break and that another girl would bring up the meals. This turned out to be the brand new cabin crew member working onboard. For some reason she was assigned to work in a First Class position to make up the numbers (last minute sickness).
When our meals came through the cockpit door they were still all separated in there individual foil wrappings.
We politely asked why the meals hadn't been put together and placed on a plate to which the new girl replied "I wasn't told they had to be".
We couldn't help but wonder how the remainder of the First Class service went.
Now I understand that really all it was was a "simplified service".
Keep up the good work Cathay.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To continue on the thread of Crew shortage, yes it is not only Flight Deck crew that are in short supply, as those who fly know. My record recently has been "doors plus two" which meant that the nearly full load of passengers were served by a cabin staff complement that was reduced by 29%. I asked the ISM if she had been given authority for service recovery and she said she had not.
So I wonder, did any of the passengers complain about the reduced service? No, because they did not know that the reduced service was because of reduced manning. Perhaps it is appropriate to support our cabin crew in our pre departure announcements when we have a reduced cabin crew complement, so that they will not become the brunt of the HR screw up.
We know that the majority of our cabin crew do the best that they can, which is often appreciably more than the airlines from which we came. So let's let our passengers know how good they really are, that they are working under reduced conditions.
And I assume we all know why those 500 odd cabin crew left left don't we... Conditions of service.
ps Turn and Burn, you may have a good point in there but your prose is impenetrable. Please use paragraphs so we know what you mean. No one will read you until you do.
So I wonder, did any of the passengers complain about the reduced service? No, because they did not know that the reduced service was because of reduced manning. Perhaps it is appropriate to support our cabin crew in our pre departure announcements when we have a reduced cabin crew complement, so that they will not become the brunt of the HR screw up.
We know that the majority of our cabin crew do the best that they can, which is often appreciably more than the airlines from which we came. So let's let our passengers know how good they really are, that they are working under reduced conditions.
And I assume we all know why those 500 odd cabin crew left left don't we... Conditions of service.
ps Turn and Burn, you may have a good point in there but your prose is impenetrable. Please use paragraphs so we know what you mean. No one will read you until you do.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wouln't you sack NR?
I don't get it!
If somebody told me that opportunities were lost because of fuel prices, I would understand;
or recessions;
or lack of aircraft;
or lack of slots;
or bi laterals...etc
....these things management have little or no control over.
But pilots
.
How difficult is it to treat people decently and make the job a bit more attractive?
As the boss, I would be apoplectic
if NR told me the only thing stopping me from grasping fruitful opportunities is a lack of pilots. He would be out the door faster than he could say, 
"it was GMA's fault...".
I can't believe he has the tackle to own up to it in public!
What have I missed? Must be something.
Milly
If somebody told me that opportunities were lost because of fuel prices, I would understand;
or recessions;
or lack of aircraft;
or lack of slots;
or bi laterals...etc
....these things management have little or no control over.
But pilots
. How difficult is it to treat people decently and make the job a bit more attractive?
As the boss, I would be apoplectic
if NR told me the only thing stopping me from grasping fruitful opportunities is a lack of pilots. He would be out the door faster than he could say, "it was GMA's fault...". I can't believe he has the tackle to own up to it in public!
What have I missed? Must be something.
Milly
