Since they are asking....
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Lav
Since they are asking....
What a cynical ploy on the part of management to put AT "on the street" to take impromptu questions from anyone. Clearly, this is for PR consumption and nothing else.
Please oh please would someone approach her with:
1. Her letter that pulled snippets of data cited out of context to support their rationale for the cuts in one hand; and
2. The actual full article that refutes what she said in the other and ask her to reconcile the two.
If I recall correctly, it was a Bloomberg article she cited.
Please oh please would someone approach her with:
1. Her letter that pulled snippets of data cited out of context to support their rationale for the cuts in one hand; and
2. The actual full article that refutes what she said in the other and ask her to reconcile the two.
If I recall correctly, it was a Bloomberg article she cited.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Lav
@Frogman, they are playing the optics game here. Leaving them alone is what they want so they can say "...hey, we were on the streets begging them to talk to us.....". Doing something such as what I suggest, or any action where they are publicly confronted with the facts and/or irrefutable proof of their indefensible behavior might shut this ploy down. Beat them at their own game.
@Freehills, I see the argument, but this is very tricky because it is about appearances and lip service to shape public opnion -- nothing more.
@Freehills, I see the argument, but this is very tricky because it is about appearances and lip service to shape public opnion -- nothing more.
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,673
Likes: 2
From: Europe
I see the argument, but this is very tricky because it is about appearances and lip service to shape public opnion -- nothing more.
As much as you want to send the message, this is not the place. This is message and narrative shaping.
No one go. Leave her standing on the road like a fool that she is. Show that we have no confidence in her ability to solve the problems that she has created.
Right now there is not sufficient revenue and yield pressure. Anyone who has witnessed a company workshop an industrial conflict is viewing something dark. It is NEVER about honesty, it is about what is sufficient to win the day. Human cost included.
Cultivating indifference to them professionally, not reacting to the obvious baiting and giving them no more thought is far more dangerous. Quietly resolved, withdrawn yet seemingly compliant employees scares them as they cannot model when there is no overt response.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
From: Lav
Yes it is.
Cultivating indifference to them professionally, not reacting to the obvious baiting and giving them no more thought is far more dangerous. Quietly resolved, withdrawn yet seemingly compliant employees scares them as they cannot model when there is no overt response.
Cultivating indifference to them professionally, not reacting to the obvious baiting and giving them no more thought is far more dangerous. Quietly resolved, withdrawn yet seemingly compliant employees scares them as they cannot model when there is no overt response.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 5
From: London
Another problem that is in critical need of addressing: we have aircrew managers that, a) don't understand anything about aviation, and b) loath aircrew (DFO and GMA as example). You cannot possibly have a successful relationship with your 3000+ pilots if the two main people responsible are constantly looking for ways to screw them over. That is exactly the problem we face in CX. Both AT and DP have no respect or consideration for the aircrew. They are actively looking for ways to cut their pay, benefits and lifestyle solely to advance their own careers. Until we have two people in those positions who understand the issues we face daily (therefore need to be pilots themselves) we will not have the beginning of healing. I know we had RH years ago who was no better, but with the groundswell of resistance, the company could not dare to have someone in those positions now who isn't sympathetic and nurturing of our career goals. Time to clean house.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
From: England
Another problem that is in critical need of addressing: we have aircrew managers that, a) don't understand anything about aviation, and b) loath aircrew (DFO and GMA as example). You cannot possibly have a successful relationship with your 3000+ pilots if the two main people responsible are constantly looking for ways to screw them over. That is exactly the problem we face in CX. Both AT and DP have no respect or consideration for the aircrew. They are actively looking for ways to cut their pay, benefits and lifestyle solely to advance their own careers. Until we have two people in those positions who understand the issues we face daily (therefore need to be pilots themselves) we will not have the beginning of healing. I know we had RH years ago who was no better, but with the groundswell of resistance, the company could not dare to have someone in those positions now who isn't sympathetic and nurturing of our career goals. Time to clean house.
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
From: uk
I am afraid that after reading her latest update she has yet again proved that she does not get it nor ever will.
Lots and lots of words along the "we hear you" lines but the final two paragraphs confirm the status quo will prevail. Still completely believes that theirs is the only way to meet the "business needs" and blames everyone else for not getting onboard (Specifically HKAOA)
Did anyone really expect much different?
Lots and lots of words along the "we hear you" lines but the final two paragraphs confirm the status quo will prevail. Still completely believes that theirs is the only way to meet the "business needs" and blames everyone else for not getting onboard (Specifically HKAOA)
Did anyone really expect much different?
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 507
Likes: 43
From: US
There is a big difference between not 'getting it' and not WANTING to 'get it.'
A full understanding but willful denial of the situation faced; under the premise if you hammer enough YOUR position and message it will become fact (obfuscating when necessary).
In the long run, denial works very poorly. It eventually catches up with you.
A full understanding but willful denial of the situation faced; under the premise if you hammer enough YOUR position and message it will become fact (obfuscating when necessary).
In the long run, denial works very poorly. It eventually catches up with you.
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
From: HK-CRoC
TF36
Regarding "Focus Nights", how many has there been and how's that working for us ?
Cynical, I know.