Qatar buys stake in Cathay
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rabbit Hutch
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here at home too
Not only USA or Europe Traf, much closer to home too. At least three local FOs have gone to HKA from KA with many more said to be in the pipeline. C scale not enough to hold new Captains here either, another one left KA last week for a China commuting contract; not that it is only C scale leaving many B scale too.
The flood gates will really open if they mess with housing and leave.
The flood gates will really open if they mess with housing and leave.
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rabbit Hutch
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone else is clamoring for our slots as well.
Give us more flights, says Hong Kong Airlines executive
https://sc.mp/2i4r3Kt
Give us more flights, says Hong Kong Airlines executive
https://sc.mp/2i4r3Kt
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly CR,
There is no way the company would have given a payrise on 1 May 2017 just as they were making 600 people redundant. The ARAPA extension to 2020 would not have been honoured either.
However, here's the kicker. Clause 7 would have survived on, so the GC would be writing to us all recommending against any form of action and anyone putting up a members' motion would have the company's lawyers probing their parts that they don't want probed!!
It's almost like the company were setting us up. Perhaps we dodged a bullet and have done well to keep our industrial weapons intact and limp on to fight another day. However, that "day" will only come once we stop "collaborating".... grrrr....
Assuming of course anyone is left to "fight" or "collaborate" or even "care".
There is no way the company would have given a payrise on 1 May 2017 just as they were making 600 people redundant. The ARAPA extension to 2020 would not have been honoured either.
However, here's the kicker. Clause 7 would have survived on, so the GC would be writing to us all recommending against any form of action and anyone putting up a members' motion would have the company's lawyers probing their parts that they don't want probed!!
It's almost like the company were setting us up. Perhaps we dodged a bullet and have done well to keep our industrial weapons intact and limp on to fight another day. However, that "day" will only come once we stop "collaborating".... grrrr....
Assuming of course anyone is left to "fight" or "collaborate" or even "care".
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: No where
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is becoming increasingly less likely Liam. No one can be bothered to stick around anymore. CX can train their management to fly the a/c. Apparently they believe it is quite simple.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I like is that after screwing over your fellow members no one on here says they think it should stop. Sounds like, apart from me, who’s apparently management, most B scalers think the A scalers deserved getting shafted.
Curtain Rod, the company has paid the pay increases every time they’ve been negotiated for the last 70 years, it’s complete bs to suggest that they wouldn’t have paid this time. The fact that they may or may not have been enough is irrelevant.
Any proof?
Curtain Rod, the company has paid the pay increases every time they’ve been negotiated for the last 70 years, it’s complete bs to suggest that they wouldn’t have paid this time. The fact that they may or may not have been enough is irrelevant.
Any proof?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: All Over
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know of anyone who thinks someone else in their group should get shafted (other than potentially those who've 'sold out' and scabbed or violated the training ban). This isn't 1990 (where the company appears stuck). Information today travels VERY fast and is very well publicized (social media is a very recent development). What people didn't know in the past they DO know today--although this needs filtered due to the immense amount of stuff out there.
After the last big hoo-haw, it's unlikely (for a few years at least) then hired B-scalers really knew that much about history or what had happened unless they took the time to really get into it. Today everyone is getting a blow-by-blow account in real time. So any changes are well apparent and instantly available to everyone--those in CX as well as those who might have considered joining; as is the information of how it will affect ones' career over the expected (and projected) span OF that career. And of what else might be out there. Seniority still rules, but with instant access other options also become apparent when a decade or two ago they would not have been. Nothing to see this trend as abating so a company must work with incentive and attraction rather than entrenchment and hitting things with a stick.
Many of the pilots hired here (and who the airline liked to hire at the time) are demonstrated professionals who served in the forces or in civil aviation where their brethren depended upon them to get the job done; often for their very lives and in very hazardous circumstances. These folks were willing to lose the jet--and even their life--to pull a fellow pilot (or fighter, worker, or evacuee) out of a bad situation. And they're smart enough to see how the divide and conquer game works.
So turning them against each other or getting them to sell out is pretty d@mn unlikely. On the other hand, the company can be (and may well have been) successful at turning them against IT due to its own bad behavior. At a point where it needs them the most. This is pretty d@mn stupid by anyones' playbook.
After the last big hoo-haw, it's unlikely (for a few years at least) then hired B-scalers really knew that much about history or what had happened unless they took the time to really get into it. Today everyone is getting a blow-by-blow account in real time. So any changes are well apparent and instantly available to everyone--those in CX as well as those who might have considered joining; as is the information of how it will affect ones' career over the expected (and projected) span OF that career. And of what else might be out there. Seniority still rules, but with instant access other options also become apparent when a decade or two ago they would not have been. Nothing to see this trend as abating so a company must work with incentive and attraction rather than entrenchment and hitting things with a stick.
Many of the pilots hired here (and who the airline liked to hire at the time) are demonstrated professionals who served in the forces or in civil aviation where their brethren depended upon them to get the job done; often for their very lives and in very hazardous circumstances. These folks were willing to lose the jet--and even their life--to pull a fellow pilot (or fighter, worker, or evacuee) out of a bad situation. And they're smart enough to see how the divide and conquer game works.
So turning them against each other or getting them to sell out is pretty d@mn unlikely. On the other hand, the company can be (and may well have been) successful at turning them against IT due to its own bad behavior. At a point where it needs them the most. This is pretty d@mn stupid by anyones' playbook.
Last edited by Shep69; 13th Nov 2017 at 15:59.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Posts: 1,539
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coffee, seriously...'apparently management'...? No, you obviously are management. Troll somewhere else. Your attempts to justify this management are becoming comical. And to somehow suggest that 'paying increases every time' is somehow a credit to management conveniently ignores the fact that the below inflation increases, missing out two or three years of every five, leaves pilots with an effective pay cut every year. So take your feeble attempts to spin the facts and distort the truth elsewhere. It's Tuesday morning in HK, aren't you supposed to be in a management meeting about now?
Last edited by Trafalgar; 14th Nov 2017 at 01:00.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You seem to be new here
I'll risk feeding the troll as I think we all, but particularly the GC, need a reminder as to how the Swire legal dictionary works.
Morningcoffee,
You are clearly new here and I am sorry to steal the jam out of your donut, but your statement regarding the Company honouring pay agreements is utter tosh; you said;
“..the company has paid pay increases every time they’ve been negotiated for the last 70 years…”
First point: If your statement is true, and I am not saying it is, it would only be true because the company has yet to be confronted with an agreed future pay rise that coincided with redundancies. However, the Company does have a history of attempting to not pay contractual increments because it no longer suited them. Lajom & others v CPA HCA3377/2003 was widely discussed on pprune way back. You can google it and you will see this interesting interpretation of contractual law by Cathay. The company lost, but this statement from the Court Report should tell you all you need to know about the Swire legal dictionary.
"3. Cathay denies the plaintiffs are entitled to automatic increment. Cathay also asserts a contractual right to unilaterally vary any agreed salary scale, so long as the change does not result in a flight attendant receiving less pay then he received immediately prior to the change."
With thinking like that, you still believe you would have got a 2.5% pay rise whilst 600 people were leaving the building?
Second point. The company is not normally as bold as they were with the FAs in the Lajom case. They tend to be slimy, rather than bold. Just ask your Chairman about 25 year housing. Ask the 19 Instructor pilots about their ‘promised” expat terms. Ask the Captains about the 10% deduction from the 2009 SLS payback. Ask one of the former Paris Based pilots. Is your Statutory Holiday Pay correct?
Third Point. If the TA had been voted through, where in your contract would it say that you would have been entitled to 2.5% pay rise?
Welcome to Cathay matey….. time to wise up
Morningcoffee,
You are clearly new here and I am sorry to steal the jam out of your donut, but your statement regarding the Company honouring pay agreements is utter tosh; you said;
“..the company has paid pay increases every time they’ve been negotiated for the last 70 years…”
First point: If your statement is true, and I am not saying it is, it would only be true because the company has yet to be confronted with an agreed future pay rise that coincided with redundancies. However, the Company does have a history of attempting to not pay contractual increments because it no longer suited them. Lajom & others v CPA HCA3377/2003 was widely discussed on pprune way back. You can google it and you will see this interesting interpretation of contractual law by Cathay. The company lost, but this statement from the Court Report should tell you all you need to know about the Swire legal dictionary.
"3. Cathay denies the plaintiffs are entitled to automatic increment. Cathay also asserts a contractual right to unilaterally vary any agreed salary scale, so long as the change does not result in a flight attendant receiving less pay then he received immediately prior to the change."
With thinking like that, you still believe you would have got a 2.5% pay rise whilst 600 people were leaving the building?
Second point. The company is not normally as bold as they were with the FAs in the Lajom case. They tend to be slimy, rather than bold. Just ask your Chairman about 25 year housing. Ask the 19 Instructor pilots about their ‘promised” expat terms. Ask the Captains about the 10% deduction from the 2009 SLS payback. Ask one of the former Paris Based pilots. Is your Statutory Holiday Pay correct?
Third Point. If the TA had been voted through, where in your contract would it say that you would have been entitled to 2.5% pay rise?
Welcome to Cathay matey….. time to wise up
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll risk feeding the troll as I think we all, but particularly the GC, need a reminder as to how the Swire legal dictionary works.
However, the Company does have a history of attempting to not pay contractual increments because it no longer suited them. Lajom & others v CPA HCA3377/2003 was widely discussed on pprune way back. You can google it and you will see this interesting interpretation of contractual law by Cathay. The company lost, but this statement from the Court Report should tell you all you need to know about the Swire legal dictionary.
"3. Cathay denies the plaintiffs are entitled to automatic increment. Cathay also asserts a contractual right to unilaterally vary any agreed salary scale, so long as the change does not result in a flight attendant receiving less pay then he received immediately prior to the change."
However, the Company does have a history of attempting to not pay contractual increments because it no longer suited them. Lajom & others v CPA HCA3377/2003 was widely discussed on pprune way back. You can google it and you will see this interesting interpretation of contractual law by Cathay. The company lost, but this statement from the Court Report should tell you all you need to know about the Swire legal dictionary.
"3. Cathay denies the plaintiffs are entitled to automatic increment. Cathay also asserts a contractual right to unilaterally vary any agreed salary scale, so long as the change does not result in a flight attendant receiving less pay then he received immediately prior to the change."
They really are just a nasty bunch of cretins all round aren't they. Worth reading all of the posts.
