Profit share.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver. BC Canada
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an employee I am completely embarrassed to watch that. She is asking questions that she clearly knows the answer to as evidenced by the cut shot and headline of our future hedge, yet Ivan is prattling along on his rehearsed script.
So incredibly pathetic.
So incredibly pathetic.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good commentary here on the folly that is our hedging programme.
Cathay Can't See the Wood for the Hedges - Bloomberg Gadfly
Cathay Can't See the Wood for the Hedges - Bloomberg Gadfly
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Home
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may play devils advocate.
The fuel hedging is irrelevant. What's relevant is that if fuel had stayed at $90, where we thought it would be, we would only have made a 5 billion profit. With the highest average load factor in company history.
This is what's relevant, we have a very high cost base, we're losing the front end to our competition, and we can't continue doing this. In the Boeing 707 days, we had no direct competition in our back yard, we had it on individual routes. But we didn't have a Hong Kong airlines camped at a new terminal a stones throw away, with an ever increasing bunch of shiny new wide bodies. Or a bunch of middle eastern carriers keen to get into the Chinese market, or a bunch of Chinese carriers who up until now haven't had a decent premium product. Up until now.
The company needs to evolve way faster than it has been doing.
The fuel hedging is irrelevant. What's relevant is that if fuel had stayed at $90, where we thought it would be, we would only have made a 5 billion profit. With the highest average load factor in company history.
This is what's relevant, we have a very high cost base, we're losing the front end to our competition, and we can't continue doing this. In the Boeing 707 days, we had no direct competition in our back yard, we had it on individual routes. But we didn't have a Hong Kong airlines camped at a new terminal a stones throw away, with an ever increasing bunch of shiny new wide bodies. Or a bunch of middle eastern carriers keen to get into the Chinese market, or a bunch of Chinese carriers who up until now haven't had a decent premium product. Up until now.
The company needs to evolve way faster than it has been doing.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe a large broom to clear out all the dead wood at CX city might help. There's probably several thousand who could go tomorrow, and the place would keep running. Just look at some of the titles they have, they're all managers or assistant managers, I saw one the other day "project lead-employee experience"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Over There
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This Company is wasting billions of potential profits by being offside with its employees and idiots like IC can't see the Forrest through the trees.
I only hope it stays afloat long enough for me to take what I can until retirement.
What a sad bunch. Great job but I work for a ship with an idiot at the helm.
I only hope it stays afloat long enough for me to take what I can until retirement.
What a sad bunch. Great job but I work for a ship with an idiot at the helm.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For this airline management to have squandered such an enormous amount of money (hard earned by the real working employees), is nothing short of a travesty and is vulgar in the extreme. The lot of them, starting right at the top need to be cleared out. How dare they, through sheer incompetence, take money from the pockets of the staff. I keep thinking I can't become any more disillusioned by this lot, only to constantly be proved wrong... If there is anyone 45 years old or younger not seeking employment elsewhere, you've got rocks in your head.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 Profit Share (paid March 2008)
The Chief Executive has announced that all eligible employees will be awarded profit share for their contribution to the success of Cathay Pacific and Dragonair in 2007. The following are the highlights of this year's profit-share scheme: Amount of profit share
The amount of profit share for eligible employees, according to the formula, is 16.5 days of salary, plus either half of the individual monthly salary or HK$6,000 in local currency equivalent, whichever is lower. The calculation will be based on the employee's individual salary as of 31 December 2007.
As a one-off discretionary basis as announced by the Chief Executive, the amount of profit share for 2007 will be increased to one month of salary, plus either half of the individual monthly salary or HK$6,000 in local currency equivalent, whichever is lower.
2007
Turnover 75,358M
Operating expenses 67,619M
Operating profit/(loss) 7,739M
Profit/(Loss) attributable to shareholders 7,023M
2015
Airlines Turnover 98,716M
Operating expenses 93,246M
Airlines' operating profit 5,470M
Profit/(Loss) attributable to shareholders 6,000M
The Chief Executive has announced that all eligible employees will be awarded profit share for their contribution to the success of Cathay Pacific and Dragonair in 2007. The following are the highlights of this year's profit-share scheme: Amount of profit share
The amount of profit share for eligible employees, according to the formula, is 16.5 days of salary, plus either half of the individual monthly salary or HK$6,000 in local currency equivalent, whichever is lower. The calculation will be based on the employee's individual salary as of 31 December 2007.
As a one-off discretionary basis as announced by the Chief Executive, the amount of profit share for 2007 will be increased to one month of salary, plus either half of the individual monthly salary or HK$6,000 in local currency equivalent, whichever is lower.
2007
Turnover 75,358M
Operating expenses 67,619M
Operating profit/(loss) 7,739M
Profit/(Loss) attributable to shareholders 7,023M
2015
Airlines Turnover 98,716M
Operating expenses 93,246M
Airlines' operating profit 5,470M
Profit/(Loss) attributable to shareholders 6,000M
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A large broom to clear out the dead wood in CX?
We've just seen DH replaced by someone whom i think is doing a great job for the pilots. Communicative, eager, keen, thinking! Is the new guy that great or is he just doing the job that Denly should have been doing? The reality is that DH just sat there, 36 years into the company, doing f*** all!
How many others are there like DH who just turn up, sit at their desk, go home and do F*** all?
We've just seen DH replaced by someone whom i think is doing a great job for the pilots. Communicative, eager, keen, thinking! Is the new guy that great or is he just doing the job that Denly should have been doing? The reality is that DH just sat there, 36 years into the company, doing f*** all!
How many others are there like DH who just turn up, sit at their desk, go home and do F*** all?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just watched the interview .Very embarrassing , and totally cringeworthy .
He got away lightly with the questions from the interviewer . Personally I think she should have jumped on his answers and made him explain why he thinks a 1 billion hedging loss is good for business
His understanding of English is clearly lacking . Several of the questions were obviously mis-understood . Because the responses were totally irrelevant to the question .
"Fuel hedging is good for business" his words . Well yes it is , when you get it correct , but when you screw it up monumentally as we have done that is an indefensible position to try and hold .
As some of the previous posters have said , How could this company trot him out to answer questions ? He clearly has a problem with English comprehension, instills absolutely no confidence in the top management of this company.
I guess this is where the rot in this company starts , this is where a total shakeup is desperately needed . If the Board is prepared to accept this level of incompetence we are all doomed
Imagine if a pilot decided to taxi his aircraft through bunch of parked aircraft destroying 7 of them . That equates to about a 1 billion loss . At least Cathay might be able to claim on insurance . Not so with the hedging loss .
Do you think the company would just say . Well I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, so don't worry about it just come to work tomorrow .
He got away lightly with the questions from the interviewer . Personally I think she should have jumped on his answers and made him explain why he thinks a 1 billion hedging loss is good for business
His understanding of English is clearly lacking . Several of the questions were obviously mis-understood . Because the responses were totally irrelevant to the question .
"Fuel hedging is good for business" his words . Well yes it is , when you get it correct , but when you screw it up monumentally as we have done that is an indefensible position to try and hold .
As some of the previous posters have said , How could this company trot him out to answer questions ? He clearly has a problem with English comprehension, instills absolutely no confidence in the top management of this company.
I guess this is where the rot in this company starts , this is where a total shakeup is desperately needed . If the Board is prepared to accept this level of incompetence we are all doomed
Imagine if a pilot decided to taxi his aircraft through bunch of parked aircraft destroying 7 of them . That equates to about a 1 billion loss . At least Cathay might be able to claim on insurance . Not so with the hedging loss .
Do you think the company would just say . Well I'm sure you didn't mean to do that, so don't worry about it just come to work tomorrow .
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 284
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its time for a media, AOA sponsored and worldwide vote of NO CONFIDENCE in CX management. A stoic and public statement from the AOA on both the continuation of CC and why this is being done. There has been no positive or proactive support behind either CC or the 100 signatures by the trainers, inserted into the global media. 5000hkd to boot for a total and utter mess as a reflection of a "good faith' profit share for all…???..is a complete disgrace and insult. And Ivan..yes, the pilots DO DESERVE more of the cake..WE are the ones that deliver from the coal face..over the pole and through continuous roster disruptions, without family or social stability..no public holidays, first class lounges, freebie trips for CX golf outings, vacation at optimum moment. No weekends and no escalators after 5pm..facility management shut down after 2000..crap parking..over zealous charging, FOC's that mean zip!!! On and on the decline..and for what??..Rhetoric..punitive conditions of service..withdrawl of RP..no leave…and YOU, the management can support the loss of 1.09 Billion dollars.?????you couldn't make this rubbish up….
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anotherday - I agree with all your comments. We have become a dinosaur and the competition is moving way faster than us. Once CX could never lose with the geographic advantage but that has been seriously eroded. The airline needs to evolve fast and so does the AOA and the pilots, we are no longer tin gods.
Fuel hedging is a sound business practice to ensure the airline remains profitable during spikes. Problem is that whoever was paid to handle this massive decision got it seriously wrong.
IC - keep him away from the media.
Fuel hedging is a sound business practice to ensure the airline remains profitable during spikes. Problem is that whoever was paid to handle this massive decision got it seriously wrong.
IC - keep him away from the media.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: up here, everyone looks like ants!
Posts: 966
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number 5 and any amount of zeroes is least offensive, and heaven forbid they should dent their substantial bonuses and use the next multiple.
Ironically, a months' profit share to all employees wouldn't have been all that much more out of their significant coffers, but they're acutely aware of the intense animosity amongst the workforce and the fundamental truth that almost no amount of money can fix the problem.
To their bonuses!
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: HKG
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonus/Profit Share
The glaring disconnect is there for all to see in the CX annual accounts.
This years will be published on or before 6April.
Rewarding staff with a "transparent" profit share scheme is supposed to motivate us to greater efforts. Directors bonuses are there to reward their performance. Some of the bonuses are in excess of 2 million hk$. All are significant sums.
Yes you can buy or reward my "goodwill" but not for 5k if you are getting 2.3 million for yours.
This years will be published on or before 6April.
Rewarding staff with a "transparent" profit share scheme is supposed to motivate us to greater efforts. Directors bonuses are there to reward their performance. Some of the bonuses are in excess of 2 million hk$. All are significant sums.
Yes you can buy or reward my "goodwill" but not for 5k if you are getting 2.3 million for yours.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What annoys me is that not everyone is paid the same salary, that is based on your expertise and position in the company .
So why does the profit share scheme not recognize that and award accordingly .
i.e. Everyone gets x number of days based on your salary
Judging by the postings, instead of placating the crew management have once again managed to p..ss most of us off .
So why does the profit share scheme not recognize that and award accordingly .
i.e. Everyone gets x number of days based on your salary
Judging by the postings, instead of placating the crew management have once again managed to p..ss most of us off .
Oriental Flier,
Don't you think that was the intention all along?
Arfur,
It's not just the pilots who are insulted.... It's just about anyone who earns more that $10 per month... which must be just about everyone.
They really missed a beat on this one. Since they announced 2 weeks or $5k whichever is less, why not announce '3 months, or $5k whichever is less', then they could go to the press and say "Look, we gave 3 months profit share!" The cost to the Company would have been the same.
They couldn't PR their way out of a wet paper bag!
Don't you think that was the intention all along?
Arfur,
It's not just the pilots who are insulted.... It's just about anyone who earns more that $10 per month... which must be just about everyone.
They really missed a beat on this one. Since they announced 2 weeks or $5k whichever is less, why not announce '3 months, or $5k whichever is less', then they could go to the press and say "Look, we gave 3 months profit share!" The cost to the Company would have been the same.
They couldn't PR their way out of a wet paper bag!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Usually Somewhere Else
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max: because for some people, 2 weeks base salary is genuinely less than $5k, where 3 months wouldn't be.
Oriental: that's how it has worked previously, however this is how they buy the happiness of a great number of lower paid staff, and not pay much to those higher up the pay scale.
Oriental: that's how it has worked previously, however this is how they buy the happiness of a great number of lower paid staff, and not pay much to those higher up the pay scale.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyboy....you are missing Max's point. The number of people getting two weeks salary as a profit share is almost nil. Yet the Company has inserted "two weeks salary" into the announcement. Why? So that many people, who will not pause to think about it, will be under the impression that the profit share is two weeks of salary. In other words.....It's a deceptive trick.
So Max's point is that if you're going to employ such sophistry...why not go for an even greater impact and announce profit share as three months of salary, or $5000, if that happens to be less....blah blah blah.
It's like announcing that billions of dollars lost to fuel hedging is a good thing because it allows us to make stable fuel cost predictions.
Or one of my personal favorites: your salary is being reduced by 25%, and that "includes" your 13th month "bonus".
So Max's point is that if you're going to employ such sophistry...why not go for an even greater impact and announce profit share as three months of salary, or $5000, if that happens to be less....blah blah blah.
It's like announcing that billions of dollars lost to fuel hedging is a good thing because it allows us to make stable fuel cost predictions.
Or one of my personal favorites: your salary is being reduced by 25%, and that "includes" your 13th month "bonus".
Last edited by raven11; 11th Mar 2016 at 02:39.