Wikiposts
Search
Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

How Convenient

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10th May 2012, 10:56
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: hong kong
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How Convenient

Just as the company is about to park aircraft due to a lack of flight crew we now have to park aircraft because flights aren't making money.

Really? Your flights are nearly full but you're going to park planes?

I suppose its hard to justify mismanaging the recruitment of flight crew which doesn't look so good to the shareholders. Easier to blame fuel costs and poor yields.

Unpaid leave for pilots? Maybe on the 400 but even that I doubt.

Am I dreaming up conspiracy theories or is the CEO really telling us the truth?
Fuzzy Math is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 11:01
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Were his lips moving?
Silent Running is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 12:25
  #3 (permalink)  
711
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No disrespect, but this sounds a bit paranoid and restricted to a pilot's perspective to me.

The Lack of crew - scenario has a lot to do with wishful thinking imho. The recruitment exclusively via cadets is very common at other airlines since decades, I am actually surprised CX hasn't done that earlier. Terms and conditions decline everywhere, unfortunately simply the result of supply and demand. As long as young guys in their teens and twens dream about becoming a pilot, willing to do whatever it takes, this will not change, like it or not. ( I am only the messenger here)

In a few years nobody will remember what the fuss was all about. If you can't train a cadet to Cpt in 15 years you only have to blame the training system, not the individual, that's for sure.

I am afraid the downturn is real. Remember with computerized real time pricing methods you can always fill up planes, but of course the yield is what counts.

brace,brace..
711 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 13:39
  #4 (permalink)  
crwjerk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
“These cost savings will help to improve cash flow – and cash is king at a time like this.”
You are sitting on billions of cash in the bank. What's the crying for?
 
Old 10th May 2012, 13:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: US
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The downturn in aviation business is only tip of iceburg!

Not only CX, but SQ with their surprise loss of $31 million USD instead of a profit. Cathay Pacific, Singapore Air Slump as Fuel Hits Earnings - Bloomberg

I have no doubts CX is losing money due to slowing demand in air travel and rising costs such as fuel. No offense to any CX employees, but as a frequent business traveler, I would choose SQ over CX any day. If SQ is losing money, I have no doubt CX would be in the same or even worse position.

There is a bad financial storm coming, get ready for BOHICA (bend over here it comes again)
USMCMBA is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 13:58
  #6 (permalink)  
711
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Up in the air
Age: 58
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
May I ask why you prefer Singapore?
711 is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 14:05
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ...just behind the door behind you !
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1. Cash could be for acquisitions when the fire sale starts... ?

2. There is NO better distraction than a profit warning to deflect attention from unnecessary media focus on 'safety' issues.

3. Good opportunity to drive stock lower to utilize the cash saved later ?

Yield & Fuel are flavor of the month ... so why not use them to purge decision making boo boos & cover up 'bets' gone wrong.

Organizational Re alignment 101
Radical Kitty is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 14:10
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ...just behind the door behind you !
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And BTW ...who cares if a few thousand employees get screwed in the process ?
Radical Kitty is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 14:46
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It would be interesting to burrow into SQ's accounts and see the contribution VS are making to the bottom line...
Kitsune is offline  
Old 10th May 2012, 15:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: F370
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
...... and the A380!
AtoBsafely is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 01:41
  #11 (permalink)  
ETOPS240
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
USMCBA,

If you don't realise that your preference for SQ over CX is irrelevant to financial results, then I raise an eyebrow at the reasons for your 'frequent business travel'.

In recent times, CX consistently financially outperform SQ and will continue to do so. One thing the CX machine are good at is managing money. One may not always agree with their methods, but they clearly are doing something right to outperform the rest of the worlds '5-star' carriers in this climate, bearing in mind they are substantially smaller than SQ, EK etc..
 
Old 12th May 2012, 02:09
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: VHHH
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cathay is a business. When they make money they hide it everywhere in order not tot pay business tax on it. Offshore accounts, foreign currency accounts, etc.

But when they re losing money, then everything comes out, make it as bad as possible. Get all those write-offs happening, claim fuel prices are hitting them hard.

This is the only company which had kept it's pilot crew recruitment low waiting for this downturn. That's why we are so over worked, under paid and generally feed up with this company.

One or two things we can live with, but when these one or two things turn into 10-15 things that we are grumbling about, we start to moan louder.

If we are losing money and our loads are full, then common sense means we're not pricing our tickets correctly. Increase price!! We might lose 2-3% but the gain in price over these loses would make up for this.

Sure get rid of the inefficient fuel burns planes. But consult an engineer before parking planes. Don't park planes that are in excellent order, just because they are the oldest. Maybe you have some planes that need some serious work done on them that will cost millions?

But then again - this is Cathay. And they don't listen to anyone - because they invented flying. Hang on - maybe they listen to the Australian and Canadian authorities....... hmmm.



CZ
CokeZero is offline  
Old 12th May 2012, 06:06
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Accruing MilliSiverts
Posts: 562
Received 20 Likes on 8 Posts
How many times in the last 15 years have CX cried out "the sky is falling" only to make record profits (and thus reward executives with ever-larger bonuses)?

Does anybody fall for this tired old line anymore (other than the gullible press keen only to fill column space with anything any PR department trots out)?

And yields? Sorry am I missing something here.

If the aircraft are always full yet the yields are down then is it not a reasonable assumption that there is a problem with yield management? Charge a little more until the 100% load-factor dips to 99 or 98%, then you know you're at optimal yield?

Only MHO and I'm sure it's more complex than I have presented but the basic logic seems to be wanting at CX.

And the never-ending doomsday PR spiel gets very repetitive and sounds increasingly ludicrous.

Finally, if you genuinely can't make money (which as I've suggested is utter rubbish anyhow) in the amazingly buoyant and ever-growing market that is China then there is something drastically wrong with your business model. Consequently, the designers and administrators of that model should resign as they have failed at their duties.

Just a great big load of PR Crap.

Last edited by Al E. Vator; 12th May 2012 at 06:07.
Al E. Vator is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.