Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

Redundancies- would you take it

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

Redundancies- would you take it

Old 7th Mar 2020, 17:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: 1st Floor
Age: 30
Posts: 80
Redundancies- would you take it

If and when the inevitable happens, should senior A scalers fall on their swords ? Should senior B scalers take the opportunity to leave the company many despise, with a pocket full of cash, and a new life to look forward to ?

Or will it be a case of compulsory layoffs or furlough, from the bottom up? Unlikely, knowing CX.
Krone is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 18:24
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 380
bottom up, just like any airline worth it's salt.
Flying Clog is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 18:32
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by Flying Clog View Post
bottom up, just like any airline worth it's salt.
What?!?! Lay off the cheapest and most vulnerable? No, that is counter cultural to our kind and caring employer. Letís purge the guys with families, housing in HK, kids in schools, etc. Those are the bad ones. New joiners are good, loyal, hardworking employees. It has very little to do with money you see. CX just just wants to be fair after all. They are newly woke and progressive. Thank God we work for corporate moralists.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 18:47
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 238
I would think an 'early out' package (properly negotiated)--like many other airlines--would be quite attractive to many (self included). IF the company were looking for something to mitigate layoffs (procedures are clearly defined in the COS/CA/EA/CBAs and cannot be modified as such) this is what I'd do if I were them.

By definition, it'd have to be a great deal better than the 6 months and recall rights which is the current layoff/recall protection in many of the contracts.

But the way this place historically has done business renminbi to donuts it'll be screwed up and the standard bait and switch on the cheap kind of deal.

Slasher1 is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 18:48
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 151
Simple: the most expensive swan goes first.

wongsuzie is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 20:56
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Mostly FL360-380, M0.78
Posts: 249
Last in.. first out..
Jetavia is offline  
Old 7th Mar 2020, 21:04
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by wongsuzie View Post
Simple: the most expensive swan goes first.
Maybe Wong should switch to wrong
cxorcist is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 00:35
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: All over
Posts: 623
I can think of several B Scale captains that would jump at a Voluntary Redundancy package if it were offered.

b.
boocs is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 05:05
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 378
....And a few A scale as well.
I would expect it to be done in two waves.
First the voluntary, to entice as many high paid A/B scalers as possible to POQ.
Then once those numbers are done, a second wave of involuntary layoffs, to meet the target set by the all knowing, always getting it right (out of phase!) bean counters.
LongTimeInCX is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 05:27
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 464
Originally Posted by LongTimeInCX View Post
....And a few A scale as well.
I would expect it to be done in two waves.
First the voluntary, to entice as many high paid A/B scalers as possible to POQ.
Then once those numbers are done, a second wave of involuntary layoffs, to meet the target set by the all knowing, always getting it right (out of phase!) bean counters.
3 months pay for every year of service should be the benchmark. At that level the company savings are substantial with anyone on full housing and approx 10 yrs to retirement (about 50% savings on salary and allowances).
Unfortunately we have rats on our ship that will go for far less.
fire wall is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 06:01
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Gerloz
Posts: 345
Honestly. How many A scale do you think are left ? 10. ? 5 ? It’s in that ballpark. and most who chose to extend to 65 had to come off A scale.
The last round of redundancies was back in 96 ? Maybe 98. And the deal was 6 months. Pitiful. A handful took it.
Globocnik is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 06:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 410
Glob: Straight off the seniority list it's 140.

I guess some of those might be on COS18, and perhaps most have been/are on a base, so don't have the big provident fund payout left.

Added: I would have thought that in this scenario, there would be no difference to the company in cost between an A and a B scaler. Both are likely to be on COS08, on housing, and getting the P Fund. The top 300 are either topped out on salary scales, or very close. A B scaler who never left HKG might even be more expensive than an A scaler who has been on a base.
OK4Wire is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 06:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Gerloz
Posts: 345
Unlikely. If theyíre on cos 08, they are no longer A scale. As a condition of signing over COS. I think the only exception would be the AKL base. As a result of the court case there.
And yes they are topped out on salary.
Globocnik is online now  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 13:47
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Jetavia View Post
Last in.. first out..
And donít forget that last in first out is illegal in some of the base countries.
Fly747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 14:13
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Earth Orbit
Posts: 26
And which country would that be?
As far as I know, that’s the norm in any employment situation...
Angel 8 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 14:32
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 626
OK maybe not illegal as such but it canít be used as a sole criteria. You could of course do you own Google search and educate yourself but Iíve copied and pasted some info below for you.

Reality:

To dismiss someone fairly for redundancy you must adopt a procedure that is fair and reasonable in all circumstances. Part of this involves identifying fair selection criteria to determine those members of staff that you will retain and those you will make redundant.

The starting point is to consider criteria that are largely objective and measurable and do not discriminate against individuals who are protected from discrimination. In the past many employers adopted a policy of making redundant those with the shortest length of service (LIFO) as it was both simple and objective. However, since the enactment of equality and anti-discrimination legislation, LIFO cannot be used as the only measure to decide who is going to lose their jobs in a redundancy situation. This is because younger people are most likely to be selected for redundancy and this amounts to a disadvantage based on age and may give rise to a claim for indirect age discrimination.
Fly747 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 14:45
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Fly747 View Post
OK maybe not illegal as such but it canít be used as a sole criteria. You could of course do you own Google search and educate yourself but Iíve copied and pasted some info below for you.

Reality:

To dismiss someone fairly for redundancy you must adopt a procedure that is fair and reasonable in all circumstances. Part of this involves identifying fair selection criteria to determine those members of staff that you will retain and those you will make redundant.

The starting point is to consider criteria that are largely objective and measurable and do not discriminate against individuals who are protected from discrimination. In the past many employers adopted a policy of making redundant those with the shortest length of service (LIFO) as it was both simple and objective. However, since the enactment of equality and anti-discrimination legislation, LIFO cannot be used as the only measure to decide who is going to lose their jobs in a redundancy situation. This is because younger people are most likely to be selected for redundancy and this amounts to a disadvantage based on age and may give rise to a claim for indirect age discrimination.
Most of the CAís/CBAs/EAs/COSs have (legal) specific procedures for layoff and recall. These follow the master seniority list which is effectively last in first out.
Slasher1 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 15:09
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Earth Orbit
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Fly747 View Post
OK maybe not illegal as such but it canít be used as a sole criteria. You could of course do you own Google search and educate yourself but Iíve copied and pasted some info below for you.

Reality:

To dismiss someone fairly for redundancy you must adopt a procedure that is fair and reasonable in all circumstances. Part of this involves identifying fair selection criteria to determine those members of staff that you will retain and those you will make redundant.

The starting point is to consider criteria that are largely objective and measurable and do not discriminate against individuals who are protected from discrimination. In the past many employers adopted a policy of making redundant those with the shortest length of service (LIFO) as it was both simple and objective. However, since the enactment of equality and anti-discrimination legislation, LIFO cannot be used as the only measure to decide who is going to lose their jobs in a redundancy situation. This is because younger people are most likely to be selected for redundancy and this amounts to a disadvantage based on age and may give rise to a claim for indirect age discrimination.
Oh... I... See... so you get your legal stuff of Google, so it must be correct.
How about educating yourself some manners? perhaps you should google that too.
Employment Law all over the world is more or less similar on Redundancy, with no exception.
You, on the other hand, are mixing apples and oranges.
Discrimination includes all kind of areas, and though one of them IS age, it does not apply in this case because the selection would not rely on age, it is only a pure and simple last in first out.
If you joined as a Direct entry F/O or an S/O then you will be made redundant if you were last in.

Angel 8 is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 18:59
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Station 42
Age: 65
Posts: 877
For anyone taking voluntary redundancy:
One thing to consider for British employees is that you won't get government housing benefit if your savings (wife/partner included) exceed £16000. So a large chunk of your farewell payment might well go on maintaining your mortgage/rent until something else turns up. The payment itself isn't taxable below £30,000 but nest eggs will go against you. Ask me how I know...
stevef is offline  
Old 8th Mar 2020, 20:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: CLK
Posts: 326
55 year olds are being made redundant at CX every week. A contractual redundancy will not happen as they are conveniently shedding their most experienced/expensive pilots using age discrimination already. Do not ever forget that your Google lawyers donít have any substantive workplace ďlawĒ to use in Hong Kong.
Farman Biplane is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.