PPruNe advertises CX IFALPA ban
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Land of plantains
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex says:
Well it seems that we have agreement on the following:
1 Striking is not illegal in HK, period; but
2 Sacking an employee for Striking is also not illegal in HK, period.
I think:
That seems like a couple of fair statements!
Flex says:
I am sure we also have agreement that the HKAOA’s advertising on PPRune of the IFALPA Recruiting Black Ban at CX is legal in HK, period.
I say:
Really??, does IFALPA encourage its members to discriminate against other pilots? That sounds wrong...I hope my dues are not being spent on that! What a waste.
Flex says:
Someone has previously stated that an upgrade ban would cause CX management to retaliate by recruiting direct entry Captains and First Officers.
Aha, I say:
So what you are really worried about is your position on the roster, he??
FleX says:
I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.
I say:
Would you care to expand onthis point..., it just does not seem to make any sense.
Flex says:
So, what other tactics can the Professional Pilots on this forum suggest that the HKAOA carry out that are also legal?
EASY: Pick on someone your own size! Eating the young is not going to make you stronger, or more Professional, like you say, for that matter.
Well it seems that we have agreement on the following:
1 Striking is not illegal in HK, period; but
2 Sacking an employee for Striking is also not illegal in HK, period.
I think:
That seems like a couple of fair statements!
Flex says:
I am sure we also have agreement that the HKAOA’s advertising on PPRune of the IFALPA Recruiting Black Ban at CX is legal in HK, period.
I say:
Really??, does IFALPA encourage its members to discriminate against other pilots? That sounds wrong...I hope my dues are not being spent on that! What a waste.
Flex says:
Someone has previously stated that an upgrade ban would cause CX management to retaliate by recruiting direct entry Captains and First Officers.
Aha, I say:
So what you are really worried about is your position on the roster, he??
FleX says:
I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.
I say:
Would you care to expand onthis point..., it just does not seem to make any sense.
Flex says:
So, what other tactics can the Professional Pilots on this forum suggest that the HKAOA carry out that are also legal?
EASY: Pick on someone your own size! Eating the young is not going to make you stronger, or more Professional, like you say, for that matter.
Last edited by southflyer; 1st Jun 2002 at 07:16.
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FleX says:
I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.
I say:
Would you care to expand onthis point..., it just does not seem to make any sense.
Southflyer, had you bothered to read and digest this entire thread, it would have made a lot of sense to you.
I think one can now make up one’s own mind why the HKAOA has an IFALPA recruitment ban, but no upgrade ban, and no strike.
I say:
Would you care to expand onthis point..., it just does not seem to make any sense.
Southflyer, had you bothered to read and digest this entire thread, it would have made a lot of sense to you.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Land of plantains
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PerroCaliente,
Perhaps you can explain it better then...
This dispute is between CX management and HKAOA.
You have not been able to reach an agreement.
Instead of making new friends to help you in your dispute, you choose, with the support of world wide union power, to start a crusade against your own peers?? Still does not make sense to me...
Don't hate your enemies, it impairs your judgement.
Perhaps you can explain it better then...
This dispute is between CX management and HKAOA.
You have not been able to reach an agreement.
Instead of making new friends to help you in your dispute, you choose, with the support of world wide union power, to start a crusade against your own peers?? Still does not make sense to me...
Don't hate your enemies, it impairs your judgement.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
"So, what other tactics can the Professional Pilots on this forum suggest that the HKAOA carry out that are also legal?"
You could try sticking to your ORIGINAL plan of flying strictly by the O.M. - however, what's the point in doing that, when just yesterday I (again) heard a CX aircraft [CX531 ?] request, and these were his precise words "Request ANY direct tracking". Unfortunately for him, none was available.
You could try sticking to your ORIGINAL plan of flying strictly by the O.M. - however, what's the point in doing that, when just yesterday I (again) heard a CX aircraft [CX531 ?] request, and these were his precise words "Request ANY direct tracking". Unfortunately for him, none was available.
Alpha Leader said:
Alpha,
Thank you for your response. I certainly do view an airline as a commercial operation. My comment was related to your question “Why is an airline different from any other commercial operation?” I was drawing you out a little to see where you were coming from and if you were pushing you own wheelbarrow or someone else’s.
As you are an aviation components specialist and CX shareholder living in Hong Kong for the last 12 years, I can appreciate your concern as to the present situation with regards the Human Resource management in Cathay Pacific. We all would like this problem to go away and get back to the business of making money and pushing the share price up the $25 level that it should be at.
The answer to your question is the seniority system that a “career airline” uses to regulate career management, financial reward and ultimately promotion of pilots within that airline. This system is unique to each airline and it is not possible to change between different airlines and retain a seniority number or even rank. The effect of this would mean that the most senior Check and Training Captain at CX who would have spent 25-30 years at CX, would only be qualified to take the most junior Second Officer position (and starting pay) at another career airline such as Qantas (assuming that QF would take such an old applicant).
It’s a bit like a company Director changing jobs and having to start again as a mail boy in the admin office. But further complicated by a numbers system that ensured that he would not become a Director again until he completed a further 10-15 years at the new company. Therefore, once a pilot has invested 5-10 years in a career airline, he becomes a career and economic conscript.
For a younger pilot with at least 15 years to go till retirement, it is possible for him to change horses and start over again, albeit with probable financial loss, and delayed career advancement. I understand that this is starting to happen at CX in that four pilots have left in the last couple of weeks. This is already a huge loss of assets for CX, which can be expressed in financial terms, and is likely to become greater.
As I assume that you are an ex Swiss Air Force Officer, I think you would enjoy reading Ernest K. Gann’s “Fate is the Hunter” which beside outlining the early days of airlines and the scourge of the seniority system, is a truly gripping true-life adventure.
Glad to have you on the team, Alpha. You are a valued and essential part of the operation, which would not function without you.
Then you may wish to explain your comment. As it stands, you clearly do not view an airline as a commercial operation.
Thank you for your response. I certainly do view an airline as a commercial operation. My comment was related to your question “Why is an airline different from any other commercial operation?” I was drawing you out a little to see where you were coming from and if you were pushing you own wheelbarrow or someone else’s.
As you are an aviation components specialist and CX shareholder living in Hong Kong for the last 12 years, I can appreciate your concern as to the present situation with regards the Human Resource management in Cathay Pacific. We all would like this problem to go away and get back to the business of making money and pushing the share price up the $25 level that it should be at.
The answer to your question is the seniority system that a “career airline” uses to regulate career management, financial reward and ultimately promotion of pilots within that airline. This system is unique to each airline and it is not possible to change between different airlines and retain a seniority number or even rank. The effect of this would mean that the most senior Check and Training Captain at CX who would have spent 25-30 years at CX, would only be qualified to take the most junior Second Officer position (and starting pay) at another career airline such as Qantas (assuming that QF would take such an old applicant).
It’s a bit like a company Director changing jobs and having to start again as a mail boy in the admin office. But further complicated by a numbers system that ensured that he would not become a Director again until he completed a further 10-15 years at the new company. Therefore, once a pilot has invested 5-10 years in a career airline, he becomes a career and economic conscript.
For a younger pilot with at least 15 years to go till retirement, it is possible for him to change horses and start over again, albeit with probable financial loss, and delayed career advancement. I understand that this is starting to happen at CX in that four pilots have left in the last couple of weeks. This is already a huge loss of assets for CX, which can be expressed in financial terms, and is likely to become greater.
As I assume that you are an ex Swiss Air Force Officer, I think you would enjoy reading Ernest K. Gann’s “Fate is the Hunter” which beside outlining the early days of airlines and the scourge of the seniority system, is a truly gripping true-life adventure.
Glad to have you on the team, Alpha. You are a valued and essential part of the operation, which would not function without you.
Kaptin M,
Thank you for your suggestion which i will pass on.
In answer to your comment on "direct tracking" etc, the HKAOA lifted all Industrial Action in October 2001 to try and get management to talk. The mangement sat down for one meeting which went very well. Subsequently, direction came down from the highest levels of Swire that no further talks would take place.
See you on the airwaves!
Thank you for your suggestion which i will pass on.
In answer to your comment on "direct tracking" etc, the HKAOA lifted all Industrial Action in October 2001 to try and get management to talk. The mangement sat down for one meeting which went very well. Subsequently, direction came down from the highest levels of Swire that no further talks would take place.
See you on the airwaves!
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
The flight I made reference to was a CX flight on Saturday evening at about 1800 Tokyo time (0900z) - it was on Tokyo Area Control frequency, either 123.9 or 120.5. Another CX aircraft came on frequency shortly (within 5 minutes) after the "Request ANY direct tracking" was made by the first CX aircraft.
So if it wasn't CX531 (and I apologise if I have made a mistake there), then it was the other aircraft.
No "if's, but's" or "maybe's", that was the PRECISE terminology used!
So if it wasn't CX531 (and I apologise if I have made a mistake there), then it was the other aircraft.
No "if's, but's" or "maybe's", that was the PRECISE terminology used!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: India
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR:
Thank you for your most recent posting. I now understand your point of view with the concerns you have regarding the seniority system.
Up to 25 or so years ago, almost all types of companies in all industries used the seniority system for promotion, particularly in Central Europe and (to some extent even now) in Asia. Life-long employment and loyalty was, in many companies, a given.
Managers and employees at all levels and in all types of industries have had to come to terms with the fact that the premise under which they started their careers 20 years ago have changed fundamentally.
If I look at our operations, we have moved more than 70% of all manufacturing jobs from Europe and the US over the last 10 years, first (unsuccessfully to Indonesia) and now (very successfully to South China). The manufacturing jobs we could not and cannot move are the ones linked to defence contracts in the US and in Europe. For those middle and senior managers fortunate enough to have been offered positions in Asia, the intangible benefits have changed dramatically; you’re not a mere hour from a ski-ing slope or a surfing beach any more. Family life and social life are no longer the same. And some, indeed, did not take up the offer of change and chose to seek out other opportunities, including graduates who had borrowed money for their tertiary education. Not all of them managed to find positions with identical or better seniority (and the respective remuneration levels), as their market value might have gone down.
But if we had managers here at our operations in Southern China that had transferred out and were now incessantly complaining about the downside out here, we would ask them to leave, as the effect on morale would be unacceptable, and we could and would hire replacements, quite possibly with significantly lower remuneration packages.
At CX, there are conceivably a number of pilots who regret being with the company now. At an earlier point in time, a number of up and coming airlines would have welcomed each and every CX captain, f/o and s/o on a direct entry basis and with a reasonable package. Now, there are very few choices, if any at all.
My point is that every industry, including aviation, is undergoing massive changes that can impact financially as well as on lifestyle, and the market value of a particular profession can go up and down.
But when it goes down, does that entitle you to industrial action? Some may argue in favour of that, but then you should go through with it and not abandon the high moral ground, which is precisely what the HKAOA has done. Facing the economic reality that most of the current pilots would be unable to find similar packages anywhere else, striking is an option that has studiously been avoided, even after mass sackings. Instead, HKAOA members have no inhibitions to accept upgrades, yet ask other pilots – many of them unemployed and clearly of the opinion that the packages currently on offer at CX are not that bad – not to join CX.
You could conduct a poll today in Hong Kong, and no more than 5% of respondents would have any idea what the HKAOA is actually campaigning for. Read the document published on their website, and it’s full of trivial and frivolous complaints. It lost the PR battle long ago, not only because CX pilots continue to be viewed by the public at large as being in a privileged remuneration bracket on the one hand and clearly no one is at risk of losing employment due to mass retrenchment on the other. If this view is wrong, then the HKAOA has work to do to prove the contrary; however, given the current recruitment drive for 350 pilots, this would be a tough call.
With no strike, no upgrade ban, and a recruitment ban, the HKAOA has also lost the high moral ground. (You can even see from the poll at this very site that it has a backing of just under 30%, and I would guess that figure would be significantly lower among the wider population).
As a CX shareholder who bought in at the IPO, I certainly do not wish to see my investment diminished. However, it’s time to call the HKAOA’s bluff. You cannot whine for years on end without losing your credibility.
I’m grateful to you for your stimulating comments, FR. I’ve tried to put my thoughts on no more than one A4 page and hope they come across reasonably concise. I’m enjoying this thread very much thanks to input such as your own.
(Many thanks for your book recommendation; I managed to read a review on the internet and shall order the book – looks like great reading!). Cheers
Thank you for your most recent posting. I now understand your point of view with the concerns you have regarding the seniority system.
Up to 25 or so years ago, almost all types of companies in all industries used the seniority system for promotion, particularly in Central Europe and (to some extent even now) in Asia. Life-long employment and loyalty was, in many companies, a given.
Managers and employees at all levels and in all types of industries have had to come to terms with the fact that the premise under which they started their careers 20 years ago have changed fundamentally.
If I look at our operations, we have moved more than 70% of all manufacturing jobs from Europe and the US over the last 10 years, first (unsuccessfully to Indonesia) and now (very successfully to South China). The manufacturing jobs we could not and cannot move are the ones linked to defence contracts in the US and in Europe. For those middle and senior managers fortunate enough to have been offered positions in Asia, the intangible benefits have changed dramatically; you’re not a mere hour from a ski-ing slope or a surfing beach any more. Family life and social life are no longer the same. And some, indeed, did not take up the offer of change and chose to seek out other opportunities, including graduates who had borrowed money for their tertiary education. Not all of them managed to find positions with identical or better seniority (and the respective remuneration levels), as their market value might have gone down.
But if we had managers here at our operations in Southern China that had transferred out and were now incessantly complaining about the downside out here, we would ask them to leave, as the effect on morale would be unacceptable, and we could and would hire replacements, quite possibly with significantly lower remuneration packages.
At CX, there are conceivably a number of pilots who regret being with the company now. At an earlier point in time, a number of up and coming airlines would have welcomed each and every CX captain, f/o and s/o on a direct entry basis and with a reasonable package. Now, there are very few choices, if any at all.
My point is that every industry, including aviation, is undergoing massive changes that can impact financially as well as on lifestyle, and the market value of a particular profession can go up and down.
But when it goes down, does that entitle you to industrial action? Some may argue in favour of that, but then you should go through with it and not abandon the high moral ground, which is precisely what the HKAOA has done. Facing the economic reality that most of the current pilots would be unable to find similar packages anywhere else, striking is an option that has studiously been avoided, even after mass sackings. Instead, HKAOA members have no inhibitions to accept upgrades, yet ask other pilots – many of them unemployed and clearly of the opinion that the packages currently on offer at CX are not that bad – not to join CX.
You could conduct a poll today in Hong Kong, and no more than 5% of respondents would have any idea what the HKAOA is actually campaigning for. Read the document published on their website, and it’s full of trivial and frivolous complaints. It lost the PR battle long ago, not only because CX pilots continue to be viewed by the public at large as being in a privileged remuneration bracket on the one hand and clearly no one is at risk of losing employment due to mass retrenchment on the other. If this view is wrong, then the HKAOA has work to do to prove the contrary; however, given the current recruitment drive for 350 pilots, this would be a tough call.
With no strike, no upgrade ban, and a recruitment ban, the HKAOA has also lost the high moral ground. (You can even see from the poll at this very site that it has a backing of just under 30%, and I would guess that figure would be significantly lower among the wider population).
As a CX shareholder who bought in at the IPO, I certainly do not wish to see my investment diminished. However, it’s time to call the HKAOA’s bluff. You cannot whine for years on end without losing your credibility.
I’m grateful to you for your stimulating comments, FR. I’ve tried to put my thoughts on no more than one A4 page and hope they come across reasonably concise. I’m enjoying this thread very much thanks to input such as your own.
(Many thanks for your book recommendation; I managed to read a review on the internet and shall order the book – looks like great reading!). Cheers
Dear Alpha,
I am loath to reply to your comments, as I am deeply suspicious of your motivations and true intent of your posting on this forum. But, on the off chance that you are the genuine part number rather than a bogus spare, I will give it a try.
The Director of Flight Operations recently confirmed in a letter to HKAOA that CX was indeed a career airline for pilots and intended to remain that way. Therefore the first part of your reply, while of passing interest, is not applicable to CX.
The second part of your reply relates to the HKAOA not winning the PR war with the Hong Kong public. The HKAOA does not have a problem with the Hong Kong public. The HKAOA does have a problem with CX management. But, CX management now has an international problem with labour relations.
Due to conflicting evidence and too slick presentation, the Hong Kong mass media has become rather circumspect about any CX press releases regarding its dealings with its employees. Additionally, CX pushed the extent of the economic fallout following 11 Sep very forcefully. Recently CX suddenly reversed its position and announced that all seven parked aircraft would be returned to service and six more aircraft would be ordered in addition to the imminent deliveries of three A340-600s. This has served to deepen public suspicions about the accuracy of CX press releases.
On the other hand, the true PR battle could be measured as a factor of the CX share price. In examination of the price trends over the last year, I rather think that you will find that the Hong Kong public is a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
If indeed your basic concern is over your investment, then you might consider selling your CX shares and buying HSBC. Then buy back into CX when you hear that a resolution has been agreed between CX management and the HKAOA.
Read the book that I recommended. And then reflect on what happened at 15:28hrs on 25 May 2002, while most other souls were having tea and biscuits.
I am loath to reply to your comments, as I am deeply suspicious of your motivations and true intent of your posting on this forum. But, on the off chance that you are the genuine part number rather than a bogus spare, I will give it a try.
The Director of Flight Operations recently confirmed in a letter to HKAOA that CX was indeed a career airline for pilots and intended to remain that way. Therefore the first part of your reply, while of passing interest, is not applicable to CX.
The second part of your reply relates to the HKAOA not winning the PR war with the Hong Kong public. The HKAOA does not have a problem with the Hong Kong public. The HKAOA does have a problem with CX management. But, CX management now has an international problem with labour relations.
Due to conflicting evidence and too slick presentation, the Hong Kong mass media has become rather circumspect about any CX press releases regarding its dealings with its employees. Additionally, CX pushed the extent of the economic fallout following 11 Sep very forcefully. Recently CX suddenly reversed its position and announced that all seven parked aircraft would be returned to service and six more aircraft would be ordered in addition to the imminent deliveries of three A340-600s. This has served to deepen public suspicions about the accuracy of CX press releases.
On the other hand, the true PR battle could be measured as a factor of the CX share price. In examination of the price trends over the last year, I rather think that you will find that the Hong Kong public is a lot smarter than you give them credit for.
If indeed your basic concern is over your investment, then you might consider selling your CX shares and buying HSBC. Then buy back into CX when you hear that a resolution has been agreed between CX management and the HKAOA.
Read the book that I recommended. And then reflect on what happened at 15:28hrs on 25 May 2002, while most other souls were having tea and biscuits.
Dear Anne Landers
Direct tracking works for me. Gets me to the Dakota earlier so I don't miss the discussions....they're a lot more interesting than the TV at the Headland.
After 20+ years it's good to see the old spirit returning. Used to be getting fired at the Aero Club was common routine...then the spirit faded.
Used to be the only sector you got was when the weather was iffy...now I'm giving them away.
Can you help me?? Should I sell my CX shares??
Direct tracking works for me. Gets me to the Dakota earlier so I don't miss the discussions....they're a lot more interesting than the TV at the Headland.
After 20+ years it's good to see the old spirit returning. Used to be getting fired at the Aero Club was common routine...then the spirit faded.
Used to be the only sector you got was when the weather was iffy...now I'm giving them away.
Can you help me?? Should I sell my CX shares??
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I got fired a couple of times at the Aero Club, which as you say, was fairly routine. However, I doubt if anyone else has the distinction of being fired, totally naked in the Sandsailer jacuzzi at Palmdale by my equally naked boss! 
