HPE - ARAPA
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO, you, sir, sound a great deal like the company guy who writes their version of the contract proposals. Writing to push everyone down into the bottom five percent and hit things with a stick rather than have incentives for the talented people we hire to aspire to the top 5 percent (which in a way results in a self-fulfilling prophecy). And divide the house against itself with the hopes that a divided house can be controlled, hoodwinked, chiseled, and manipulated. Exploiting resentment, division, envy and strife rather than a cohesive team with hope and vision toward the future.
It's this kind of thinking that has got us to where we are today. A divided house cannot stand. And isn't.
To your 'point', it's NOT a zero sum game (in fact it's NEVER a zero sum game), and doesn't have to have ANY negative effect whatsoever (quite the opposite). But this demands one have the attitude of profit, incentive, growth, investment and upgrade--rather than the attitude of contraction, slash, burn and malaise. Here's a novel idea--how about we make people happy and upgrade everyone we can--and embrace an upgrade process that results in maximum gain with minimum pain (doing so as close to when an individual becomes eligible as possible in a process with a high success rate and minimum collateral time spent during the process). Other airlines that are 'winning' not only have high success rates in upgrade but also ARE upgrading their people at relatively early points in their career (which sets the forward looking stage for future expansion of the carrier). Setting the standard that people WANT to get in the door, WANT to stay, and WANT to make this the most awesome place on the planet. Where pulling the pin and leaving is unthinkable from a job satisfaction perspective rather than based on the sunk cost of acquired seniority and starting over.
At the end of the day it's not about minutia and money--it's about how people perceive they are being treated. And how their team is being treated. And the level of dedication they have to their institution.
Like I've said, I have absolutely NO idea whatsoever whether the losses are due to a bad bet or an elaborate capital laundering scheme. If it WAS a gamble it was a very bad one; not so much on the loss itself but where the loss went.
If we ARE going to gamble, how about we gamble on our people ? Your oil can't love you back.
Last edited by Shep69; 1st Nov 2017 at 15:31.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and doesn't have to have ANY negative effect whatsoever (quite the opposite)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not confusing at all--at least if the airline has a future.
I might suggest you look at how the US economy performed under Ford/Carter versus under Reagan. The former assumed a zero sum game, the latter rejected the concept. If that's too far back to remember you can look at the early days of the Clinton years versus the latter days of the Clinton years. Embracing the 'zero sum' game always results in a decline toward zero; not in a maintenance of status quo.
Of course if your strategy is to shrink the pie, try to divide the ever shrinking pie up amongst whoever is still left, and run the place into the ground you might have a point. But you might first want to look at what the thriving airlines are doing.
Taking naps in one’s college courses isn't always a good idea because you might miss some key points. Like when you wake up and see the "Hugo Chavez" model and miss the point that during your slumber the prof was telling the class it's NOT a good way to run a business.
I might suggest you look at how the US economy performed under Ford/Carter versus under Reagan. The former assumed a zero sum game, the latter rejected the concept. If that's too far back to remember you can look at the early days of the Clinton years versus the latter days of the Clinton years. Embracing the 'zero sum' game always results in a decline toward zero; not in a maintenance of status quo.
Of course if your strategy is to shrink the pie, try to divide the ever shrinking pie up amongst whoever is still left, and run the place into the ground you might have a point. But you might first want to look at what the thriving airlines are doing.
Taking naps in one’s college courses isn't always a good idea because you might miss some key points. Like when you wake up and see the "Hugo Chavez" model and miss the point that during your slumber the prof was telling the class it's NOT a good way to run a business.
Last edited by Shep69; 1st Nov 2017 at 16:44.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: HKG
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company doesn't want to offer 65 to the RA55 guys, as they believe experience doesn't matter. Anyone with a few years in the company costs more than a new joiner, so the quicker than can get rid of you the better. Current managers just hope to be in another job when we crash and kill hundreds of pax.
They will have a $ value on a hull loss and a risk level they are happy with.
They will have a $ value on a hull loss and a risk level they are happy with.
Bloomberg: Shares have staged a steady recovery this year as the Hong Kong-based carrier looks at ways to cut costs, including pilot compensation
Oh no, not goldensacks..
Goldman Sachs put Cathay Pacific on its conviction list, calling the company unloved and misunderstood. Investors are underestimating the airline’s potential to boost earnings, Goldman analysts led by Ben Hartwright
There’s no way In hell that CX bosses are going to back down now . Cut cut, slash n burn . Hosepipes to the ready , pprune pilot heros lol
Oh no, not goldensacks..
Goldman Sachs put Cathay Pacific on its conviction list, calling the company unloved and misunderstood. Investors are underestimating the airline’s potential to boost earnings, Goldman analysts led by Ben Hartwright
There’s no way In hell that CX bosses are going to back down now . Cut cut, slash n burn . Hosepipes to the ready , pprune pilot heros lol
Or perhaps as a low cost pilot renting in HKG you have little credibility and traction ?
Personally, I think you are foolish in your glee. I doubt you could afford your COS attacked but if that's the trend locally, perhaps you underestimate your own vulnerability ? If not collusion, there's a holistic management sentiment to the local pilot market. Like jet fuel, we are a commodity. Smashing pilots is sporty discussion over an afternoon G & T at the Club. I know, I've heard it.
You really should value the profession more.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shep, your ramblings to deflect from the obvious, only serve to highlight how divided the pilot body is. Every group wants what’s best for them, and if it’s at the expense of others then so be it. Whether it’s A or B scalers, LEP, or C scalers. The largest base (Hong Kong) has just lost seniority in rostering because the minority bases and their labour laws have forced it upon us. You really think someone on a base gives a toss about HKG. Guys are marooned on the freighter fleet and all anyone on the pax fleet can say is “thank 
it’s not me”
Guys on ARAPA are running around like the world is about to end and no-one else really cares. Except anyone who was going to come off a base to suck up housing in hkg, they’re probably happy they stayed put.
it’s not me”Guys on ARAPA are running around like the world is about to end and no-one else really cares. Except anyone who was going to come off a base to suck up housing in hkg, they’re probably happy they stayed put.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We all care. We certainly do, but just not enough. The sad fact is that no one is willing to put his or her job and future career (if one can call it that) on the line to fight the company. It's called a strike, and it will never happen. Therefore, the company will impose what it wants, when it wants, and all we'll do is complain and take up the a$$.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup....so I guess I'll just ramble on 
But you can't help a management that doesn't want to be helped so that's that--and explains (at least in the case where it NEEDS help but has a management group who is wholly unwilling to listen and remains holier-than-thou) how we got to where we are; namely a race to the bottom. With stratification between a few hangar-oners marking time (which is understandable) and new hires (perhaps with no where else to go and/or using the place as a stepping stone)--and attrition everywhere in between (all of which takes the experience and sunk cost of training with them). So I guess that's the 'new normal' here. And is indeed the "Hugo Chavez" model.
I very much disagree that people don't care about other groups--especially because it's very likely they will find themselves IN that other group at some point; at least IF they stay. But maybe it's not enough. And it is easier (and perhaps more prudent) simply to ride the waves for a bit while one looks elsewhere and pulls chocks. When you have a great deal of people on a base declining command that's a pretty strong indicator you have one hell of a problem.
What IS different today is the airline biz is booming so supply and manning becomes a real problem (and the manning you want won't come to such a place--so you get folks that are going to need a great deal of training resources to get up to speed; always running the risk such assets will jump ship rather than dedicate themselves to an organization that's behaved the way it has). The question becomes to what extent does the parent company with their inefficient model wish to bleed cash to weather a storm that has no indication of abating.
Divided workforces aren't (and will never be) particularly efficient. So the spiral continues and the 5% syndrome becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy--driven entirely by the 'leadership' who sets it up. Folks goal becomes targeting what they need to do to get by and stay out of trouble rather than striving for excellence and helping the team excel. So ya get minimum effort rather than maximum productivity. And the frustrated talent looking for career development simply marks time and bolts. Like I've said this Hobbsian philosophy has failed everywhere it's been tried and won't work here (and in the process of failing it becomes only a matter of time until an organization embracing this philosophy is done for). Incentive based competitors who don't DO things like this will eat you alive (and are).
This has happened since the beginning of time on a small scale with small groups and organizations all the way up to large nation states. It's the same old song. In the case of larger nation states they sometimes so cripple their economy that they run out of stuff to survive and invade other nations to get THEIR stuff and productivity. But even this fails in that the state with greater productivity and incentive eventually prevails; sometimes quickly sometimes slowly.
One's job comprises a great deal of one's life and it's pretty silly to live this big chunk of one's life unhappy.
Money is only a small portion of this FWIW.
But you can't help a management that doesn't want to be helped so that's that--and explains (at least in the case where it NEEDS help but has a management group who is wholly unwilling to listen and remains holier-than-thou) how we got to where we are; namely a race to the bottom. With stratification between a few hangar-oners marking time (which is understandable) and new hires (perhaps with no where else to go and/or using the place as a stepping stone)--and attrition everywhere in between (all of which takes the experience and sunk cost of training with them). So I guess that's the 'new normal' here. And is indeed the "Hugo Chavez" model.
I very much disagree that people don't care about other groups--especially because it's very likely they will find themselves IN that other group at some point; at least IF they stay. But maybe it's not enough. And it is easier (and perhaps more prudent) simply to ride the waves for a bit while one looks elsewhere and pulls chocks. When you have a great deal of people on a base declining command that's a pretty strong indicator you have one hell of a problem.
What IS different today is the airline biz is booming so supply and manning becomes a real problem (and the manning you want won't come to such a place--so you get folks that are going to need a great deal of training resources to get up to speed; always running the risk such assets will jump ship rather than dedicate themselves to an organization that's behaved the way it has). The question becomes to what extent does the parent company with their inefficient model wish to bleed cash to weather a storm that has no indication of abating.
Divided workforces aren't (and will never be) particularly efficient. So the spiral continues and the 5% syndrome becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy--driven entirely by the 'leadership' who sets it up. Folks goal becomes targeting what they need to do to get by and stay out of trouble rather than striving for excellence and helping the team excel. So ya get minimum effort rather than maximum productivity. And the frustrated talent looking for career development simply marks time and bolts. Like I've said this Hobbsian philosophy has failed everywhere it's been tried and won't work here (and in the process of failing it becomes only a matter of time until an organization embracing this philosophy is done for). Incentive based competitors who don't DO things like this will eat you alive (and are).
This has happened since the beginning of time on a small scale with small groups and organizations all the way up to large nation states. It's the same old song. In the case of larger nation states they sometimes so cripple their economy that they run out of stuff to survive and invade other nations to get THEIR stuff and productivity. But even this fails in that the state with greater productivity and incentive eventually prevails; sometimes quickly sometimes slowly.
One's job comprises a great deal of one's life and it's pretty silly to live this big chunk of one's life unhappy.
Money is only a small portion of this FWIW.
Last edited by Shep69; 2nd Nov 2017 at 14:07.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Matz North
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what are you still doing here Shep. ? One of the “ hangers on “. ? If money isn’t the sole prerequisite then why don’t you take your own advice and hand out your vicarious brand of altruism pro bono somewhere else. ?
Whilst you’re at it you and your fellow litigants ( all salt of the earth I’m sure, although knowing the individuals I doubt it ) can maybe reflect on the fact that you’ve probably done more than your fair bit to over any chance of any of your NAM colleagues ever achieving a base, at least in the short term.
Still, a full service pension must take some of the sting out of it, one would have thought, wouldn’t one. ?
Whilst you’re at it you and your fellow litigants ( all salt of the earth I’m sure, although knowing the individuals I doubt it ) can maybe reflect on the fact that you’ve probably done more than your fair bit to
over any chance of any of your NAM colleagues ever achieving a base, at least in the short term. Still, a full service pension must take some of the sting out of it, one would have thought, wouldn’t one. ?
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Matz North
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Shep. Thanks. I’ll look for one in your home town shall I. ? Plenty to choose from.
Sorry, don’t get the Canuck allusion. Should have probably predicated that as US bases.
Sorry, don’t get the Canuck allusion. Should have probably predicated that as US bases.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Where You Aren't
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There you have it. The implementation of the Jeppesen Pattern Optimizer is to blame for no base positions being opened. Oh, and legal action in certain bases.
So, for JFK, for example, which has no legal action pending, we have to wait for the Jeppesen Pattern Optimizer to tell us whether it is beneficial to open a base there.
Maybe we should check with The Central Scrutinizer.
So, for JFK, for example, which has no legal action pending, we have to wait for the Jeppesen Pattern Optimizer to tell us whether it is beneficial to open a base there.
Maybe we should check with The Central Scrutinizer.
