To B or not to B
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To B or not to B
The status quo :
-C package attracts enough suitable candidates ( suitable as defined by the company and not as seen by most existing CX pilots)
- B scale crew costs are higher than at CX's competition
( HK airlines, Chinese carriers), and the competition is gaining market share
- DFO under pressure to cut costs as per executive order by the board
- traing ban, more or less sucessful
- cc, more or less effective
What can the DFO/GMA/GMO do? (purely to follow the executive order, not to satisfy other opinions or requests)
2 S/O's seems to be a logical step in my opinion ( not interested in a normative discussion, just saying it makes sense from a cost cutting point of view)
What should we do?
The answer in my opinion is: it depends on your own status.
If you are a C scaler you might want to go all in. What do you have to lose? Not much seniority, your package is similar to the competition, not much to lose apart a delay regarding internal promotion.
I am not a C scaler. I don't know what C scaler want.
I hope C scaler get as much as possible.
I want to make that clear.
But also I must emphasize that I have no idea what that actually means. How much is enough? What kind of increase? After all the package is exactly what they signed up for, so did they only sign up for a few years, do they have double income, own a propery somewhere else, do they just want the hours,I simply do not know.
There is endless speculation in here about the motives of C scalers, their alleged sealed faith, what their future looks like, what kind of financial desaster they may or may not face, etc etc.
I do not want to discuss that, please.
In my opinion it is not helpful to discuss the future, it is not relevant and we do not know for certain what will happen anyway. They might leave, they might stay, they might get an increase to convince them to stay down the road, god knows.
I am a B scaler. I am interested in my package.
Nobody of you is really interested in the pay of flight attendants ( except maybe if you are married or divorced by one), engineers, office staff etc.
Still that doesn't make one a bad person, right? So please consider this when I say again:
I am interested in my package as a B scaler.
What should be the way forward?
Why do so many B scalers support the past confrontational position?
Was it really the fine print? Was 5 % not enough?
I find that very hard to believe.
My guess is that a reduction of the B package is seen by many as a threat of their own conditions.
I don't understand this position. Why would it? C was introduced almost 10 years ago, and A hasn't been cut either before that, so what is the problem?
I have not met anyone who could give me a consise and logical answer on that.
Is this maybe just a bitter fight of everything and everybody in the hope of retaining something? Resistance as a principle?
I think this might be a possibility.
A somehow understandable position regarding the frustrating decline of our industry, but nevertheless not helpful in my opinion. The pressure of cutting costs will not go away.
Why not try to retain some control and cooperate? If we just oppose everything, they will impose whatever they can. At least that is what I would do as a manager. Why try to find a compromise if the result is resistance anyway?
I am looking forward to hear other arguments.
My conclusion is very clear:
as B scaler it is in our interest to find ways for the company to cut costs.
I also think that a 5 % increase over two years is fair. I want to keep my housing, because that is what I signed up for. Not getting housing would be a cut of -70 %, so why argue about a 5 or 6 % increase? Makes no sense to me.
I did not join with 21 and training paid for, I joined as a captain with many thousands of hours. I think I deserve my contract to be honoured, in return I am willing to end CC and the training ban asap.
Do I think the company cares about my personal well-beeing?
Laughable.
There might be lehal issues, there might be some people who would actually leave, in any case I think the main reason B could survive is when the costs of B scale decline every year until they are finally gone. That is how A scale ( sort of) survived.
B needs C to survive.
Now, before you all have a go at me.
Please consider two facts.
1) CC and the training ban are in effect for years now I believe. How did that work out so far? Did it stop the company of e.g. imposing S/O pairings? What did we actually gain so far? Of course you can always claim victory is imminent, but that is objectively a more and more fragile position to say the least, isn't it?
Of course there is a (theoretical) possibility that the union talks will result in significant improvements. I do not know the outcome, as none of you do. All I am saying is, in my opinion the risks of stalled talks are extremely high if you are a B scaler.
2) What would you do as DFO if the union talks stall (again)?
( please no arguments about why the DFO has to cut costs and certainly please no arguments about how costs could remain where they are)
I urge you to accept the dual system of B and C, and I urge you to accept the next offer if it contains the single most valuable part of our contract:
-C package attracts enough suitable candidates ( suitable as defined by the company and not as seen by most existing CX pilots)
- B scale crew costs are higher than at CX's competition
( HK airlines, Chinese carriers), and the competition is gaining market share
- DFO under pressure to cut costs as per executive order by the board
- traing ban, more or less sucessful
- cc, more or less effective
What can the DFO/GMA/GMO do? (purely to follow the executive order, not to satisfy other opinions or requests)
2 S/O's seems to be a logical step in my opinion ( not interested in a normative discussion, just saying it makes sense from a cost cutting point of view)
What should we do?
The answer in my opinion is: it depends on your own status.
If you are a C scaler you might want to go all in. What do you have to lose? Not much seniority, your package is similar to the competition, not much to lose apart a delay regarding internal promotion.
I am not a C scaler. I don't know what C scaler want.
I hope C scaler get as much as possible.
I want to make that clear.
But also I must emphasize that I have no idea what that actually means. How much is enough? What kind of increase? After all the package is exactly what they signed up for, so did they only sign up for a few years, do they have double income, own a propery somewhere else, do they just want the hours,I simply do not know.
There is endless speculation in here about the motives of C scalers, their alleged sealed faith, what their future looks like, what kind of financial desaster they may or may not face, etc etc.
I do not want to discuss that, please.
In my opinion it is not helpful to discuss the future, it is not relevant and we do not know for certain what will happen anyway. They might leave, they might stay, they might get an increase to convince them to stay down the road, god knows.
I am a B scaler. I am interested in my package.
Nobody of you is really interested in the pay of flight attendants ( except maybe if you are married or divorced by one), engineers, office staff etc.
Still that doesn't make one a bad person, right? So please consider this when I say again:
I am interested in my package as a B scaler.
What should be the way forward?
Why do so many B scalers support the past confrontational position?
Was it really the fine print? Was 5 % not enough?
I find that very hard to believe.
My guess is that a reduction of the B package is seen by many as a threat of their own conditions.
I don't understand this position. Why would it? C was introduced almost 10 years ago, and A hasn't been cut either before that, so what is the problem?
I have not met anyone who could give me a consise and logical answer on that.
Is this maybe just a bitter fight of everything and everybody in the hope of retaining something? Resistance as a principle?
I think this might be a possibility.
A somehow understandable position regarding the frustrating decline of our industry, but nevertheless not helpful in my opinion. The pressure of cutting costs will not go away.
Why not try to retain some control and cooperate? If we just oppose everything, they will impose whatever they can. At least that is what I would do as a manager. Why try to find a compromise if the result is resistance anyway?
I am looking forward to hear other arguments.
My conclusion is very clear:
as B scaler it is in our interest to find ways for the company to cut costs.
I also think that a 5 % increase over two years is fair. I want to keep my housing, because that is what I signed up for. Not getting housing would be a cut of -70 %, so why argue about a 5 or 6 % increase? Makes no sense to me.
I did not join with 21 and training paid for, I joined as a captain with many thousands of hours. I think I deserve my contract to be honoured, in return I am willing to end CC and the training ban asap.
Do I think the company cares about my personal well-beeing?
Laughable.
There might be lehal issues, there might be some people who would actually leave, in any case I think the main reason B could survive is when the costs of B scale decline every year until they are finally gone. That is how A scale ( sort of) survived.
B needs C to survive.
Now, before you all have a go at me.
Please consider two facts.
1) CC and the training ban are in effect for years now I believe. How did that work out so far? Did it stop the company of e.g. imposing S/O pairings? What did we actually gain so far? Of course you can always claim victory is imminent, but that is objectively a more and more fragile position to say the least, isn't it?
Of course there is a (theoretical) possibility that the union talks will result in significant improvements. I do not know the outcome, as none of you do. All I am saying is, in my opinion the risks of stalled talks are extremely high if you are a B scaler.
2) What would you do as DFO if the union talks stall (again)?
( please no arguments about why the DFO has to cut costs and certainly please no arguments about how costs could remain where they are)
I urge you to accept the dual system of B and C, and I urge you to accept the next offer if it contains the single most valuable part of our contract:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan,
you are right, A was not adjusted for inflation anymore. But it wasn't cut, can we agree on that?
You are claiming we are "not even really opposing" at the moment.
What other tools are there in the box? Industrial action in HK ? Unlikely.
you are right, A was not adjusted for inflation anymore. But it wasn't cut, can we agree on that?
You are claiming we are "not even really opposing" at the moment.
What other tools are there in the box? Industrial action in HK ? Unlikely.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
STW,
Unless you are taking the piss, CX really shouldn't allow you anywhere near the cockpit of an airliner. Incoherent and mentally unstable are two words that seem to fit. I thought I knew who you are, but even this retard (C scale 747 FO) looks brilliant next to you.
Not a fan.
Unless you are taking the piss, CX really shouldn't allow you anywhere near the cockpit of an airliner. Incoherent and mentally unstable are two words that seem to fit. I thought I knew who you are, but even this retard (C scale 747 FO) looks brilliant next to you.
Not a fan.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, guys, let it out. Feel better know?
I repeat my question.
What would you do as DFO if the current talks stall?
I would terminate housing.
I repeat my question.
What would you do as DFO if the current talks stall?
I would terminate housing.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, if she wants complete chaos that would be the best move. As an example, I would resign the very same day from C and T. That is my 'red line'. Maybe not enough for her to come to her senses, but it will be a consequence. I feel that many of my colleagues feel the same way. I have done many years in this clown circus, and that would convince me it is time to leave. Just my 2c worth.
STW is suffering from a form of the "Stockholm Syndrome" whereby he now seems to have some sympathy for the poor beleaguered DFO who is actually one of his abusers. Modern Companies do care about the welfare of their employees and Cathay should be careful because if they take away housing they will reap the whirlwind they so richly deserve.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh STW, some things never change.
You like questions it seems. Maybe you can take a stab at answering some of these;
What have been the management pay rises in the past five years?
Do you think we should fix problems the company's fuel hedging department creates?
There is a massive pilot shortage in the world, we have never had as much leverage. True, cathay does not hire pilots, but even the ones they manufacture are leaving. Now is the time to push for ground, not to run for the hills as you are so accustomed to doing. Stand up for your side mate, they need you. You are not needed by the other side.
You like questions it seems. Maybe you can take a stab at answering some of these;
What have been the management pay rises in the past five years?
Do you think we should fix problems the company's fuel hedging department creates?
There is a massive pilot shortage in the world, we have never had as much leverage. True, cathay does not hire pilots, but even the ones they manufacture are leaving. Now is the time to push for ground, not to run for the hills as you are so accustomed to doing. Stand up for your side mate, they need you. You are not needed by the other side.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: somewhere
Posts: 249
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, I do not believe that your option number 3 is a viable one. Once market share is lost to a competitor it is devilishly hard to regain it. So if their intention is to grow the airline it needs to be done now , without delay. Which leads me to believe that their intention is to shrink the airline because all they have done since the appointment of the current DFO is to delay, stall and prevaricate . There has been no real intent to come to an agreement with the pilots and CMP, HPE and GFBA are just disingenuous mouth music which have achieved nothing. They will go on rearranging the deckchairs, but this ship is now fatally holed below the waterline and no amount of "Time to Win" malarkey can obscure the fact that with the amount Management have decided to pay for fuel the airline needs 124 percent load factor to break even (according to Bloomberg).
Last edited by kenfoggo; 20th Jul 2017 at 10:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point, Frank. I don't know the answer.
PS Why is it that when you ask what to expect next/ speculate about the motives of management you either are considered a traitor or a management pilot?
The moment you stop asking questions you risk to loose control.
Arfur, where in my text do you see any sympathy for management?
Squawk, I hoped I made it clear in my text: this is not about who is responsible for the fuel hedging disaster or about the pay checks of managers. As I see it, we can't change that, or can we? That does not mean I approve.
PS Why is it that when you ask what to expect next/ speculate about the motives of management you either are considered a traitor or a management pilot?
The moment you stop asking questions you risk to loose control.
Arfur, where in my text do you see any sympathy for management?
Squawk, I hoped I made it clear in my text: this is not about who is responsible for the fuel hedging disaster or about the pay checks of managers. As I see it, we can't change that, or can we? That does not mean I approve.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Housing is contractual and will be "adjusted to reflect market conditions in Hong Kong". The same wording is applied to KA housing and to Swire housing. They'll have fun in a court of law arguing one has reduced significantly and the other 2 remain unchanged.
It's contractural in the same way as;
Seniority and promotion. Get rid of that. Only promote those that do a naked fling with the dancing buffoon (and G day workers)
Salary. That'll save them plenty.
Provident fund. There's 15 percent savings.
Hotel accommodation. Tents it is.
Annual leave. Another 10 percent savings.
Sick leave.
Education allowance.
84 hours and EFP.
The list goes on.
If CX want to ignore the contract, why stop at one rather trivial point when there's savings to be made by ignoring the lot?
The 49ers proved contracts mean something, and we can all be thankful for that.
It's contractural in the same way as;
Seniority and promotion. Get rid of that. Only promote those that do a naked fling with the dancing buffoon (and G day workers)
Salary. That'll save them plenty.
Provident fund. There's 15 percent savings.
Hotel accommodation. Tents it is.
Annual leave. Another 10 percent savings.
Sick leave.
Education allowance.
84 hours and EFP.
The list goes on.
If CX want to ignore the contract, why stop at one rather trivial point when there's savings to be made by ignoring the lot?
The 49ers proved contracts mean something, and we can all be thankful for that.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 20th Jul 2017 at 13:37.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The contract sets out a road map that determines how company policy will be determined and its identical to how KA housing and Swire housing is determined. So it'll be a case of one in, all in.
As for "sign or be fired" ironically CX set the legal precedent there.
After telling the A scalers in '99 they'd be in contractual limbo if they didn't sign the new contract and therefore not be on any recognized contract at all (you have been warned) they proceeded to recoginise the non-signees original contract for the remainder of their careers.
But that brings me to my point. Why just remove housing if sign or be fired actually was an option for them. Why not remove all the pesky niceties that cost them money that could otherwise be spent on gambling contracts that they are legally obliged to conform to? Why not give 35,000 employees a sign or be fired contract?
Quite simply, they can't.
No one doubts we're dealing with people of mediocre intelligence and zero organizational ability but I'd be hesitant to think they're stupid.
As for "sign or be fired" ironically CX set the legal precedent there.
After telling the A scalers in '99 they'd be in contractual limbo if they didn't sign the new contract and therefore not be on any recognized contract at all (you have been warned) they proceeded to recoginise the non-signees original contract for the remainder of their careers.
But that brings me to my point. Why just remove housing if sign or be fired actually was an option for them. Why not remove all the pesky niceties that cost them money that could otherwise be spent on gambling contracts that they are legally obliged to conform to? Why not give 35,000 employees a sign or be fired contract?
Quite simply, they can't.
No one doubts we're dealing with people of mediocre intelligence and zero organizational ability but I'd be hesitant to think they're stupid.
Last edited by Progress Wanchai; 20th Jul 2017 at 14:39.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, we can't change that, or can we? That does not mean I approve.
I think before you believe the lie that we have to change our package, you should demand that their actions, like doubling their salaries, would be curbed before asking for productivity increases on our part.
And that's why you'll find most of your few mates hate you STW. You are taking the enemy's side instead of supporting the people fighting for our profession. You scream from the sidelines without offering solutions, except surrendering. If you don't fight, then you won't get much. Those airlines with proper contracts had to fight tooth and nail to secure them. They didn't just drop on their laps by capitulating and drinking the kool aid.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cutting housing would be one of the worst mistakes this company could make , there are any number of pilots who would no longer be able to live in Hong Kong and would be forced to look for alternative jobs .
Even for the new recruits living with HKPA , it's okay for a while but try raising a family . HK is a very expensive city to live in . So I would venture an opinion that housing will not be touched .
As to what the company is trying to do and has been since 1998 is piss off their pilot workforce . Ed Rottington produced charts about costs per kilo and how much lower SIA was in comparison and how it was all doom and gloom . We and the company were going to go under unless we reduced our costs . Well here we are 19 years later still singing the same tune , if the fuel hedging dept hadn't screwed up monumentally CX would be making money hand over fist . Yet no one has been held responsible , which makes me very suspicious that a CX company was on the other side of the fuel hedging debacle so the management really isn't upset about it .
To reduce costs CX has cut the premium product , cut the food quality , cut the loyalty program and thereby encouraged our passengers to try other airlines , probably to never return .
Amazingly short sighted policy but who am I to criticize
Even for the new recruits living with HKPA , it's okay for a while but try raising a family . HK is a very expensive city to live in . So I would venture an opinion that housing will not be touched .
As to what the company is trying to do and has been since 1998 is piss off their pilot workforce . Ed Rottington produced charts about costs per kilo and how much lower SIA was in comparison and how it was all doom and gloom . We and the company were going to go under unless we reduced our costs . Well here we are 19 years later still singing the same tune , if the fuel hedging dept hadn't screwed up monumentally CX would be making money hand over fist . Yet no one has been held responsible , which makes me very suspicious that a CX company was on the other side of the fuel hedging debacle so the management really isn't upset about it .
To reduce costs CX has cut the premium product , cut the food quality , cut the loyalty program and thereby encouraged our passengers to try other airlines , probably to never return .
Amazingly short sighted policy but who am I to criticize
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the problem I see in that is simply this: many of the pilots on ARAPA have taken out large mortgages based on the implied level of housing monthly for up to 15 years. To pull away that support would be morally untenable (I know....I do realise who we are working for!), and push many of them quickly into bankruptcy. It is fair to assume that the company will continue to at least keep paying it until the individuals housing has reached the full 15 year point. Even so, many have already reached that point, and they continue to pay. And many of the recipients are C and T members. Having spoken with many over the past few years, it is pretty certain that many of the more senior members would quit the same day if housing was withdrawn. As Clint Eastwood once said...."so punk...do you feel lucky....go ahead, make my day...." :-) It's an interesting debate, and coalesces all of the companies potential to push the pilots off the last remaining cliff. Of course, there is a very good chance it takes the company itself off the same cliff with them. Are they that reckless? Hmmm, we'll see.
Last edited by Trafalgar; 21st Jul 2017 at 01:07.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk,
I don't understand your comments.I don't WANT our package to be changed, I FEAR it could be changed.
All I am saying is:
from a B scalers point of view, the risk of talk failure is much higher than for a C scaler.
I think most of totally underestimate the risk we are in right now.
And for what? I can't even remember why we are in CC in the first place!
I do not understand how any B scaler can not see that.
To the legal side:
I am not a lawyer. But the same question: do we want to risk a legal battle? Really?
By the way, the cpt C scale housing is higher than the average TOTAL income in HK.
Will we get much sympathy from a HK judge ? I highly doubt it.
sptraveller:
it is irrelevant if the cost problem at Cathay is real or not.
Our CEO has embarked on a cost cutting program, if we like it or not.
I don't understand your comments.I don't WANT our package to be changed, I FEAR it could be changed.
All I am saying is:
from a B scalers point of view, the risk of talk failure is much higher than for a C scaler.
I think most of totally underestimate the risk we are in right now.
And for what? I can't even remember why we are in CC in the first place!
I do not understand how any B scaler can not see that.
To the legal side:
I am not a lawyer. But the same question: do we want to risk a legal battle? Really?
By the way, the cpt C scale housing is higher than the average TOTAL income in HK.
Will we get much sympathy from a HK judge ? I highly doubt it.
sptraveller:
it is irrelevant if the cost problem at Cathay is real or not.
Our CEO has embarked on a cost cutting program, if we like it or not.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
List of excuses to stay of B scalers with C housing
- going to pull the plug soon, just X more years
- need to pay of mortgage, but then I am out
- only until my kids finished school/ are out of the house
- I commute anyway
- tax in my X country is just crazy, I just want to make sure I am safe
- want to finish 20 years and get ID travel for life
- just need X more hours
- only until I get my command
- my wife really likes it here
- my kids have all their friends here
- my house is paid off
- I don't need a lot of space
- they will have to reintroduce it, they need us
- pilot shortage will bring them to their knees, just enjoying the ride
- we really like Tung Chung , it is so convenient
- yes, our place is small, but at least it is safe
- I am divorced
- I am too old
- I am too young
- home prices won't stay up there forever
- we gonna sue them. you wait and see, they will not get away with it
- the AOA is in talks to renegotate, I heard it from a very reliable source
Pick yours or wake up and realize:
If we don't get an agreement soon they will call our bluff ( again)
Not signing the last offer was a historic mistake, now let's fix it if it's not too late.
Speak to every GC B scaler and urge him to close the deal. Now.
- going to pull the plug soon, just X more years
- need to pay of mortgage, but then I am out
- only until my kids finished school/ are out of the house
- I commute anyway
- tax in my X country is just crazy, I just want to make sure I am safe
- want to finish 20 years and get ID travel for life
- just need X more hours
- only until I get my command
- my wife really likes it here
- my kids have all their friends here
- my house is paid off
- I don't need a lot of space
- they will have to reintroduce it, they need us
- pilot shortage will bring them to their knees, just enjoying the ride
- we really like Tung Chung , it is so convenient
- yes, our place is small, but at least it is safe
- I am divorced
- I am too old
- I am too young
- home prices won't stay up there forever
- we gonna sue them. you wait and see, they will not get away with it
- the AOA is in talks to renegotate, I heard it from a very reliable source
Pick yours or wake up and realize:
If we don't get an agreement soon they will call our bluff ( again)
Not signing the last offer was a historic mistake, now let's fix it if it's not too late.
Speak to every GC B scaler and urge him to close the deal. Now.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Asia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank, you are correct.
Traf, what will you do if upon resigning from C&T you are in formed that there are no positions available for you on the line? Resign from training and you resign from the company?
I'm sure you remember how that played out in 1996. My advice is to resign from training now as more destructive management behavior is surely to follow. When there is a mad rush to quit C&T, they may give you that same ultimatum.
Traf, what will you do if upon resigning from C&T you are in formed that there are no positions available for you on the line? Resign from training and you resign from the company?
I'm sure you remember how that played out in 1996. My advice is to resign from training now as more destructive management behavior is surely to follow. When there is a mad rush to quit C&T, they may give you that same ultimatum.