What is the plan?
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bouvet Island
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leaders
Are supposed to have plans, and the deafening silence from DS with NO plan means there is no leadership. Or that the leadership is utterly corrupt. Or that the leadership is under the covers with the company. Or all of the above. This place is sickening.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The sky
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: China
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Out of interest sake, how does Dragon compare to Cathay with all that is happening over there? I ask because I read the complaints about CX, but not much about KA? Is it all the same, or are the KA guys on different contracts?
Disclaimer: I don't live or work in HK, just a curious bystander.
Disclaimer: I don't live or work in HK, just a curious bystander.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: my house
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are reasons to vote yes.
Arapa until 2028
Hkpa increase now and in 3 years
better RP’s
If the company then decides to do something so bad what is the harm in going into industrial action and loosing it anyway? We don’t have it now. That would be my answer and suggestion to the “clause 7”
Lets say this vote goes through but we still don’t have the pay rise we want? No industrial action is needed to not go into training or answer your phone so nothing has to change. The aoa can actively suggest people join training but it doesn’t mean anyone has to.
I have already said it but I’ll say it again, this is not a vote yes campaign but a discussion on what is next because we haven’t had a clear direction for a long time and personally I don’t think what we are doing is working.
Getting emotional and targeting your fellow pilots doesn’t help.
Arapa until 2028
Hkpa increase now and in 3 years
better RP’s
If the company then decides to do something so bad what is the harm in going into industrial action and loosing it anyway? We don’t have it now. That would be my answer and suggestion to the “clause 7”
Lets say this vote goes through but we still don’t have the pay rise we want? No industrial action is needed to not go into training or answer your phone so nothing has to change. The aoa can actively suggest people join training but it doesn’t mean anyone has to.
I have already said it but I’ll say it again, this is not a vote yes campaign but a discussion on what is next because we haven’t had a clear direction for a long time and personally I don’t think what we are doing is working.
Getting emotional and targeting your fellow pilots doesn’t help.
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: my house
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat. If the first thing you can do is result to name calling that says a lot about us. This is why people can’t have a proper discussion on the aoa forums or in the cockpit.
Just because someone has has a different opinion doesn’t mean they are wrong or a fool.
A lot of people do have something to loose by saying no, just like last time. Let’s be constructive and make a movement to get a better deal rather than hold our course of doing nothing if that’s what you want.
The training ban isn’t hurting anyone but the pilots at this stage and for the past 4 years so is it the most effective method?
What is it we want and is it actually realistic, that is a big question here?
How many pilot groups have negotiated themselves out of a job in history? Do we want to do that?
Just because someone has has a different opinion doesn’t mean they are wrong or a fool.
A lot of people do have something to loose by saying no, just like last time. Let’s be constructive and make a movement to get a better deal rather than hold our course of doing nothing if that’s what you want.
The training ban isn’t hurting anyone but the pilots at this stage and for the past 4 years so is it the most effective method?
What is it we want and is it actually realistic, that is a big question here?
How many pilot groups have negotiated themselves out of a job in history? Do we want to do that?
what we realistically want is to be in a work place that can allow us to control our lifestyle and live where we want to live and not just come to work and get abused with these horrible and fatiguing CMP pairings
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then vote “NO”. This proposal will permanently kill any hope of a proper career. Management are desperate to get rid of the TB. Ask yourselves why? Keep the pressure on. We will overcome if we stay united. Cx are the desperate ones...don’t let them turn that emphasis against us. Dont sell out your dignity.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but you know guys will still turn up for line checks, sims etc with these idiots who have joined training, and be all keen, having looked at all the paperwork, rather than having some balls and calling unfit, or better still refusing to fly with them at sign on. But no, it'll be hats on, jackets on, oo how can we reduce the fuel load. See it all the time, its disgusting.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Kazakhstan
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annual report will be released very soon.
Looking at:
1. the significant reduction in oil prices recently, with fuel being the airline's greatest expense
2. hedging losses becoming minimised
3. the second half of the year usually being more profitable than the first half
4. only a comparatively (to 2017) small loss in the first half of 2018
5. the continued expansion of eCommerce and the commensurate demand for cargo
6. Hong Kong Airlines facing financial woes
All make up for a very high chance of CX being back on the positive side of the balance sheet - unless they play some accounting tricks to manufacture a loss of course.
Will be hard for CX to cry poor when they are making truck loads of cash. So I'm inclined to sit tight and wait for all the cards to be on the table.
Aforementioned is my opinion only, and do your own research.
Looking at:
1. the significant reduction in oil prices recently, with fuel being the airline's greatest expense
2. hedging losses becoming minimised
3. the second half of the year usually being more profitable than the first half
4. only a comparatively (to 2017) small loss in the first half of 2018
5. the continued expansion of eCommerce and the commensurate demand for cargo
6. Hong Kong Airlines facing financial woes
All make up for a very high chance of CX being back on the positive side of the balance sheet - unless they play some accounting tricks to manufacture a loss of course.
Will be hard for CX to cry poor when they are making truck loads of cash. So I'm inclined to sit tight and wait for all the cards to be on the table.
Aforementioned is my opinion only, and do your own research.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the enduring confidence of some in this forum truly remarkable.
The very same people who rejected a pay offer two years ago, after having not only achieved nothing but actually gone backwards, are still convinced they are right and victory is in sight.
Some argue the construct of the last proposal is a sign the TB and CC are working. This argument is fallacious. The question is not if the training ban or CC is hurting the company, but if it is changing the companies' behaviour. Which it has not for years now, quite the opposite actually. Not only have we seen a decline in value regarding the offered package, but new sickness rules, external training, an an even lower package for new-joiners in 2019. How one can interpret that as success is to me beyond comprehension.
Of course you always can claim victory is imminent, regardless of the facts. An indicator for this is the increasingly argument-free but purely emotional responses and the attached number of insults, in here and on the HKAOA forum. One commentator even declared to rather would want to "die standing" then to give in. Imagine that for a moment. There could not be a clearer sign that reason is lost on some.
A lot of you argue that the offer is inferior, we fought so long for it, then this would have been all for nothing etc etc. I want to be very clear: the offer is not good. I agree. But in order to decide on a yes or no vote this is irrelevant. As are previous sacrifices.They are sunk costs. The only thing that matters now is: do you believe there will be a better offer if we say no? If you do actually truly believe that, then by all means vote No. But if one would decide only in light of past sacrifices, one would act irrationally.
An immortal myth among us seems to be the imminent or already happening mass exit of pilots at Cx, combined with problems to recruit the "right" new pilots. A simple look at the seniority list will tell you this is untrue. If someone is "actively looking" is obviously irrelevant. I know this because I am "actively looking"since I started flying, and everybody who reads this has done it just the same. Additionally, again it is not the question if the company is hurt by people leaving, that may well be the case, but if it leads to change in behaviour. Which is not the case.
The very same people who rejected a pay offer two years ago, after having not only achieved nothing but actually gone backwards, are still convinced they are right and victory is in sight.
Some argue the construct of the last proposal is a sign the TB and CC are working. This argument is fallacious. The question is not if the training ban or CC is hurting the company, but if it is changing the companies' behaviour. Which it has not for years now, quite the opposite actually. Not only have we seen a decline in value regarding the offered package, but new sickness rules, external training, an an even lower package for new-joiners in 2019. How one can interpret that as success is to me beyond comprehension.
Of course you always can claim victory is imminent, regardless of the facts. An indicator for this is the increasingly argument-free but purely emotional responses and the attached number of insults, in here and on the HKAOA forum. One commentator even declared to rather would want to "die standing" then to give in. Imagine that for a moment. There could not be a clearer sign that reason is lost on some.
A lot of you argue that the offer is inferior, we fought so long for it, then this would have been all for nothing etc etc. I want to be very clear: the offer is not good. I agree. But in order to decide on a yes or no vote this is irrelevant. As are previous sacrifices.They are sunk costs. The only thing that matters now is: do you believe there will be a better offer if we say no? If you do actually truly believe that, then by all means vote No. But if one would decide only in light of past sacrifices, one would act irrationally.
An immortal myth among us seems to be the imminent or already happening mass exit of pilots at Cx, combined with problems to recruit the "right" new pilots. A simple look at the seniority list will tell you this is untrue. If someone is "actively looking" is obviously irrelevant. I know this because I am "actively looking"since I started flying, and everybody who reads this has done it just the same. Additionally, again it is not the question if the company is hurt by people leaving, that may well be the case, but if it leads to change in behaviour. Which is not the case.
Last edited by Sam Ting Wong; 2nd Jan 2019 at 01:19.
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the enduring confidence of some in this forum truly remarkable.
The very same people who rejected a pay offer two years ago, after having not only achieved nothing but actually gone backwards, are still convinced they are right and victory is in sight.
Some argue the construct of the last proposal is a sign the TB and CC are working. This argument is fallacious. The question is obviously not if the training ban or CC is hurting the company, but if it is actually changing the companies' behaviour. Which it has not for years now, quite the opposite. We have seen not only a decline in value regarding the offered package, but new sickness rules, external training, an even lower package for new-joiners in 2019 etc. How to interpret that as success is to me beyond comprehension.
Of course you always can claim victory is imminent. In my opinion this is exactly what is happening. An indicator is the increasingly emotionally laden response and number of insults, here and on the HKAOA forum. One commentator even declared to rather "die standing" then to give in. Imagine that for a moment. There could not be a clearer sign that reason is lost on some.
A lot of you argue that the offer is inferior, we fought so long for it, then this would have been all for nothing etc etc. I want to be very clear: the offer is not good. I agree. But in order to decide on a yes or no vote this is totally irrelevant. As are previous sacrifices.They are sunk costs. The only thing that matters now is: do you believe there will be a better offer if we say no? If you do actually truly believe that, then by all means vote No. But if one would decide in light of past past sacrifices, one would act irrational.
An immortal myth among us seems to be the imminent or already happening mass exit of pilots at Cx, combined with problems to recruit the "right" new pilots. A simple look at the seniority list will tell you this is untrue. If someone is "actively looking" is obviously irrelevant. I know this because I do since I started flying, and everybody who reads this has done it just the same. Again, it is not the question if the company is hurt by people leaving, that may well be the case, but if it leads to change in behaviour. Which is not the case.
"You only make peace with your enemies".
Jon Snow
The very same people who rejected a pay offer two years ago, after having not only achieved nothing but actually gone backwards, are still convinced they are right and victory is in sight.
Some argue the construct of the last proposal is a sign the TB and CC are working. This argument is fallacious. The question is obviously not if the training ban or CC is hurting the company, but if it is actually changing the companies' behaviour. Which it has not for years now, quite the opposite. We have seen not only a decline in value regarding the offered package, but new sickness rules, external training, an even lower package for new-joiners in 2019 etc. How to interpret that as success is to me beyond comprehension.
Of course you always can claim victory is imminent. In my opinion this is exactly what is happening. An indicator is the increasingly emotionally laden response and number of insults, here and on the HKAOA forum. One commentator even declared to rather "die standing" then to give in. Imagine that for a moment. There could not be a clearer sign that reason is lost on some.
A lot of you argue that the offer is inferior, we fought so long for it, then this would have been all for nothing etc etc. I want to be very clear: the offer is not good. I agree. But in order to decide on a yes or no vote this is totally irrelevant. As are previous sacrifices.They are sunk costs. The only thing that matters now is: do you believe there will be a better offer if we say no? If you do actually truly believe that, then by all means vote No. But if one would decide in light of past past sacrifices, one would act irrational.
An immortal myth among us seems to be the imminent or already happening mass exit of pilots at Cx, combined with problems to recruit the "right" new pilots. A simple look at the seniority list will tell you this is untrue. If someone is "actively looking" is obviously irrelevant. I know this because I do since I started flying, and everybody who reads this has done it just the same. Again, it is not the question if the company is hurt by people leaving, that may well be the case, but if it leads to change in behaviour. Which is not the case.
"You only make peace with your enemies".
Jon Snow
Then again, so have many countries who have gotten into conflicts that have been quagmires for them and resulted in an overall loss (depending on how you choose to look at it--balance of power was a goal achieved in some of these cases so they might or might not have been losses).
IMHO, there's absolutely NO question CC and especially the TB are very much hurting--hence their priorities in the TA. They're also not getting an influx (or the ability to train what comes in quickly enough) and have chosen to contract the airline (with all of its financial lost opportunities and increased fixed costs). This particular carrier has HUGE burdens in 'spinning people up' to get qualified (compared to some other carriers) and the training process is onerous (and costly). Moreover, they haven't been getting folks they CAN spin up in through the door (a downturn might change this; unlikely except for the most desperate in that POS 18 is inferior to even many western LCC contracts--AND that's living in HKG to boot).
There's no question there's been (and will continue to be) a mass exodus -- hence the 'basings announcement' that gives glimmer of hope to the weak minded along with some non-binding numbers -- to attempt to stem the exodus without actually delivering anything (we'll see in time if there are people dumb enough to believe this).
But your point in driving THEIR behavior is well taken; perhaps they might be willing to play this type of thing until the end of time (which is a good argument to avoid the place if you're getting started in a career). Losing money, losing slots, losing the airline--perhaps these all are secondary to them saying "I'm right."
So as has been said before this is the time for industrial action (and it may well be that IA is the ONLY way to force the issue). If the union is unwilling to take IA (or if it doesn't come to pass that a competitive union is formed with enough members who WILL take IA and make a difference) things are pretty much done for no matter what happens in the future--and POS 18 will be the standard. Shoud've been obvious when POS 18 was propagated in the first place.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally see no downside to turning this turd down.
It is lacking in so many areas, that simply saying no, and doing nothing (somthing the AOA are very good at) would be very easy to do. 1%.... you're kidding me right?!
It's not like we would be risking any big loss financially if we did!
It is lacking in so many areas, that simply saying no, and doing nothing (somthing the AOA are very good at) would be very easy to do. 1%.... you're kidding me right?!
It's not like we would be risking any big loss financially if we did!
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Greener Pastures
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chance of a strike? Really? This vote will be closer than you think. Mark my words.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you vote yes, well that is pretty much the end of CX as a reasonable career. If you vote no, I think you need to be prepared to up the pressure not just continue with status quo. The only reason this will get voted in by any expats, imho, is people are battle weary. Vote no and go to battle, or vote yes and give up.
Can someone pm me the names of those who have broken the training ban? I am not based in HK, so not an HKAOA member if they have been named a shamed there. I would hate to think that i am giving jumpseats out to them.
Can someone pm me the names of those who have broken the training ban? I am not based in HK, so not an HKAOA member if they have been named a shamed there. I would hate to think that i am giving jumpseats out to them.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Never You Mind
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the time to step up the IA was the day PoS18 was announced.
It is shame that the wrong guys are resigning from the GC. A vote of no confidence and declaring all positions vacant would be a better idea.
It is shame that the wrong guys are resigning from the GC. A vote of no confidence and declaring all positions vacant would be a better idea.