Housing
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: hong kong
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
until we as members get rid of the AOA committee or at least most of them and turn it into a exec committee without so many different agendas secret or not and one term wonders ( and a few idiots as well ) it's just going to keep happening like history repeating itself over and over and over and over again..... seriously when will we ALL wake up and realise that committees just don't work ...never have never will.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: VHHH
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXEZY,
What I have been trying to get through to you is that this 'deal' everyone is talking about is just a rumour, why are you talking about it and getting cheesed off about it as if it has already become reality? Furthermore, even if there is such a proposal, it would have been made by the Company, not the local pilots or any pilots for that matter. Do not speak as though the locals proposed it and have somehow worked to realise it.
If it was part of the Company's calculation to induce in-fighting and animosity amongst the pilot ranks, you would be the ultimate demonstration of their success.
What I have been trying to get through to you is that this 'deal' everyone is talking about is just a rumour, why are you talking about it and getting cheesed off about it as if it has already become reality? Furthermore, even if there is such a proposal, it would have been made by the Company, not the local pilots or any pilots for that matter. Do not speak as though the locals proposed it and have somehow worked to realise it.
If it was part of the Company's calculation to induce in-fighting and animosity amongst the pilot ranks, you would be the ultimate demonstration of their success.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought housing was one of those sacred cows that never gets f#cked with - even if you take a base a for a number of years.
I am hoping/expecting that our boys (girls?) on the negotiating team keep this cow alive and do not give in on this one. One day I will come back to HKG and buy another apartment. Isn't that one of the big attractions to CX in the first place?
Long Time Reader Second Time Writer
I am hoping/expecting that our boys (girls?) on the negotiating team keep this cow alive and do not give in on this one. One day I will come back to HKG and buy another apartment. Isn't that one of the big attractions to CX in the first place?
Long Time Reader Second Time Writer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Housing once and for all
1. If you are currently on a base and you choose to come to Hong Kong at your own behest, then you should not be entitled to housing, as they are not enticing you to come to Hong Kong and do not need you in Hong Kong. Just as if a CEP chooses to take a base, they are not entitled to Expat allowances in that base. If they are sent there at the behest of the company then they should be entitled to Expat allowances on that base.
2. If you are needed in Hong Kong by the company i.e. for Command you should be entitled to full Expat housing allowances.
3. Remember that after your 25 year housing deal is up, you go onto the base rate (ie. 24K/month) not full expat rental assistance.
I think that if you choose to come to Hong Kong after being on a base then you should come back as a local, just as if a CEP chooses to go on a base outside of Hong Kong they should NOT be given housing allowance. Does this seem fair and reasonable to all.
It seems many want to have their cake and eat it too...
2. If you are needed in Hong Kong by the company i.e. for Command you should be entitled to full Expat housing allowances.
3. Remember that after your 25 year housing deal is up, you go onto the base rate (ie. 24K/month) not full expat rental assistance.
I think that if you choose to come to Hong Kong after being on a base then you should come back as a local, just as if a CEP chooses to go on a base outside of Hong Kong they should NOT be given housing allowance. Does this seem fair and reasonable to all.
It seems many want to have their cake and eat it too...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: traveling
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not agree with Hydrolix's post at all. There should be no change to the housing agreement other than to extend it to 25 years, and ideally housing for all in HKG including CEP's.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydrolix, you are so simplistic it kills me.
What if you started on a base and never had the CHANCE to get to Hong Kong?
What if the flexibility to change bases was actually the reason to join CX ? Why do you want to give that possibility away ? Why ????
Just because you apparently don't see a necessity for yourself to use that option you spread the word to destroy it for others.
You are a evil , selfish and bitter person. I feel nothing but contempt for you.
What if you started on a base and never had the CHANCE to get to Hong Kong?
What if the flexibility to change bases was actually the reason to join CX ? Why do you want to give that possibility away ? Why ????
Just because you apparently don't see a necessity for yourself to use that option you spread the word to destroy it for others.
You are a evil , selfish and bitter person. I feel nothing but contempt for you.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Settle Down 711
Clearly struck a nerve there.
The argument has always been that an Expat gets expat allowances because they must be enticed to live away from their base area.
If you joined directly on a base then you are most likely to be a DEFO and thus have opened up a whole new can of worms. If you are a DEFO who joined on a base I believe that is where you should stay unless the company requires you to be in Hong Kong.
If flexibility to change bases was a reason for joining CX then I can see that this may be an issue but its not fair to CEP's that do not get a housing allowance wherever they are based simply becuase you want to change yours at the drop of a hat.
Sometimes decisions must be made and the consequences that are rendered must be accepted.
I don't believe CEP's should get housing in Hong Kong, but if they choose to take a base outside of Hong Kong then they should get a housing allowance wherever they choose to base themselves. Do we think this is fair?
The argument has always been that an Expat gets expat allowances because they must be enticed to live away from their base area.
If you joined directly on a base then you are most likely to be a DEFO and thus have opened up a whole new can of worms. If you are a DEFO who joined on a base I believe that is where you should stay unless the company requires you to be in Hong Kong.
If flexibility to change bases was a reason for joining CX then I can see that this may be an issue but its not fair to CEP's that do not get a housing allowance wherever they are based simply becuase you want to change yours at the drop of a hat.
Sometimes decisions must be made and the consequences that are rendered must be accepted.
I don't believe CEP's should get housing in Hong Kong, but if they choose to take a base outside of Hong Kong then they should get a housing allowance wherever they choose to base themselves. Do we think this is fair?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hydrolix, this is completely different!
Although I wish cadets could receive housing in Hong-Kong (specially the new "expats cadets");
I joined Cathay because they were offering me the possibility to move to Hong-Kong with Housing allowances.
Cadets joined Cathay because Cathay was offering them free training.
If Cathay was not offering housing, or the possibility to move to HK, I would have joined LH, AF, BA or even CV.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with changing the rules of the game, in the middle of the game!
I'm perfectly ok to stick with my contract and with what has been offered when I joined. And if we are asking for a pay rise, this is merely in order not to lose any salary because of inflation / new taxes rules.
Although I wish cadets could receive housing in Hong-Kong (specially the new "expats cadets");
I joined Cathay because they were offering me the possibility to move to Hong-Kong with Housing allowances.
Cadets joined Cathay because Cathay was offering them free training.
If Cathay was not offering housing, or the possibility to move to HK, I would have joined LH, AF, BA or even CV.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with changing the rules of the game, in the middle of the game!
I'm perfectly ok to stick with my contract and with what has been offered when I joined. And if we are asking for a pay rise, this is merely in order not to lose any salary because of inflation / new taxes rules.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: now a paxdoggiedog too...
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Divide et impera
I strongly feel that most pilots, too myopic or selfish to see past their own little patch of garden, fail to see one big truth: what is apparently only good for another group of pilots is often good for ALL OF US in the long run. If EK give their pilots a big payrise, in the long run this is good for CX pilots too, as CX will eventually have to match or exceed their offer in order to attract quality candidates, SQ then has to follow suit etc.
Without moving out of CX, getting THE FULL housing package (albeit after a qualifying period) for LEP/CEPs (and KEEPING IT for based guys returning to HK for ANY reason) is a GOOD thing for all of us. Firstly because for once we will be on the offensive with the airline with respect to T&Cs, as opposed to being on the defensive as we usually are (plus it is a winnable battle, as for once HK media/public opinion would probably back us).
Secondly because it will not allow CX to divide and conquer us in the future as they have done time and again: " don't worry guys we won't touch YOUR housing, we'll just screw all new joiners/based guys, but you'll be alright Jack". Of course as time goes by, CX only hires the new cheaper "local terms" pilots and before you know it Jack is in the minority: "sorry Jack but no payrise for you, the younger guys are so much cheaper..." and "sorry Jack but the only way we can afford to give you a payrise too is if you give up your housing..." and furthermore, "hey you based guys, sorry but we're closing all the bases and moving you all back to HK, too complicated to have all these bases, and anyway it will cost us the same to have you here in HK now that we got rid of housing..."
Whether it is FAIR for CEP/LEPs to have housing is quite beyond the point. The point is improving conditions for some of our fellow pilots so that maybe this time Jill gets a better contract, but next time it will be Jack's turn (as opposed to screwing Jill this time, because guess what: next time it will be Jack's turn).
The wise response is not, "oh hey, that's not fair: in this case I should get housing on my base too", but rather, "hmm, I think I'll support this: once we obtain it, the next step could be getting some sort of housing allowance for based guys as well".
In short, anytime anything can be gained for any part of our pilot body, I will support it, even if it is not immediately beneficial to me. The childish "if I can't have it then I don't want him to have it either" mantra, quite aside from being childish, DOESN'T WORK.
Rant over.
Without moving out of CX, getting THE FULL housing package (albeit after a qualifying period) for LEP/CEPs (and KEEPING IT for based guys returning to HK for ANY reason) is a GOOD thing for all of us. Firstly because for once we will be on the offensive with the airline with respect to T&Cs, as opposed to being on the defensive as we usually are (plus it is a winnable battle, as for once HK media/public opinion would probably back us).
Secondly because it will not allow CX to divide and conquer us in the future as they have done time and again: " don't worry guys we won't touch YOUR housing, we'll just screw all new joiners/based guys, but you'll be alright Jack". Of course as time goes by, CX only hires the new cheaper "local terms" pilots and before you know it Jack is in the minority: "sorry Jack but no payrise for you, the younger guys are so much cheaper..." and "sorry Jack but the only way we can afford to give you a payrise too is if you give up your housing..." and furthermore, "hey you based guys, sorry but we're closing all the bases and moving you all back to HK, too complicated to have all these bases, and anyway it will cost us the same to have you here in HK now that we got rid of housing..."
Whether it is FAIR for CEP/LEPs to have housing is quite beyond the point. The point is improving conditions for some of our fellow pilots so that maybe this time Jill gets a better contract, but next time it will be Jack's turn (as opposed to screwing Jill this time, because guess what: next time it will be Jack's turn).
The wise response is not, "oh hey, that's not fair: in this case I should get housing on my base too", but rather, "hmm, I think I'll support this: once we obtain it, the next step could be getting some sort of housing allowance for based guys as well".
In short, anytime anything can be gained for any part of our pilot body, I will support it, even if it is not immediately beneficial to me. The childish "if I can't have it then I don't want him to have it either" mantra, quite aside from being childish, DOESN'T WORK.
Rant over.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FreightDoggieDog
Probably the most sensible and possibly the best post on the subject being discussed at the moment. A better deal for all is what we should be negotiating.
Hydrolix
Then why did you state:
This is quite definitely a deterioration to our COS.
A better deal for all is what we should be negotiating.
If you are currently on a base and you choose to come to Hong Kong at your own behest, then you should not be entitled to housing, as they are not enticing you to come to Hong Kong and do not need you in Hong Kong.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one is saying that. The company wants to change expat benefits of based pilots returning to HKG to a base rate for extending the present housing benefits to 25 years (for expat pilots already in HKG) and giving LEP's a base rate housing benefit.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giving up the RIGHT to the full HK housing allowance when most pilots have that RIGHT would, quite literally, be insane. There are many pilots who have set themselves up nicely after a few years in HK using the home owner system.
Before we went on a base, we sold our apartment for a decent profit which then served as the deposit on our current house. When the kids are out of the "danger zone" for the health-related issues that precipitated our departure in the first place, we will return to HKG - as is our RIGHT.
Speaking of RIGHTS, I think the AOA/HKAOA/AOA Canada (or maybe the PFHK - Pilots Front of HK) should also fight for my RIGHT to have babies, even if I don't actually have a womb.
Before we went on a base, we sold our apartment for a decent profit which then served as the deposit on our current house. When the kids are out of the "danger zone" for the health-related issues that precipitated our departure in the first place, we will return to HKG - as is our RIGHT.
Speaking of RIGHTS, I think the AOA/HKAOA/AOA Canada (or maybe the PFHK - Pilots Front of HK) should also fight for my RIGHT to have babies, even if I don't actually have a womb.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC
The company can want all they like, but when the housing increase to 25 years was put forward last year aloing with the SLS package, I distinctly remember no pre conditions or trade-off's. It was simple improvement for BOTH parties and could have been signed off in 2 minutes if the will was genuinely there.
As far as I'm concerned, keep it at 15 years and be done with it. All this crap is happily spread by management or management wannabe's(the 'in the know' types who just love being that) and ends up being of huge benefit to management in the form of expectation management and ad-hoc negotiations.
The company can want all they like, but when the housing increase to 25 years was put forward last year aloing with the SLS package, I distinctly remember no pre conditions or trade-off's. It was simple improvement for BOTH parties and could have been signed off in 2 minutes if the will was genuinely there.
As far as I'm concerned, keep it at 15 years and be done with it. All this crap is happily spread by management or management wannabe's(the 'in the know' types who just love being that) and ends up being of huge benefit to management in the form of expectation management and ad-hoc negotiations.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rick.Shaw
Expectation management has nothing to do with it. It seems like the HKAOA GC is happy to continue lowering the bar for us as they still seem to be paralyzed from the 49er events instead of listening to their members.
As for the housing agreement it is already expired and the company technically can do as they want, or what they think they can get away with.
I believe this year is the turning point. If the HKAOA, or better the GC and negotiating teams, are not able to stand their ground and improve our conditions things will just get worse for the coming years. Maybe they should ask the FAU for some tips.
CX is making a lot of money at the moment, however it could be way more. Whoever is in charge of yield management has no clue what they are doing. Who in their right mind is running flights at 100%+ load factors. It just shows that there is not enough capacity in the market and fares could be easily raised, running the airline at lower load factors in return improving operations and generating higher yield and an overall better bottom line.
We are operating in a strong market environment and instead of increasing fares, hence increasing revenue, CX is still in the recession mode trying to reduce expenses at all cost.
Expectation management has nothing to do with it. It seems like the HKAOA GC is happy to continue lowering the bar for us as they still seem to be paralyzed from the 49er events instead of listening to their members.
As for the housing agreement it is already expired and the company technically can do as they want, or what they think they can get away with.
I believe this year is the turning point. If the HKAOA, or better the GC and negotiating teams, are not able to stand their ground and improve our conditions things will just get worse for the coming years. Maybe they should ask the FAU for some tips.
CX is making a lot of money at the moment, however it could be way more. Whoever is in charge of yield management has no clue what they are doing. Who in their right mind is running flights at 100%+ load factors. It just shows that there is not enough capacity in the market and fares could be easily raised, running the airline at lower load factors in return improving operations and generating higher yield and an overall better bottom line.
We are operating in a strong market environment and instead of increasing fares, hence increasing revenue, CX is still in the recession mode trying to reduce expenses at all cost.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the 25 years deal has more to see with (some of) us signing Cos08 than signing for SLS.
We work 10 extra years, we should get 10 extra years of housing. Quite simple really...
We work 10 extra years, we should get 10 extra years of housing. Quite simple really...