DEFO back at CX
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 C scale pilots on B equals 2000 times 1 000 000 / year = 2 Billion HK$.
Make that figure 1 Billion now or 3 Billion in 5 years, it is an estimate.
You are saying:
HKPA was increased in the failed RP TA. That should have been negotiating capital to benefit all pilots, but was instead directed at C scale housing inequity.
So in other words: if ALL pilots would be on B ( with the cost consequences of above) that would give us MORE room to further IMPROVE B scale??? More cost = more "negotiating capital"???? That doesn't make any sense!
Make that figure 1 Billion now or 3 Billion in 5 years, it is an estimate.
You are saying:
HKPA was increased in the failed RP TA. That should have been negotiating capital to benefit all pilots, but was instead directed at C scale housing inequity.
So in other words: if ALL pilots would be on B ( with the cost consequences of above) that would give us MORE room to further IMPROVE B scale??? More cost = more "negotiating capital"???? That doesn't make any sense!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You haven't answered the question. Why are you "upset that every one of the C-scalers that join, for whatever the reason, weaken our ability to negotiate for higher", when you yourself joined on B-scale, which had weakened the A-scalers ability to negotiate for higher just the same?
How is that not a valid comparasion?
How is that not a valid comparasion?
Like it or not, pilot experience of CX new joiners in the past 5 years has dropped. That affects all pilots and employees of CX should a tragedy from pilot error related to inexperience occurr.
We have an excellent safety record at CX due to decades of exceptional pilots. Will that be true in the decade to come? I'm not so sure.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2000 C scale pilots on B equals 2000 times 1 000 000 / year = 2 Billion HK$.
Make that figure 1 Billion now or 3 in 5 years, it is an estimate.
Make that figure 1 Billion now or 3 in 5 years, it is an estimate.
I tell you what Sam I've changed my mind, you're right those C scalers don't deserve B scale terms. You and I are better than them and they will never hurt us right? What was that quote about "then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me?" How much do you think B scale will improve going forward as CX continues to breed us out with C scale?
its�5perworddammit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the foxhole
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did answer your question, but to be clear I am not "upset" about them joining. The change in Hong Kong as well as the airline recession in North America post 9/11 resulted in B scale compensation being adequate. Again, that was in 1993. Should we discuss changes from the 1970's as well? What change has ocurred that causes C scale to be valid? The global recession may have been a temporary dip, but all agencies including Boeing and China are reporting an alarming future trend of pilot shortage.
Like it or not, pilot experience of CX new joiners in the past 5 years has dropped. That affects all pilots and employees of CX should a tragedy from pilot error related to inexperience occurr.
We have an excellent safety record at CX due to decades of exceptional pilots. Will that be true in the decade to come? I'm not so sure.
Like it or not, pilot experience of CX new joiners in the past 5 years has dropped. That affects all pilots and employees of CX should a tragedy from pilot error related to inexperience occurr.
We have an excellent safety record at CX due to decades of exceptional pilots. Will that be true in the decade to come? I'm not so sure.
B-scale came about in 93/94, and and according to you, "changes in HK" and 9-11 made the package "adequate". Whats your opinion of the people who join in the interim years on B-scale between 1994 and 2001?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-scale came about in 93/94, and and according to you, "changes in HK" and 9-11 made the package "adequate". Whats your opinion of the people who join in the interim years on B-scale between 1994 and 2001?
its�5perworddammit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: the foxhole
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 2008 when Cathay was hiring second officers on the B scale I put in an application. At the time I was flying a turboprop and looking to advance my career. Heard nothing from them.
Fast forward to 2011 and I had managed to secure a position flying a jet with a good company. Got the e-mail from Cathay inviting me to interview for a C scale position and knocked them back without a second thought.
Now I thank my lucky stars that I got the jet job before Cathay came knocking as my career is in a far better place for it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I sympathise with both parties. The old hands don't want the new guys to come in and jeopardise their conditions while the young guys will do anything to advance their careers.
You just have to play the cards life deals you. Some get lucky, others don't. But don't hate on the guys who didn't get dealt the hand you did.
Fast forward to 2011 and I had managed to secure a position flying a jet with a good company. Got the e-mail from Cathay inviting me to interview for a C scale position and knocked them back without a second thought.
Now I thank my lucky stars that I got the jet job before Cathay came knocking as my career is in a far better place for it.
I guess what I'm saying is that I sympathise with both parties. The old hands don't want the new guys to come in and jeopardise their conditions while the young guys will do anything to advance their careers.
You just have to play the cards life deals you. Some get lucky, others don't. But don't hate on the guys who didn't get dealt the hand you did.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: hang on let me check
Posts: 654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unreal. This is a world where managers make 6/7/8 million US dollars per year in bonuses only, and I witness people on this thread justifying and explaining the B/C/D/Z scales so that a company can survive. Explaining me the mechanics of economics no less. Like I said, unreal.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Europe
Age: 37
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
partially I think it's because the seniority system like mentioned before. Wouldn't it be a lot healthier if an experienced pilot could go to another airline and have his experienced recognised. In that case when you don't agree with the conditions you can say goodbye. Now we are all stuck regardless the airline you work for and the only thing you can do is go on strike or something like that.
Other reason is the amount of zero hour cadets being produced. There is an unlimited supply out there. Flight schools sell training spots and promise a golden future. Airlines can Lower and lower conditions because of these things.
This a,b,c scale thing is not applicable for Cathay only. Every European airline is doing it.
Just a funny thought, not serious probably; what if every airline gives their pilots a package with proper conditions and a proper roster. Result is that everybody pays another 10 &/$ extra for a ticket. Plus we might see less fatigue related accidents.
Other reason is the amount of zero hour cadets being produced. There is an unlimited supply out there. Flight schools sell training spots and promise a golden future. Airlines can Lower and lower conditions because of these things.
This a,b,c scale thing is not applicable for Cathay only. Every European airline is doing it.
Just a funny thought, not serious probably; what if every airline gives their pilots a package with proper conditions and a proper roster. Result is that everybody pays another 10 &/$ extra for a ticket. Plus we might see less fatigue related accidents.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bringbackthe80's, you obviously claim to be a man of high moral standards.
I say you are a hypocrite.
Do you lose a lot of sleep lately about earning 20 times the salary of an office worker ? Or 30 times of your helper?
Would you be willing to sacrifice parts of your salary so they get more?
I think you like the market just fine when it suits you, right?
By the way, I never justified the salary of our CEO, for me this is totally irrelevant, because THERE IS ONLY ONE.
Even in a fantasy world where he would work for free AND the money would go to us, each of us would get only some peanuts extra.
I say you are a hypocrite.
Do you lose a lot of sleep lately about earning 20 times the salary of an office worker ? Or 30 times of your helper?
Would you be willing to sacrifice parts of your salary so they get more?
I think you like the market just fine when it suits you, right?
By the way, I never justified the salary of our CEO, for me this is totally irrelevant, because THERE IS ONLY ONE.
Even in a fantasy world where he would work for free AND the money would go to us, each of us would get only some peanuts extra.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 10th Aug 2016 at 11:50.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam Ting Wong
I appreciate you are trying to give an alternative viewpoint. But some of your numbers are quite off.
A DEFO joining today will be about 2000 places behind the most recent captain. CX has never completed 100 commands in a year. Let's say they can average 100 from now on - that's twenty years. Let's say they maintain a command rate over 50% higher than any previous year, that means command in over 13 years. What do you think is a good average number of commands for the next decade?
A career in EK is worth at least 30% more in after tax earnings. By career - I mean 15+years. Of course I have ignored the fact you will get 2-3,000 square feet in housing there vs 400-800 square feet here...unless you want to live past Tai Po, or Tuen Mun. But then that is like moving to Sydney and living in Blacktown! But in that analysis I assumed command in 12 years at CX - unrealistic now IMHO. So EK looks even better, financially speaking!
Housing costs - you have forgotten the fact that C scalers already get HKPA. So the increase in cost is currently about $50K per month - $600K per year. There are over 1,000 C scale joiners so the total extra housing bill is less than a Billion. And recent comments from CMP vendors has questioned management as to why they don't have a far greater number based. So the total cost could actually be reduced AND provide a happier, more adequately compensated workforce.
B scale salaries are ABOVE A scale in almost all cases today! There are some minor exceptions. So not sure what you are thinking here?
Yes all departments need to trim costs - but think about this - whilst not doing anything about the training ban has cost the company probably over $10B a year in foregone revenue with the associated economies of scale. All to ensure management is not beholden to any pressure from the pilot body.
Look, I get the business side of things pretty well so I don't rant and rave against them. But you are seeming to be an unthinking cheerleader for them without using real numbers or facts.
Keep it real!
A DEFO joining today will be about 2000 places behind the most recent captain. CX has never completed 100 commands in a year. Let's say they can average 100 from now on - that's twenty years. Let's say they maintain a command rate over 50% higher than any previous year, that means command in over 13 years. What do you think is a good average number of commands for the next decade?
A career in EK is worth at least 30% more in after tax earnings. By career - I mean 15+years. Of course I have ignored the fact you will get 2-3,000 square feet in housing there vs 400-800 square feet here...unless you want to live past Tai Po, or Tuen Mun. But then that is like moving to Sydney and living in Blacktown! But in that analysis I assumed command in 12 years at CX - unrealistic now IMHO. So EK looks even better, financially speaking!
Housing costs - you have forgotten the fact that C scalers already get HKPA. So the increase in cost is currently about $50K per month - $600K per year. There are over 1,000 C scale joiners so the total extra housing bill is less than a Billion. And recent comments from CMP vendors has questioned management as to why they don't have a far greater number based. So the total cost could actually be reduced AND provide a happier, more adequately compensated workforce.
B scale salaries are ABOVE A scale in almost all cases today! There are some minor exceptions. So not sure what you are thinking here?
Yes all departments need to trim costs - but think about this - whilst not doing anything about the training ban has cost the company probably over $10B a year in foregone revenue with the associated economies of scale. All to ensure management is not beholden to any pressure from the pilot body.
Look, I get the business side of things pretty well so I don't rant and rave against them. But you are seeming to be an unthinking cheerleader for them without using real numbers or facts.
Keep it real!
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Asia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you everyone. I do appreciate your opinions or comments for my question .
Sadly it seems like some of you hate new joiners and your colleagues. I'm sorry if my question made you uncomfortable. I know "grass is always greener " but CX is still attractive airline to me . Hopefully I can work with you guys in the near future. Thank you again.
Sadly it seems like some of you hate new joiners and your colleagues. I'm sorry if my question made you uncomfortable. I know "grass is always greener " but CX is still attractive airline to me . Hopefully I can work with you guys in the near future. Thank you again.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numero,
I appreciate your viewpoints as well, one of the bright spots in this forum, but I think you did not accurately present my viewpoints:
I never said 12 years to command, I said nobody knows, 10-20 years, maybe >12 ( meaning MORE than 12).
I also never said that EK is more or less attractive than CX money wise. I don't care about EK, I don't want to work for them, and whoever thinks it is attractive I invite to apply.
Housing costs. I specifically said between 1-3 Billion and it is an estimate. I do not know the figure ( obviously). Your calculation assumes a difference of 50000, that might be right or not. There are Cpts who rent for 100k plus, then there are boarding school fees etc etc. We hire what, 3-400 at the moment per year? I think it is fair to assume it is a significant sum we are talking about, how about that?
I respect your viewpoint, but please don't misrepresent mine in order to make a point. This is manipulative, with all respect.
You claim the training ban has cost the company 10 Billion. Any proof for that?
How did you come to this impressive sum?
I am not a cheerleader for the company nor for anybody else, far from it, I am trying to find out why it is common belief in this company that C is hurting B.
So far nobody, not even you Sir Numero, has produced any evidence for that.
I appreciate your viewpoints as well, one of the bright spots in this forum, but I think you did not accurately present my viewpoints:
I never said 12 years to command, I said nobody knows, 10-20 years, maybe >12 ( meaning MORE than 12).
I also never said that EK is more or less attractive than CX money wise. I don't care about EK, I don't want to work for them, and whoever thinks it is attractive I invite to apply.
Housing costs. I specifically said between 1-3 Billion and it is an estimate. I do not know the figure ( obviously). Your calculation assumes a difference of 50000, that might be right or not. There are Cpts who rent for 100k plus, then there are boarding school fees etc etc. We hire what, 3-400 at the moment per year? I think it is fair to assume it is a significant sum we are talking about, how about that?
I respect your viewpoint, but please don't misrepresent mine in order to make a point. This is manipulative, with all respect.
You claim the training ban has cost the company 10 Billion. Any proof for that?
How did you come to this impressive sum?
I am not a cheerleader for the company nor for anybody else, far from it, I am trying to find out why it is common belief in this company that C is hurting B.
So far nobody, not even you Sir Numero, has produced any evidence for that.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW - l disagree with many of your arguments. You defend C-Scale as something CX had to do to in order to remain competitive in the market, i.e. lower costs. When arguments were bought up about massive fuel hedging losses (same could be said for anti-competition reaches of laws and fines that ensued, etc, etc...) you argued that each department is it's own entity. So, did the fuel hedging managers receive the type of pay cut that C scale represented to the pilot body? Or those responsible for the fines for breaking the law? Did other departments slash & cut their own salaries & bonuses? Was it an across the board cut to salaries for the entire company or just thrown at those CX knew were stupid enough to accept it: SJS kids with no experience, no credentials or maturity as to what they were getting themselves in for?
Saying that each department is its own entity makes the entire crux of your argument that economic policy relies robbing Peter to pay Paul. Warham's book covers this topic extremely well: the pilots were forced to take cuts for poor economic performances from other departments but not those departments responsible for the losses.
There are many full-service airlines making profits and expanding who pay better than CX. Are they just as greedy & immoral? We could argue the same but that's not the topic.
So back to economics of basic supply & demand. A Scale recruited and hired extremely experienced pilots and paid them amongst the best in the industry, in return the professional respect, standards and good will could not be measured. Then came the sign-or-be-fired tactics, the 49ers, etc... B Scale was introduced which still paid amongst some of the best in the industry but good will & trust was lost. The remuneration package was one that still attracted high time pilots who had to pass one of the most technically difficult interviews in the airline industry. Then came C Scale which offers a remuneration package that is insulting. So good will and trust remains lost, & spiralling down, & due the pay very few experienced pilots would ever touch CX. So that demand is met with only those stupid enough to accept it: kids with little to no experience with severe SJS. Standards are at an all time low from what everyone tells me. (Only to see them now complain about how hard done by they are on the package they begged for & accepted).
Even pilots coming from HKA/E would be stupid to accept C Scale conditions if for nothing else time to Command. I understand those guys at HKA/E are between 3-5 years from DEFO to Command, so if being at HKA/E and then moving to the bottom of the pile at CX is another ">12 years" as you agree then why would anyone in their right mind do it? The "economics" of lost income from being an FO for a further > 12 years more as opposed to a Capt elsewhere in 3-5 years (min 7-9 years of lost income) is financially dumb.
STW, I appreciate you have a different point view. Gordon Gekko Economics of "Greed is good" is how must of the world views CX's C Scale and not as a means to be competitive in the market. Show me one CX senior executive who's forgone their huge bonus or who's bought in remuneration cuts across the board, including their own, and I may agree with you.
How can you say C Scale does not directly affect B Scale? What will happen when C Scale pilots are in the much stronger majority? Already there are (idiots) on this forum screaming bloody murder that they have to do the "heavy lifting" as C Scale SO's due the training ban, etc. How would you forecast the future of pay negotiations when C Scale becomes the much stronger majority of pilots? CX improving C Scale and leaving B Scale alone? Seriously? And by "not affecting" B Scale pilots, what of basic flying standards and pressures in the cockpit just to get the job done? This factors alone also strongly affect B Scale in my opinion.
Saying that each department is its own entity makes the entire crux of your argument that economic policy relies robbing Peter to pay Paul. Warham's book covers this topic extremely well: the pilots were forced to take cuts for poor economic performances from other departments but not those departments responsible for the losses.
There are many full-service airlines making profits and expanding who pay better than CX. Are they just as greedy & immoral? We could argue the same but that's not the topic.
So back to economics of basic supply & demand. A Scale recruited and hired extremely experienced pilots and paid them amongst the best in the industry, in return the professional respect, standards and good will could not be measured. Then came the sign-or-be-fired tactics, the 49ers, etc... B Scale was introduced which still paid amongst some of the best in the industry but good will & trust was lost. The remuneration package was one that still attracted high time pilots who had to pass one of the most technically difficult interviews in the airline industry. Then came C Scale which offers a remuneration package that is insulting. So good will and trust remains lost, & spiralling down, & due the pay very few experienced pilots would ever touch CX. So that demand is met with only those stupid enough to accept it: kids with little to no experience with severe SJS. Standards are at an all time low from what everyone tells me. (Only to see them now complain about how hard done by they are on the package they begged for & accepted).
Even pilots coming from HKA/E would be stupid to accept C Scale conditions if for nothing else time to Command. I understand those guys at HKA/E are between 3-5 years from DEFO to Command, so if being at HKA/E and then moving to the bottom of the pile at CX is another ">12 years" as you agree then why would anyone in their right mind do it? The "economics" of lost income from being an FO for a further > 12 years more as opposed to a Capt elsewhere in 3-5 years (min 7-9 years of lost income) is financially dumb.
STW, I appreciate you have a different point view. Gordon Gekko Economics of "Greed is good" is how must of the world views CX's C Scale and not as a means to be competitive in the market. Show me one CX senior executive who's forgone their huge bonus or who's bought in remuneration cuts across the board, including their own, and I may agree with you.
How can you say C Scale does not directly affect B Scale? What will happen when C Scale pilots are in the much stronger majority? Already there are (idiots) on this forum screaming bloody murder that they have to do the "heavy lifting" as C Scale SO's due the training ban, etc. How would you forecast the future of pay negotiations when C Scale becomes the much stronger majority of pilots? CX improving C Scale and leaving B Scale alone? Seriously? And by "not affecting" B Scale pilots, what of basic flying standards and pressures in the cockpit just to get the job done? This factors alone also strongly affect B Scale in my opinion.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
China beach,
again, i think I have been grossly misunderstood.
I can assure you I am not defending anybody in the fuel hedging department. I don't know who made the decision to hedge, I don't know who got fired or not fired for it, all I am saying is that a huge loss in one department intensifies the pressure on cost in other departments. The idea that this hedging loss is some sort of argument for more spending in another department is illogical in my view. Your argument is purely emotional in my opinion.
I also never said that I find the current system fair. Since when do we live in a fair world? What kind of argument is this? The pay packages at the top are out of hand, no question. But I do not think it is possible for us to change that, nor is it relevant because of the small number of people on these salaries. I am only trying to be pragmatic here, not being a cheerleader as Mr Numero believes.
You are saying our department ( pilots) received huge cuts after the fuel hedging loss? Which cut???
I also do not defend the salary of anybody else in this company, I say it is irrelevant since thousands of people apply under the current C scale offer. That is all.
I think it is deeply unfair to call new joiners stupid. You don't know their background.I flew with SO's who escaped hell, some **** job in Africa,living in a tent.Why do you judge these people? I also flew with SO's who have bought a flat, I flew with SO's who are double earner, etc. If one day they are not happy anymore, they will leave. So what? You are saying it will take 20 years to command. Well, I guess that sorts out the lack of experience problem, doesn't it?
Why are you all so obsessed with proving that the C package is inferior? Thousands of applicants don't lie, period. You need to stop seeing things exclusively from your own view point.
And again, if you or anybody else are really concerned about the experience level, where is your AOA initiative for a minimum hour entrance level? I do not believe this is really your concern.
The changing demographics you mention, that is a concern of mine ,too. Totally with you.
We should really start a discussion about this asap in the AOA, this is a time bomb.
But I simply do not believe all back on B is a feasible way. It will never happen, so why fight for it? Totally pointless.
I think we need to stop calling C scale guys stupid, I think we need to emphasise the fact that B and A joined with different experience levels, at a higher age,and that they did not get the training paid for by the company. And we need a higher majority than 50% to change elementary conditions in AOA elections. Even better would be if only those affected of C would vote on C conditions, same for B.
again, i think I have been grossly misunderstood.
I can assure you I am not defending anybody in the fuel hedging department. I don't know who made the decision to hedge, I don't know who got fired or not fired for it, all I am saying is that a huge loss in one department intensifies the pressure on cost in other departments. The idea that this hedging loss is some sort of argument for more spending in another department is illogical in my view. Your argument is purely emotional in my opinion.
I also never said that I find the current system fair. Since when do we live in a fair world? What kind of argument is this? The pay packages at the top are out of hand, no question. But I do not think it is possible for us to change that, nor is it relevant because of the small number of people on these salaries. I am only trying to be pragmatic here, not being a cheerleader as Mr Numero believes.
You are saying our department ( pilots) received huge cuts after the fuel hedging loss? Which cut???
I also do not defend the salary of anybody else in this company, I say it is irrelevant since thousands of people apply under the current C scale offer. That is all.
I think it is deeply unfair to call new joiners stupid. You don't know their background.I flew with SO's who escaped hell, some **** job in Africa,living in a tent.Why do you judge these people? I also flew with SO's who have bought a flat, I flew with SO's who are double earner, etc. If one day they are not happy anymore, they will leave. So what? You are saying it will take 20 years to command. Well, I guess that sorts out the lack of experience problem, doesn't it?
Why are you all so obsessed with proving that the C package is inferior? Thousands of applicants don't lie, period. You need to stop seeing things exclusively from your own view point.
And again, if you or anybody else are really concerned about the experience level, where is your AOA initiative for a minimum hour entrance level? I do not believe this is really your concern.
The changing demographics you mention, that is a concern of mine ,too. Totally with you.
We should really start a discussion about this asap in the AOA, this is a time bomb.
But I simply do not believe all back on B is a feasible way. It will never happen, so why fight for it? Totally pointless.
I think we need to stop calling C scale guys stupid, I think we need to emphasise the fact that B and A joined with different experience levels, at a higher age,and that they did not get the training paid for by the company. And we need a higher majority than 50% to change elementary conditions in AOA elections. Even better would be if only those affected of C would vote on C conditions, same for B.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 10th Aug 2016 at 14:33.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not for Sale
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things aren't fair is no reason to not try to fix them. It's a defeatist attitude. Unfairness or blatant wrongs should be fought against and vehemently.
No, I don't know everyone's background story. I do know of mine's and other's backgrounds of holding down 2-3 jobs while working in GA in any location that would allow me/us to build hours to secure a future as an airline pilot. Better or worse than others who flew in Africa, PNG, US, Canada, NZ, etc, etc? Not really. "My hardships are harder harder than your hardships" isn't really a debate worth going on with.
What C Scale did to CX is. Yes, I believe those who accepted C Scale are dumb for reasons I've outlined many times before. You are welcome to disagree, as other have and will. Others agree. There were and are many other jobs out there that true airmen with a true vocation would've gone for: but it wasn't in a shiny jet with an AP. Having a dual income does not justify accepting a package that (in mine and others' opinions) placing undeniable string pressures on the existing pilot's remuneration is wrong. Just because you "can" doesn't doesn't mean you "should".
Once retired from airlines do think it moral for me to go back to GA, fly a B1900 or SAAB 340, offer to work for free, or far, far less than other pilots at the company and therefore take someone else's job who deserves to be paid and build hours? Just because I can does not make it right.
Did the AOA do anything to prevent C Scale? No. Because it didn't affect their salaries - at the time. However! When the Housing Agreement or RPs come into play which does affect their pay or lifestyle they seem to come to life. That's for another topic which I've voiced opinion on as well.
I appreciate your difference of opinion and for once you're a guy who is able to argue from a different viewpoint and be reasonable - even though our views are quite opposing.
No, I don't know everyone's background story. I do know of mine's and other's backgrounds of holding down 2-3 jobs while working in GA in any location that would allow me/us to build hours to secure a future as an airline pilot. Better or worse than others who flew in Africa, PNG, US, Canada, NZ, etc, etc? Not really. "My hardships are harder harder than your hardships" isn't really a debate worth going on with.
What C Scale did to CX is. Yes, I believe those who accepted C Scale are dumb for reasons I've outlined many times before. You are welcome to disagree, as other have and will. Others agree. There were and are many other jobs out there that true airmen with a true vocation would've gone for: but it wasn't in a shiny jet with an AP. Having a dual income does not justify accepting a package that (in mine and others' opinions) placing undeniable string pressures on the existing pilot's remuneration is wrong. Just because you "can" doesn't doesn't mean you "should".
Once retired from airlines do think it moral for me to go back to GA, fly a B1900 or SAAB 340, offer to work for free, or far, far less than other pilots at the company and therefore take someone else's job who deserves to be paid and build hours? Just because I can does not make it right.
Did the AOA do anything to prevent C Scale? No. Because it didn't affect their salaries - at the time. However! When the Housing Agreement or RPs come into play which does affect their pay or lifestyle they seem to come to life. That's for another topic which I've voiced opinion on as well.
I appreciate your difference of opinion and for once you're a guy who is able to argue from a different viewpoint and be reasonable - even though our views are quite opposing.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sam Ting Wong
The housing costs I suggest are pretty accurate. As I said, with the correct number of basings they could actually reduce current housing costs AND have a growing airline.
Now as to my claim of forgone revenue. I have selected 2 x five year blocks, 2005-09 inclusive and 2011-15 inclusive. I have used Arithmetic mean rather than Geometric. I have used year end report of aircraft numbers and revenue.
Based on the above, from 1/1/11-31/12/15 we grew at an average rate of 2.7%. The last year was a net shrinkage of -0.7%. Based on revenue for 2010, revenue for 2015, using this growth rate, should have been $101.6Billion - we actually reported $102.3B
From 1/1/05-31/12/09 we grew at an average rate of 7.2%. Using 2004 revenue and increasing it for growth we should have had revenue of $69.2Billion - we actually reported $67B.
So it should come as no surprise that revenue is strongly correlated with aircraft numbers. Of course world economic conditions, fuel prices, SARS, Swine Flu etc have a big impact.
So if we had spent the last say three years growing at 7.2%, we would now be 16.2% bigger - that would mean revenue of approx $16Billion more.
We(CX) have been retiring aircraft faster than we would like as we don't have the pilots to fly them. There is a thread on AOA forums titled "recruitment and retention" - look there if you don't believe my numbers.
One last point for any readers wanting to join CX for a quick command. The average rate of commands for the last 5 years is 58. Now I believe the average for the next 15 years would be much higher as we grow, but at even double the last five year average, you are looking at over 17 years to command. Recruiting will tell you recent commands have been 12 years. That is true - because we didn't recruit as many pilots for a few years after 9/11. For the last four and a half years we have recruited 973.
Now as to my claim of forgone revenue. I have selected 2 x five year blocks, 2005-09 inclusive and 2011-15 inclusive. I have used Arithmetic mean rather than Geometric. I have used year end report of aircraft numbers and revenue.
Based on the above, from 1/1/11-31/12/15 we grew at an average rate of 2.7%. The last year was a net shrinkage of -0.7%. Based on revenue for 2010, revenue for 2015, using this growth rate, should have been $101.6Billion - we actually reported $102.3B
From 1/1/05-31/12/09 we grew at an average rate of 7.2%. Using 2004 revenue and increasing it for growth we should have had revenue of $69.2Billion - we actually reported $67B.
So it should come as no surprise that revenue is strongly correlated with aircraft numbers. Of course world economic conditions, fuel prices, SARS, Swine Flu etc have a big impact.
So if we had spent the last say three years growing at 7.2%, we would now be 16.2% bigger - that would mean revenue of approx $16Billion more.
We(CX) have been retiring aircraft faster than we would like as we don't have the pilots to fly them. There is a thread on AOA forums titled "recruitment and retention" - look there if you don't believe my numbers.
One last point for any readers wanting to join CX for a quick command. The average rate of commands for the last 5 years is 58. Now I believe the average for the next 15 years would be much higher as we grow, but at even double the last five year average, you are looking at over 17 years to command. Recruiting will tell you recent commands have been 12 years. That is true - because we didn't recruit as many pilots for a few years after 9/11. For the last four and a half years we have recruited 973.
Last edited by Numero Crunchero; 11th Aug 2016 at 05:07. Reason: grammar
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Numero,
as I said I always like to read your posts, but I still see no evidence for your claim the training ban has cost the company 10 Billion.
You said it yourself : "economic conditions, fuel prices, SARS, Swine Flu etc have a big impact."
We always had times of low and high growth, for multiple reasons, and we always retired aircraft early or later. Simply extrapolating growth from the past is not an acceptable measurement in my opinion. We had a financial crisis, competition from the gulf and mainland carriers, weak cargo market, euro crisis, you name it.
Maybe sometimes a more careful approach is wiser? Maybe the market just isn't there? I do not claim to have the answer, but it is possible.
I am NOT saying the training ban has no effect, I am sure it does, but 10 Billion? And is the effect big enough to justify higher crew cost ? Apparently not, or why would Anna have said no negotiations for now? Doesn't look like she is in big rush..
The AOA thread deals with recruitment and retiring numbers, or an alleged crew shortage.
I do not see any evidence that the training ban has caused a significant crew shortage.
What I do see is a company trying to keep the crew numbers as low as possible.
There is no shortage of applicants, which leads back to my original claim that C scale is sufficient to attract enough new pilots.
But even if the training ban would have cost the company 10 billion, what use is that for us as long as they do not follow our demands?
But ok, I hope you are right and there is enough leverage thru the ban and we find a way to get back to the table. I really do.
I think you are spot on with your time to command calculation.
as I said I always like to read your posts, but I still see no evidence for your claim the training ban has cost the company 10 Billion.
You said it yourself : "economic conditions, fuel prices, SARS, Swine Flu etc have a big impact."
We always had times of low and high growth, for multiple reasons, and we always retired aircraft early or later. Simply extrapolating growth from the past is not an acceptable measurement in my opinion. We had a financial crisis, competition from the gulf and mainland carriers, weak cargo market, euro crisis, you name it.
Maybe sometimes a more careful approach is wiser? Maybe the market just isn't there? I do not claim to have the answer, but it is possible.
I am NOT saying the training ban has no effect, I am sure it does, but 10 Billion? And is the effect big enough to justify higher crew cost ? Apparently not, or why would Anna have said no negotiations for now? Doesn't look like she is in big rush..
The AOA thread deals with recruitment and retiring numbers, or an alleged crew shortage.
I do not see any evidence that the training ban has caused a significant crew shortage.
What I do see is a company trying to keep the crew numbers as low as possible.
There is no shortage of applicants, which leads back to my original claim that C scale is sufficient to attract enough new pilots.
But even if the training ban would have cost the company 10 billion, what use is that for us as long as they do not follow our demands?
But ok, I hope you are right and there is enough leverage thru the ban and we find a way to get back to the table. I really do.
I think you are spot on with your time to command calculation.