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.

SILENCE

Old 1st May 2020, 05:16
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by mngmt mole View Post
Feeling better after that little tantrum Clara ?
I am actually. Thank you for asking.
claraball is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 05:42
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by claraball View Post
I am actually. Thank you for asking.
Now back to CNN or MSNBC or whatever other fantasy land you live in. RF made mistakes, no doubt, but I very much doubt you know the whole story. Maybe best to not pretend like you do.

Was there a vote or not? Thought so! Stop crying over spilt milk. You sound like a baby.
cxorcist is online now  
Old 1st May 2020, 05:48
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 41
Originally Posted by cxorcist View Post
Now back to CNN or MSNBC or whatever other fantasy land you live in. RF made mistakes, no doubt, but I very much doubt you know the whole story. Maybe best to not pretend like you do.

Was there a vote or not? Thought so! Stop crying over spilt milk. You sound like a baby.
Just can't let it go can you. The bigger problem is RF takes zero responsibility and he doesn't recognise them as mistakes and now every cx pilot is paying for it. I do know the whole story. I was there. Were you?
claraball is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 05:59
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Earth Orbit
Posts: 16
BA already stated: equal number of Capt & F/O’s will face redundancies .voluntary redundancies will be based on statutory law only, no golden handshakes.
CX: letter from DFO to HKAOA states HK pilots will be protected as much as possible. Meaning the bases will go first, count the numbers coming back to HK from that lot, then see if you need to make more redundancies.
Question is: if they close the base and you elect not to go back to HK, does this mean statutory redundancy?
Angel 8 is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 06:42
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by mngmt mole View Post
Contractual rights demand that any retrenchment is done on the principle of Last In / First Out. HOWEVER, I suspect that the management have constructed a strategy that will cleverly undermine that principle. It will be interesting to see their plans revealed. I suspect it will be heavily based on pitting the different groups of pilots against one another sadly. We'll know soon enough...

slightly OT but under U.K. law, LIFO could be challenged I think on discrimination grounds. Probably why BA are saying they wonít use it, and think they can get away with not using it.
Freehills is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 07:29
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by Freehills View Post
slightly OT but under U.K. law, LIFO could be challenged I think on discrimination grounds. Probably why BA are saying they wonít use it, and think they can get away with not using it.
Only if it can be deemed that it affects certain age groups, normally the last in are the younger age group, therefore it could be deemed discrimination.
spannersatcx is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 08:39
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: planet earth
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by spannersatcx View Post
Only if it can be deemed that it affects certain age groups, normally the last in are the younger age group, therefore it could be deemed discrimination.
If that's the case why wasn't it deemed discrimination when they hired all those younger folks?
doolay is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 10:57
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 187
It doesn't really matter to me which way they make people redundant because every redundancy is its own personal tragedy. As this stands, all of us will either face significant cuts or indeed redundancy in whatever way shape or form. I know that in many European countries LIFO would be deemed discrimination because of the age group argument, but who knows how that will play out in HKG and all the different vested interests here. That said the asymmetric build-up of our contracts and the different cost bases of COS18, C scale, B scale and indeed A scale makes it exceptionally uninteresting for any employer to apply the LIFO principle. If we were all on the same contract the LIFO principle could, in theory, be applied if we would ignore the age discrimination argument. In our particular situation, I find that an exceedingly unlikely scenario.

That's one of the risks of having different contracts. I can imagine a "sign or be fired" onto COS18 scenario for everyone, and if from that moment redundancies are needed they go ahead and apply LIFO. Would it be fair and just? I don't know, it definitely wouldn't benefit me personally, but can I see them doing it? Yes, I can. Would I sign COS18 in the situation we are in right now, or risk being unemployed for years without much of a perspective for further employment? Well, at 34 years of age and a 1 and 3-year-old at home, I think you can guess what I would do.

Let's hope it doesn't come to any of this, but I think we all know that it will one way or the other. In the meantime, don't stress. We have survived wars, disease, famine and other global catastrophes. We will survive this one too. If I have to work construction or go into subsistence farming to feed my children, I will. Concentrate on what you can control and what you can influence because in the grand scheme of things there is nothing new under the sun.
drfaust is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 11:31
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,937
Originally Posted by doolay View Post
If that's the case why wasn't it deemed discrimination when they hired all those younger folks?
If you believe you didn't get a job because of your age, it is upto YOU to prove at a tribunal you were age discriminated against.
spannersatcx is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 14:33
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by claraball View Post
Just can't let it go can you. The bigger problem is RF takes zero responsibility and he doesn't recognise them as mistakes and now every cx pilot is paying for it. I do know the whole story. I was there. Were you?
I was there, quite close to RF in the early days. I donít agree with how he went about his duties as chairman. However, I think itís ridiculous to blame him for the vote going the way it did. Heís entitled to his own vote and opinion on how to vote. You didnít have the votes, period. You lost the argument, and now you want to blame him for your pathetic (non-expat) contract which YOU signed with no guarantee of pay raises. Meanwhile, AT ripped up your RPs, and I donít hear anything about that from you. Why donít you lay the blame where it belongs??? Which is with management and yourself! You are the cheap, undercutting labor that has destroyed this profession, not RF who actually fought when others were not up to the task because they are/were too weak.
cxorcist is online now  
Old 1st May 2020, 14:58
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Back of Beyond
Posts: 364
I'm with cxorcist on that one.
Flying Clog is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 16:15
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 819
+2 on Cxorist comments.
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 18:22
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 466
Originally Posted by mngmt mole View Post
+2 on Cxorist comments.
I'm in agreement
+3
fire wall is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 22:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: planet earth
Posts: 17
If you believe you didn't get a job because of your age, it is upto YOU to prove at a tribunal you were age discriminated against.
Fair enough, but the ones who did get the job knowingly signed a COS that clearly has a LIFO clause in it.
doolay is offline  
Old 1st May 2020, 23:30
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by doolay View Post
Fair enough, but the ones who did get the job knowingly signed a COS that clearly has a LIFO clause in it.

if they signed a COS that clearly said women would be fired first, doesnít mean a UK tribunal/ court would allow the company to fire women first. You canít agree to break the law. (though, with a LIFO clause, first it must be shown that it is discriminatory). AFAIK, UK firms can use seniority as a redundancy criteria, but not as the only criteria.
Freehills is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 01:43
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Yi Pak Wan
Posts: 35
Freehills

That’s all great, what does UK law have to do with HKG contracts?
DessertRat is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 01:59
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: HKG
Posts: 173
A few thoughts:

DFO has said that if redundancies occur it will be LIFO. Doesn't mean much as he will be told what to do and it will be done.

A contract is only any good if it can be enforced. No chance of that in HKG.

POS18 are the cheapest pilots, so clearly it would be better for the company to cut at the other end, to a point. SOs are of no use unless it is long haul cruise. Hard to quickly upgrade. So they need to be careful. Voluntary redundancy and LIFO is the only fair way to cut numbers.

In the short term (whilst WUHAN 19 keeps borders closed) it might be reasonable for staff to have reduced pay , but FT ran an article saying CX has the cash to operate 6 - 9 months zero pax, so we don't really know true state of the company and we never will know. Don't trust what they tell us, it is a game.

Once the company is making money again there is no reason whatsoever not to pay us current contracts rates or better and to pay back lost earnings.

Don't expect the AOA to do anything. Day after the 49ers the go slow and sickness rate both collapsed. If it comes to a sign or leave guys will sign.

Talk of keeping the troops together for the turn around is the current plan and to reduce stress levels, but if the axe falls it will come without warning, be a shock and those of us left standing will carry on.
controlledrest is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 03:29
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rabbit Hutch
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by DessertRat View Post
Freehills

Thatís all great, what does UK law have to do with HKG contracts?
Nothing, but the based guys will have to take their share of redundancies. I suspect that they may be eliminated altogether.
Dragon Pacific is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 03:39
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Rabbit Hutch
Posts: 83
LIFO isnít going to happen. The ones to be lost have already pre-selected themselves. I wonít spell it out, it should be obvious.
Dragon Pacific is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 03:50
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by Dragon Pacific View Post
LIFO isn’t going to happen. The ones to be lost have already pre-selected themselves. I won’t spell it out, it should be obvious.
FACE is still very important in Hong Kong and further North. Being seen to do the honourable thing still counts behind the closed doors in Beijing.(the ones the Swire mandarins visit each year to sip the rice wine).
In an ideal world there would be a VR package offered and if sufficient numbers from each group/fleet/demographic was met then no CR would be needed. The company can set targets. eg: 200 captains ( mainly 777), 300 FO's (50/50 split B&A) 300, SO's. CX still controls the carnage but with a softer touch and LIFO tactfully avoided. After VR comes CR and that won't be pretty.

Last edited by unitedabx; 2nd May 2020 at 04:49.
unitedabx 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.