Why redundancies/Furloughs are necessary
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why redundancies/Furloughs are necessary
After reading and researching the lastest, I think that this should be done. If we say CX needs to lay off 250 pilot's, this would include all DEC's and most if not all COS 08 pilot's. What this would force is that any future commands(They said this themselves) and any further promotions whether SO to JFO or JFO to FO etc,.. WOULD HAVE TO GO BY PURE SENIORITY.
Oh I see you want us to help out but forget & forgive all the past viloations of our COS and then sign yet another new COS and have faith that all the bad days are behind us. UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!
So many of us have been screwed whether out of a base, a command, an upgrade or a fleet change because of the nonsense. They gave the outsiders and those that quit a better deal. Man it is infuriating!
Either reward us for or our hard work or get stuffed. We should not let the company just have us forget and forgive what they have done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, how about better benefits. P Fund-the choices are mininal and we have all lost lots of money.
Ticketing. It is disgusting how the company makes money off it's employees. FOC's SHOULD BE FOC'S!!! We should get upgraded if seats are available on our own aircraft. I have watched completely empty business or first class seats while we are jammed in coach. How about better priorty on ONEWorld (We are the bottom.) And how about ticket prices coming down (WAY DOWN). The price we pay is just way too much.
CX should REALLY show some good faith and we MIGHT do the same. Sadly NONE of this will happen.
Oh I see you want us to help out but forget & forgive all the past viloations of our COS and then sign yet another new COS and have faith that all the bad days are behind us. UTTERLY RIDICULOUS!
So many of us have been screwed whether out of a base, a command, an upgrade or a fleet change because of the nonsense. They gave the outsiders and those that quit a better deal. Man it is infuriating!
Either reward us for or our hard work or get stuffed. We should not let the company just have us forget and forgive what they have done.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, how about better benefits. P Fund-the choices are mininal and we have all lost lots of money.
Ticketing. It is disgusting how the company makes money off it's employees. FOC's SHOULD BE FOC'S!!! We should get upgraded if seats are available on our own aircraft. I have watched completely empty business or first class seats while we are jammed in coach. How about better priorty on ONEWorld (We are the bottom.) And how about ticket prices coming down (WAY DOWN). The price we pay is just way too much.
CX should REALLY show some good faith and we MIGHT do the same. Sadly NONE of this will happen.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honkers
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I want to know is how many of the ex Oasis crew(GO etc) and the +55(MFL etc) posse are taking SLS.
A bit of a kick in the teeth for the rest of us if they don't sign up.
A bit of a kick in the teeth for the rest of us if they don't sign up.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I want to know is how many of the ex Oasis crew(GO etc) and the +55(MFL etc) posse are taking SLS.
A bit of a kick in the teeth for the rest of us if they don't sign up.
A bit of a kick in the teeth for the rest of us if they don't sign up.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: rice bowl
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same dream same team
Weren't some ex Oasis chaps ex Cathay. ie Leave Cathay to join a rival and bank on Cathay's demise. That's great loyalty, but wait let's reward them.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DEC again?
Furloughed pilots should obviously be the first to be recruited when things pick up again. Should they get their old job and base back though? I think they should only get back what their seniority will at that time hold. It would sort a lot of problems out.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Helping out on the 3rd floor
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading and researching the lastest, I think that this should be done. If we say CX needs to lay off 250 pilot's, this would include all DEC's and most if not all COS 08 pilot's. What this would force is that any future commands(They said this themselves) and any further promotions whether SO to JFO or JFO to FO etc,.. WOULD HAVE TO GO BY PURE SENIORITY.
Gentlemen and Ladies,
I take it that those of you advocating furloughs (ie to allow some of our fellow pilots to fall by the wayside in what is becoming an industrial issue) would use the same rationale when it came to supporting industrial action! And you would not put your own necks, income and welfare on the line to support any further casualties from another 'bloody nose.' Because that is certainly what you suggest on this thread.
I thought so.
Some of you are so full of cr@p it makes me weep. You have got yourselves so confused you don't have a soapbox to stand on.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the most recent second officers to join the company. Because there are some between the bottom of the seniority list and the DECs from Oasis. Unlike those of you who joined on the base and have chosen to stay there, these guys and girls have in many cases uprooted their families to come here. Now, if they lose their jobs there will be children to relocate and perhaps even mortgages in Hong Kong to pay. Would you want to be in those shoes?
I think not.
So decide what you want and support the AOA in it's quest to find an equitable solution.
I take it that those of you advocating furloughs (ie to allow some of our fellow pilots to fall by the wayside in what is becoming an industrial issue) would use the same rationale when it came to supporting industrial action! And you would not put your own necks, income and welfare on the line to support any further casualties from another 'bloody nose.' Because that is certainly what you suggest on this thread.
I thought so.
Some of you are so full of cr@p it makes me weep. You have got yourselves so confused you don't have a soapbox to stand on.
Put yourselves in the shoes of the most recent second officers to join the company. Because there are some between the bottom of the seniority list and the DECs from Oasis. Unlike those of you who joined on the base and have chosen to stay there, these guys and girls have in many cases uprooted their families to come here. Now, if they lose their jobs there will be children to relocate and perhaps even mortgages in Hong Kong to pay. Would you want to be in those shoes?
I think not.
So decide what you want and support the AOA in it's quest to find an equitable solution.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...put yourselves in the shoes of the most recent second officers to join the company...
First of all, they are very short on SOs. Check the long haul flights and you will see that many are going with 3 FOs and some with 2 CAs and 2 FOs. They are quite short on SOs.
Second, SOs are based in HK, which means they can use them in any ULH, which is not true for based DEFOs.
I don't think the company is in any position to furlough any pilots, they are simply too understaffed to make their situation worse. Even if nobody takes SLS, they still have many weeks of contractual leave they need to award.
They should do this before asking for handouts, and it is our job to keep them to this. At least those of us that are willing to do something about our futures.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UAE
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Put yourselves in the shoes of the most recent second officers to join the company. Because there are some between the bottom of the seniority list and the DECs from Oasis. Unlike those of you who joined on the base and have chosen to stay there, these guys and girls have in many cases uprooted their families to come here. Now, if they lose their jobs there will be children to relocate and perhaps even mortgages in Hong Kong to pay. Would you want to be in those shoes?
If that person chose to buy it's a risk they take and they can't blame anyone but themselves if they lose their job but were too blase about the risks of a 10 year mortgage. Buying is not a "me too" decision but a carefully considered process and if that process was not given due diligence, I'm afraid it's bad luck. Point to note is that this "me too" attitude is what got the world into this mess to start with.
So in conclusion max reheat, you would have to come up with better reasons than that to justify your arguments against redundancies.
RTFQ....!!!!
I was merely using housing as a supporting fact.
The point I was making if you had taken off your crimson coloured spectacles is that you are advocating colleagues losing their jobs.
I expect to see YOU at the front of the queue sacrificing yourselves when the time comes to support the next tranche of 49er style victims.
The trouble is, I don't think you have the b@lls.
I was merely using housing as a supporting fact.
The point I was making if you had taken off your crimson coloured spectacles is that you are advocating colleagues losing their jobs.
I expect to see YOU at the front of the queue sacrificing yourselves when the time comes to support the next tranche of 49er style victims.
The trouble is, I don't think you have the b@lls.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UAE
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RTFQ yourself!
i was merely questioning your supporting fact and how it cannot be used to support your argument.
I still don't see your reasoning.
In fact if all COS08 guys were made redundant (hypothetically speaking and only quoting from this thread), and all that's left are COS99 guys, it makes our hand A LOT stronger against the company!
i was merely questioning your supporting fact and how it cannot be used to support your argument.
I still don't see your reasoning.
In fact if all COS08 guys were made redundant (hypothetically speaking and only quoting from this thread), and all that's left are COS99 guys, it makes our hand A LOT stronger against the company!
No,
You still don't get it do you?
I am questioning the loyalty or otherwise of people who argue that we should allow some of our junior colleagues to lose their jobs, whilst at the same time hankering after a bit of industrial unrest.
In which case, how could the rest of us possibly trust their commitment to anyone who was subsequently to be fired or otherwise rendered jobless.
They can't have one without the other. It' really that simple!
Do you geddit now?
You still don't get it do you?
I am questioning the loyalty or otherwise of people who argue that we should allow some of our junior colleagues to lose their jobs, whilst at the same time hankering after a bit of industrial unrest.
In which case, how could the rest of us possibly trust their commitment to anyone who was subsequently to be fired or otherwise rendered jobless.
They can't have one without the other. It' really that simple!
Do you geddit now?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No max I don't get it either!
Redundancy is a fact of life, we all know the risks involved when we take employment at the bottom of the seniority list. I've been made redundant before with another airline, and such was life, there was no discontent toward the seniors, and this was an airline where almost everyone was a strong union supporter. Just because Cathay has never had to make people redundant in the past that doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.
Having said that, you're not that naive to believe the bit about SLS will ensure people are not made redundant?? How long have you been with Cathay???
Redundancy is a fact of life, we all know the risks involved when we take employment at the bottom of the seniority list. I've been made redundant before with another airline, and such was life, there was no discontent toward the seniors, and this was an airline where almost everyone was a strong union supporter. Just because Cathay has never had to make people redundant in the past that doesn't mean it doesn't happen elsewhere.
Having said that, you're not that naive to believe the bit about SLS will ensure people are not made redundant?? How long have you been with Cathay???
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't get it Max!
I don't want to see people being made redundant anymore than you do. I agree with the company that we need the pilot workforce for the upturn. What I do object to is paying from my salary well over $100,000 to keep someone else in work. I particularly object to the "voluntary", with veiled threats, manner in which SLS is being sold. Many of us are happy to take UPL in amounts convenient to us and if that is not enough then the company must either pay to keep people or decide how many redundancies are required.
Pilots are not a cohesive body as is evident from these pages. I have never met most of those we are talking about and if I did then I might not see them again from one year to the next. We are not like the office wallahs who go out for lunch together and who would miss someone who leaves an empty desk. We are not work colleagues in its true sense.
We are talking about pilots who have been in the company less than a year, they are not my responsibility.
Pilots are not a cohesive body as is evident from these pages. I have never met most of those we are talking about and if I did then I might not see them again from one year to the next. We are not like the office wallahs who go out for lunch together and who would miss someone who leaves an empty desk. We are not work colleagues in its true sense.
We are talking about pilots who have been in the company less than a year, they are not my responsibility.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: HK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max, excuse me for throwing my 2cents worth in, but what I believe one of our colleagues sirhcttarp was alluding to, was I thought, invoking one of the clauses in our contract, that being the 'Last in, First out' aspect. His comment wrt being in a stronger position is also not really that wide of the mark, but I don't believe he was advocating industrial action.
Whether retrenchment is the correct thing to do in the current circumstances is however somewhat academic.
Firstly until the company comes up 100% squeaky clean with the facts, as opposed to the statistical spin we have seen to date, and secondly when or if that becomes an option for individuals to vote on, only then may it become something that crew would be obliged to consider. Historically however, consultation on similar matters has not been seen to be the Companies strong point, so I don't suggest you all hold your breath whilst waiting to be asked an opinion.
Also Max, as we all know, unlike many or possibly even all the other CPA staff groups, we do have that clause/protection in our contract, and if now is not the correct time for it to be invoked, I am interested in your view as to when is the right time?
Personally, I question the Companies motives for the SLS money grab, but if, and only if, it were really necessary, I would have though a 2 weeks plus $6000 donation from all staff levels would be more appropriate, bit like a profit share of old!! Not to mention 3/4 pay for GM's. 1/2 pay for directors, and a big fat $zero$ for CEO's, just an old fashioned thought about leading from the top! anyway I digress(as usual - sorry)
When one joins at the bottom of the list, it is clearly prudent to take note of one's vulnerability with regard to the tenuous attachment to that bottom rung of the ladder that many others have taken years to climb, and schedule one's financial commitments in that light. That many fail to overcome the "must buy a house in HK now' fever that grips so many, may work well for some , but for those at the bottom in times such as these, it may also develop into a most undesireable state should they become redundant under that clause. For those that took the gamble, I applaud and hope that things work well and that their gamble pays off.
However, in the unlikely event that the Company really is up to its @ss in crocodiles, it may well be that the Company will unilaterally impose such redundancies in the prescribed order, and were that to happen, only then would I become convinced the Company has actually hit the hard times they are currently bleating about, but until that time, I agree with many others on here, that it's all smoke and mirrors.
So until that happens, keep your eye on the big picture and remember who your colleagues are and who is surreptitiously slipping his hand in your back pocket whilst dangling shiny fake goods in front of you.
Brgds to all
Whether retrenchment is the correct thing to do in the current circumstances is however somewhat academic.
Firstly until the company comes up 100% squeaky clean with the facts, as opposed to the statistical spin we have seen to date, and secondly when or if that becomes an option for individuals to vote on, only then may it become something that crew would be obliged to consider. Historically however, consultation on similar matters has not been seen to be the Companies strong point, so I don't suggest you all hold your breath whilst waiting to be asked an opinion.
Also Max, as we all know, unlike many or possibly even all the other CPA staff groups, we do have that clause/protection in our contract, and if now is not the correct time for it to be invoked, I am interested in your view as to when is the right time?
Personally, I question the Companies motives for the SLS money grab, but if, and only if, it were really necessary, I would have though a 2 weeks plus $6000 donation from all staff levels would be more appropriate, bit like a profit share of old!! Not to mention 3/4 pay for GM's. 1/2 pay for directors, and a big fat $zero$ for CEO's, just an old fashioned thought about leading from the top! anyway I digress(as usual - sorry)
When one joins at the bottom of the list, it is clearly prudent to take note of one's vulnerability with regard to the tenuous attachment to that bottom rung of the ladder that many others have taken years to climb, and schedule one's financial commitments in that light. That many fail to overcome the "must buy a house in HK now' fever that grips so many, may work well for some , but for those at the bottom in times such as these, it may also develop into a most undesireable state should they become redundant under that clause. For those that took the gamble, I applaud and hope that things work well and that their gamble pays off.
However, in the unlikely event that the Company really is up to its @ss in crocodiles, it may well be that the Company will unilaterally impose such redundancies in the prescribed order, and were that to happen, only then would I become convinced the Company has actually hit the hard times they are currently bleating about, but until that time, I agree with many others on here, that it's all smoke and mirrors.
So until that happens, keep your eye on the big picture and remember who your colleagues are and who is surreptitiously slipping his hand in your back pocket whilst dangling shiny fake goods in front of you.
Brgds to all
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: lalaland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why it is the only way to go...
Please Max, no insults, just trying to discuss in a democratic grown up manner:
For the company, redundancy means severance pay, retraining because you end up with overcrewed on one side and undercrewed on the other side, and an immediate dismissal of the (unfortunate) guys that are elected for flight safety issues. You don't want a guy about to lose his job to be flying an aeroplane full of pax! Unfair, maybe but life is unfair sometimes.
So redundancy=major headache+lots of $$$$. Plus its double edged: if they get it wrong and rehire the guys they've just sacked, before it is worth sacking (typically 1 year), then they look bad (I know...
) or even "badder" because their assesment of the business was flawed and now it is out in the open they are inept. Furthermore, the shareholder is p!ssed off because the company has lost all the severance pay for nothing.
THAT IS WHY IT IS A TOUGH DECISION unlike SLS, and they'd better get it right... Redundancy is only worth when the company is struggling financially. WHICH CX IS NOT. I am not saying business is good at the moment, but by starting SLS, we open the floodgates to oblivion.
Where do we draw the line...
Big question is, today they want 1/2/3/4 weeks from me. If next year they want you to go 50% part time, maybe you can survive, I cannot.
I stick to my 7 year cycle. DO NOT GO TO THE BOTTOM of a (ANY) seniority list (from) 7 years after a downturn in aviation (9/11)
BTW, I am not talking out of my backside, I have been there, like most people who have been in the industry for more than 10 years. It is part and parcel of the aviation industry. Now is the time were I would like to rip the benefits of having made the right choices and enjoy a bit of protection.
I would love to keep the juniors and your generosity/altruism is commandable, I just don't think it is practical/applicable.
Any time you change airline, you take a risk. The GFC was created by people who took risks, and now I am going to pay tax through the nose to make up for it. Sick and tired of bailing people out...
Anyway, we are mere pawns in a game of chess. And sorry NR, people will talk about it in the flight deck because it is our families you are affecting, not just a number on a bank account. To you guys up there, money is a game, we do not have that luxury.
Good luck to you all. But please, agree to disagree and stick together.
PS: Make it kown to other staff that CX is giving us nothing less than an ULTIMATUM on things that have got nothing to do with SLS
For the company, redundancy means severance pay, retraining because you end up with overcrewed on one side and undercrewed on the other side, and an immediate dismissal of the (unfortunate) guys that are elected for flight safety issues. You don't want a guy about to lose his job to be flying an aeroplane full of pax! Unfair, maybe but life is unfair sometimes.
So redundancy=major headache+lots of $$$$. Plus its double edged: if they get it wrong and rehire the guys they've just sacked, before it is worth sacking (typically 1 year), then they look bad (I know...
) or even "badder" because their assesment of the business was flawed and now it is out in the open they are inept. Furthermore, the shareholder is p!ssed off because the company has lost all the severance pay for nothing.THAT IS WHY IT IS A TOUGH DECISION unlike SLS, and they'd better get it right... Redundancy is only worth when the company is struggling financially. WHICH CX IS NOT. I am not saying business is good at the moment, but by starting SLS, we open the floodgates to oblivion.
Where do we draw the line...
Big question is, today they want 1/2/3/4 weeks from me. If next year they want you to go 50% part time, maybe you can survive, I cannot.
I stick to my 7 year cycle. DO NOT GO TO THE BOTTOM of a (ANY) seniority list (from) 7 years after a downturn in aviation (9/11)
BTW, I am not talking out of my backside, I have been there, like most people who have been in the industry for more than 10 years. It is part and parcel of the aviation industry. Now is the time were I would like to rip the benefits of having made the right choices and enjoy a bit of protection.
I would love to keep the juniors and your generosity/altruism is commandable, I just don't think it is practical/applicable.
Any time you change airline, you take a risk. The GFC was created by people who took risks, and now I am going to pay tax through the nose to make up for it. Sick and tired of bailing people out...
Anyway, we are mere pawns in a game of chess. And sorry NR, people will talk about it in the flight deck because it is our families you are affecting, not just a number on a bank account. To you guys up there, money is a game, we do not have that luxury.
Good luck to you all. But please, agree to disagree and stick together.
PS: Make it kown to other staff that CX is giving us nothing less than an ULTIMATUM on things that have got nothing to do with SLS