What's the damage?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's the damage?
Rejecting 2.5% in 2017 could cost:
assumed average salary 120 000
20 years
capital growth 3.5 %
= 1 037 369 HK$
No increase in 2018 either:
= 2 000 543 HK$
assumed average salary 120 000
20 years
capital growth 3.5 %
= 1 037 369 HK$
No increase in 2018 either:
= 2 000 543 HK$
Those clowns, as you would have it, are office staff some of whom have been here in excess of 30 years; they're about to get **** canned in typical CX fashion and deserve our sympathy and respect, certainly more than you engender with this sort of horse****. I suspect very few of the pilot mangers will get culled.
And STW is not PM.
And STW is not PM.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: somewhere above the sea
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you kidding me? Office staff who have been here for 30 years doing SFA. Denly don't know how a perfect example. Donald do know how did more in 6 months than his predecessor did in 4 decades.
CX city is mostly occupied by dead wood. Look at their titles; everyone is a manager or 'executive'. There's hardly any actual 'doers'.
9 floors that could and should be reduced to 2 or 3.
Lease the rest of the space and make some money......
CX city is mostly occupied by dead wood. Look at their titles; everyone is a manager or 'executive'. There's hardly any actual 'doers'.
9 floors that could and should be reduced to 2 or 3.
Lease the rest of the space and make some money......
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you kidding me? Office staff who have been here for 30 years doing SFA. Denly don't know how a perfect example. Donald do know how did more in 6 months than his predecessor did in 4 decades.
CX city is mostly occupied by dead wood. Look at their titles; everyone is a manager or 'executive'. There's hardly any actual 'doers'.
9 floors that could and should be reduced to 2 or 3.
Lease the rest of the space and make some money......
CX city is mostly occupied by dead wood. Look at their titles; everyone is a manager or 'executive'. There's hardly any actual 'doers'.
9 floors that could and should be reduced to 2 or 3.
Lease the rest of the space and make some money......
Try using a little tact, instead of being an obnoxious prat.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're joking, aren't you?
Ron has it 100% spot on. There is a waste of space everywhere you look in Cathay City.....perhaps you are one too?
Ron has it 100% spot on. There is a waste of space everywhere you look in Cathay City.....perhaps you are one too?
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Asia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clear.right,
There's a good chance ron is one of the doers. They might have finally realised they don't need more managers and they can't afford to sack the doers. And yep, ron is absolutely correct.
There's a good chance ron is one of the doers. They might have finally realised they don't need more managers and they can't afford to sack the doers. And yep, ron is absolutely correct.
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Nimbus
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear hear: Getting rid of underperforming, "cannot" mentality, bloated management is vital to a more prosperous future.
The only problem is that all those who have benefitted from the Peter Principle will be the ones deciding which of their fellow Peters will be culled.
No sympathy from me: As a group, they've done more than enough damage already, while patting each other on the back with promotions and bonuses. It will take years to unwind just a fraction of the nonsense they have created.
Time to Win!
The only problem is that all those who have benefitted from the Peter Principle will be the ones deciding which of their fellow Peters will be culled.
No sympathy from me: As a group, they've done more than enough damage already, while patting each other on the back with promotions and bonuses. It will take years to unwind just a fraction of the nonsense they have created.
Time to Win!
tact - noun
skill and sensitivity in dealing with others or with difficult issues.
"the inspector broke the news to me with tact and consideration"
synonyms: sensitivity, understanding, thoughtfulness, consideration, delicacy, diplomacy, discretion, discernment, judgement, prudence, judiciousness, perception, subtlety, wisdom
You may also want to look up "diplomacy" and "discretion".
"They" are our fellow co-workers, who are all wondering what is going to happen to their lives. Reading you gloat on about them deserving it really makes me question your upbringing and stunning lack of empathy.
Perhaps focus your attention on the people who allowed this situation to occur, instead of the people about to pay the price.
I'm saddened that some of my fellow "professionals" are such di*ks.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And these narcissistic, incompetent fools title sacking a bunch of their own staff to pay for their own mistakes as "Time to Win".
It's perverse.
They're sick.
If they really want the respect of their peers and staff they'd resign. Until then they'll get exactly the help they deserve. None.
Absolutely right Staggers. As for Ron and his f@cktard mates, they are laying off line engineers, clerical staff, despatch staff etc etc. People who actually make the place run. Not in the least bit responsible for this current balls up. And they earn next to f'all. Probably less than the education allowances Ron and Bangalaru squander on their kids, because some arse allowed them to breed.
The fuel hedging is done. Done and dusted. A fait accompli. Get over it. Those actually responsible will never be held to account for it. In the race to slash and burn, this scorched earth policy will affect the little guy, until they come after our benefits. They already are if you happen to be an OT & P patient for example. Bailey and Jackson next ? Airport report.
Shameful. And we wonder why our profession is held in such scant regard ?
The fuel hedging is done. Done and dusted. A fait accompli. Get over it. Those actually responsible will never be held to account for it. In the race to slash and burn, this scorched earth policy will affect the little guy, until they come after our benefits. They already are if you happen to be an OT & P patient for example. Bailey and Jackson next ? Airport report.
Shameful. And we wonder why our profession is held in such scant regard ?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Staggers and Globocnik
Level C and D staff are made redundant in May, these positions are management positions. Rumour has that level A and B staff redundancies are coming in August. Lets face it, if you compare CX to any other airline in similar size CX has nearly twice as many office employees and way too many managers. The reason why? CX never invested in IT technology. Believe it or not there are still many tasks accomplished by hand, white board and Excel. Many of the internal supporting IT systems run on MS DOS. I wonder who knows how to maintain these systems. Competing airlines running integrated IT systems, which take care of everything, even calculating individual cost indices per flight resulting in minimum total cost for the flight. Taking in consideration, crew cost, fuel burn, maintenance cost, administrative, leasing, capital cost and many more factors. There are several vendors out there offering these systems. Jeppesen is one of those vendors, however CX in their great wisdom decided to buy only one module (CMP) and will decide on the PBS system in the near future. All other modules of this system are not even considered.
The question is how many level A and B employees can be made redundant with no proper IT technology in place. It will take many years and 100's of million USD to fix the IT infrastructure. Without fixing the IT hardware and software structure CX will never be competitive in the new asian airline market place.
Level C and D staff are made redundant in May, these positions are management positions. Rumour has that level A and B staff redundancies are coming in August. Lets face it, if you compare CX to any other airline in similar size CX has nearly twice as many office employees and way too many managers. The reason why? CX never invested in IT technology. Believe it or not there are still many tasks accomplished by hand, white board and Excel. Many of the internal supporting IT systems run on MS DOS. I wonder who knows how to maintain these systems. Competing airlines running integrated IT systems, which take care of everything, even calculating individual cost indices per flight resulting in minimum total cost for the flight. Taking in consideration, crew cost, fuel burn, maintenance cost, administrative, leasing, capital cost and many more factors. There are several vendors out there offering these systems. Jeppesen is one of those vendors, however CX in their great wisdom decided to buy only one module (CMP) and will decide on the PBS system in the near future. All other modules of this system are not even considered.
The question is how many level A and B employees can be made redundant with no proper IT technology in place. It will take many years and 100's of million USD to fix the IT infrastructure. Without fixing the IT hardware and software structure CX will never be competitive in the new asian airline market place.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC, what a concise summation of the tragic basket case this airline has become. It's probably too late to save it now. It will be eaten alive by the relentless competition. It's done. Stick a fork in it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC's summary is everything but "concise". It's plain wrong and based on assumptions alone. Zero facts, no evidence, nothing.
Alternative facts, anyone?
1) Cathay has "nearly twice as many employees as airlines with similar size"
Singapore Airlines group revenue 15 228 $ Million S$ / total employees 21 534
= 707 160 S$ / employee or
= 3 939 296 HK$ / employee
Japan Airlines group revenue 1 344 000 Million Yen / 31 534 employees
= 42 Million yen / employee
= 2 901 847 HK$ / employee
American airlines group revenue 42,2 Billion US$ / 122 300 employees
= 345 053 US$ / employee
= 2 685 271 HK$ / employee
Cathay Pacific group revenue 92 751 Million HK$ / total employees 26 000
= 3 567 346 HK$ / employee
2) To claim " Cathay never invested in IT " is so ridiculous I won't even bother to argue.
3) The "individual cost factor" is the answer. So in other words, if we would not fly with 50 or 60, but with the correct 57,3456 we would make a huuuuuuuge profit, right? What a joke.
4) buying Jeppeson. Sure. because you like the ILS charts this MUST be a good company. Any airline without their service " will never be competitive in the Asian market". Makes total sense.
( by the way, did you notice that most of your "arguments" are somewhat related to your job, to the pilot's view. And all the problems are somewhere else. You think this is a coincidence?? )
Alternative facts, anyone?
1) Cathay has "nearly twice as many employees as airlines with similar size"
Singapore Airlines group revenue 15 228 $ Million S$ / total employees 21 534
= 707 160 S$ / employee or
= 3 939 296 HK$ / employee
Japan Airlines group revenue 1 344 000 Million Yen / 31 534 employees
= 42 Million yen / employee
= 2 901 847 HK$ / employee
American airlines group revenue 42,2 Billion US$ / 122 300 employees
= 345 053 US$ / employee
= 2 685 271 HK$ / employee
Cathay Pacific group revenue 92 751 Million HK$ / total employees 26 000
= 3 567 346 HK$ / employee
2) To claim " Cathay never invested in IT " is so ridiculous I won't even bother to argue.
3) The "individual cost factor" is the answer. So in other words, if we would not fly with 50 or 60, but with the correct 57,3456 we would make a huuuuuuuge profit, right? What a joke.
4) buying Jeppeson. Sure. because you like the ILS charts this MUST be a good company. Any airline without their service " will never be competitive in the Asian market". Makes total sense.
( by the way, did you notice that most of your "arguments" are somewhat related to your job, to the pilot's view. And all the problems are somewhere else. You think this is a coincidence?? )
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 3rd May 2017 at 19:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trafalgar,
why is my thread the product of a "management plant"?
If you and the rest would not have voted down my payrise, the company would now spend MORE on pilots then they do today.
That is a fact.
why is my thread the product of a "management plant"?
If you and the rest would not have voted down my payrise, the company would now spend MORE on pilots then they do today.
That is a fact.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTC's summary is everything but "concise". It's plain wrong and based on assumptions alone. Zero facts, no evidence, nothing.
Alternative facts, anyone?
1) Cathay has "nearly twice as many employees as airlines with similar size"
Singapore Airlines group revenue 15 228 $ Million S$ / total employees 21 534
= 707 160 S$ / employee or
= 3 939 296 HK$ / employee
Japan Airlines group revenue 1 344 000 Million Yen / 31 534 employees
= 42 Million yen / employee
= 2 901 847 HK$ / employee
American airlines group revenue 42,2 Billion US$ / 122 300 employees
= 345 053 US$ / employee
= 2 685 271 HK$ / employee
Cathay Pacific group revenue 92 751 Million HK$ / total employees 26 000
= 3 567 346 HK$ / employee
2) To claim " Cathay never invested in IT " is so ridiculous I won't even bother to argue.
3) The "individual cost factor" is the answer. So in other words, if we would not fly with 50 or 60, but with the correct 57,3456 we would make a huuuuuuuge profit, right? What a joke.
4) buying Jeppeson. Sure. because you like the ILS charts this MUST be a good company. Any airline without their service " will never be competitive in the Asian market". Makes total sense.
( by the way, did you notice that most of your "arguments" are somewhat related to your job, to the pilot's view. And all the problems are somewhere else. You think this is a coincidence?? )
Alternative facts, anyone?
1) Cathay has "nearly twice as many employees as airlines with similar size"
Singapore Airlines group revenue 15 228 $ Million S$ / total employees 21 534
= 707 160 S$ / employee or
= 3 939 296 HK$ / employee
Japan Airlines group revenue 1 344 000 Million Yen / 31 534 employees
= 42 Million yen / employee
= 2 901 847 HK$ / employee
American airlines group revenue 42,2 Billion US$ / 122 300 employees
= 345 053 US$ / employee
= 2 685 271 HK$ / employee
Cathay Pacific group revenue 92 751 Million HK$ / total employees 26 000
= 3 567 346 HK$ / employee
2) To claim " Cathay never invested in IT " is so ridiculous I won't even bother to argue.
3) The "individual cost factor" is the answer. So in other words, if we would not fly with 50 or 60, but with the correct 57,3456 we would make a huuuuuuuge profit, right? What a joke.
4) buying Jeppeson. Sure. because you like the ILS charts this MUST be a good company. Any airline without their service " will never be competitive in the Asian market". Makes total sense.
( by the way, did you notice that most of your "arguments" are somewhat related to your job, to the pilot's view. And all the problems are somewhere else. You think this is a coincidence?? )
If you quote me, quote me correct.
I posted "CX has nearly twice as many office employees and way too many managers".
Office employees and managers! Not total employees, not pilots, not cabin crew, not airport staff, not maintenance employees. I was posting about "office employees and managers" Get it???
Your numbers of revenue generated per employee do mean nothing. The bottom line matters and if revenue is less then cost you are losing money.
As for IT technology, it clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about. Modern airlines have integrated IT systems, no redundant data, all departments interfaced with a free flow of information.
CX has various stand-alone systems, some are interfaced others are not, same data is stored redundant in various systems and might be updated in one system and outdated in another. Many workflows are done manually or with 25 year old MS DOS systems. Data and information of the various CX departments have limited interfaces and information flow between departments is basically non existent.
As for Jeppesen, I barely pointed out there are several vendors who sell complete Airline solutions like Amadeus, Sabre, Jeppesen and so on. I could care less if they buy a Jeppesen solution. However, I was trying to make a point that CX still does not understand the cost savings associated with a proper IT infrastructure.
I am talking about big picture here. Here is an example how an airline with a modern IT system works, from a pilots perspective.
The system is integrated, meaning it knows how many pax are on the flight, how much cargo, how much revenue was generated for this specific flight (ticket sales is part of the system or interfaced). The system is integrated into the maintenance system and knows how much maintenance will cost for this flight. It also knows if the engines and APU are leased or owned for the aircraft used for this flight. The system knows if the aircraft is owned or leased and the capital cost associated. The system knows exactly how much the cockpit and cabin crew will cost for this flight. The system is also integrated in the flight planning system. It will calculate the most cost effective solution for this flight by choosing a particular flight route and selecting the most cost effective cost index.
It might be cheaper to fly faster burn more fuel or because of winds, but save a lot of leasing and maintenance cost if the engines are powered by the hour. Or it might be cheaper to fly slower save fuel if maintenance and capital cost have a lesser factor. The system knows this as it has access to all the data. To put it in simple terms, the system tries to calculate the lowest variable cost for the airline. Administration is a fixed cost and as such factors not into these calculations.
The above is just a small area what integrated systems can do. Average time to process a crew swap request at CX? 4.8 days (processed manually by a human), with a computer solution 4 seconds.
Pattern optimizers are run several times daily at other airlines. CX will have one when CMP comes online, but the other half of this process still missing..
Productivity losses for cockpit cabin crew are huge. On the 747 fleet alone aircraft utilization losses due to aircraft sitting on the ground waiting for crew to be available was past 100 million USD last 12 months.
I could go on and on ....
CX has none of the above. All these tasks are done manually (or not at all) or by separate IT systems which are not or only limited interfaced.
BTW, I am not talking from a pilot perspective. I am talking from the position of someone who helps organizations in restructuring, analyzing and defining data model, work flows, processes and organizational hierarchy, build an appropriate IT infrastructure and as a result reduce fixed cost by several percentage points.
Last edited by GTC58; 3rd May 2017 at 21:20.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not impressed. You still have not produced any evidence, all your "arguments" are unbased assumptions.
How do you know other airlines have less "office staff" ? Can you give me the respective numbers of the Cathay group please ? And those of the competition as well, while you are at it.
The idea that some magic "integrated" IT solution is missing, while our competitors have that of course, and this would make the difference is simply proposterous. How exactly? Where? When? What IT system has Singapore Airlines please? JAL? HK Airlines?
100 000 000 USD loss on the 747, very interesting, how did you calculate that number please? Why are you so afraid of showing your data and the respective calculation?
I respect your opinion, I really do, but you need to come up with something substantial, so far I have seen nothing.
How do you know other airlines have less "office staff" ? Can you give me the respective numbers of the Cathay group please ? And those of the competition as well, while you are at it.
The idea that some magic "integrated" IT solution is missing, while our competitors have that of course, and this would make the difference is simply proposterous. How exactly? Where? When? What IT system has Singapore Airlines please? JAL? HK Airlines?
100 000 000 USD loss on the 747, very interesting, how did you calculate that number please? Why are you so afraid of showing your data and the respective calculation?
I respect your opinion, I really do, but you need to come up with something substantial, so far I have seen nothing.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 3rd May 2017 at 21:29.