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 2nd May 2020, 04:53
  #41 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
STAR Chamber in session this weekend.
Criteria for redundancy by fleet :

1. Based
2. Did candidate take SLS
3. Sickness record previous 12 months
4. By-pass receiver
5. 3 years or less to serve
6.12 months or less in the company
unitedabx is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 05:18
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 404
Just not seeing the base angle.

Most based pilots are at least 50% more productive than their HK brethren.
OK4Wire is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 05:22
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 218
Yup. Don't see the based angle either and am throwing the BS flag on that one.

While they might be able to close the base, the layoff procedures are quite clear in some jurisdictions (and set in stone in the contract). In reverse seniority order and that's that (has nothing to do with fleet). AND these contracts are enforceable in some of the jurisdictions with heavy penalty for something as clear cut as a breach to lay off in accordance with the contract.
Slasher1 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 05:37
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 14
Beijng doing the honorable thing?? Dude what are u smoking???
ishikawa_chicken is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:02
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: underground
Posts: 98
Can't see any of the above are sensible selection criteria for redundancy except the last.

1) Based guys save the company money and should be entitled to return to hkg should the base close in seniority as they expected when they left Hkg.
2) Whether on not an individual took SLS is irrelevant as it was 'voluntary' and many pilots are heavy in debt from years of sub standard contracts trying to carve out a living in one of the most expensive city on the planet, especially those with families. Many may have wanted to take it that simply couldn't.
3) Thirdly if a pilot is sick he's sick. We operate in an environment with the strictest health regulations, we can't simply operate with a cold like office staff unless we want to blow our ear drums and then have 6 mths off. We also operate in a ghastly toxic environment. Sickness by its very nature is not an individual's 'choice'.
4) By-pass at best could be revoked...perhaps, but certainly not a criteria for redundancy simply for being in the wrong 'time event'.
5) 3 years less to serve would be age discrimination. perhaps a voluntary package for those nearing retirement I could believe.
6) LIFO as per contracts I can agree with, however I would personally prefer to see a negotiation on a reduced package for a temporary period to save those at the bottom with a caveat to return to full contract once profit levels have been reestablished.

Last edited by baggagecart; 2nd May 2020 at 06:21.
baggagecart is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 06:57
  #46 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: uk
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by baggagecart View Post
Can't see any of the above are sensible selection criteria for redundancy except the last.

1) Based guys save the company money and should be entitled to return to hkg should the base close in seniority as they expected when they left Hkg.
2) Whether on not an individual took SLS is irrelevant as it was 'voluntary' and many pilots are heavy in debt from years of sub standard contracts trying to carve out a living in one of the most expensive city on the planet, especially those with families. Many may have wanted to take it that simply couldn't.
3) Thirdly if a pilot is sick he's sick. We operate in an environment with the strictest health regulations, we can't simply operate with a cold like office staff unless we want to blow our ear drums and then have 6 mths off. We also operate in a ghastly toxic environment. Sickness by its very nature is not an individual's 'choice'.
4) By-pass at best could be revoked...perhaps, but certainly not a criteria for redundancy simply for being in the wrong 'time event'.
5) 3 years less to serve would be age discrimination. perhaps a voluntary package for those nearing retirement I could believe.
6) LIFO as per contracts I can agree with, however I would personally prefer to see a negotiation on a reduced package for a temporary period to save those at the bottom with a caveat to return to full contract once profit levels have been reestablished.
Can't believe you are not reading what is going on elsewhere in the world. Take the UK which has some pretty strong employment rules and regulations plus a powerful pilots union. Their contracts have been ripped up by BA. Sickness, D&G, seniority, fleet seniority all torn up. BA is cherry picking who will stay and who won't. CX Star Chamber doing exactly the same this weekend. Bases save the company money. You are joking aren't you. Long Service Pay in Australia is crippling the company. Based pilots more productive. Rubbish. Zero flexibility in their rostering, fleet transfer or promotion. Brought back to HKG ( if they are lucky ) on non expat terms. AND BEFORE YOU SAY IT I repeat the old contracts are being torn up as we speak.
unitedabx is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 07:35
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 1,608
The problem for all airlines right now is they don't need pilots and they don't need aeroplanes. They need cash and as much as they can lay their paws on right now and for the next year at least.

And there are no thoughts about contracts, the future, people - 'the boat is sinking under them and everything will be thrown overboard if they think it will keep them afloat.- most of them literally may sink in the next 4 weeks
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 07:59
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 404
Originally Posted by unitedabx View Post
CX Star Chamber doing exactly the same this weekend. Bases save the company money. You are joking aren't you. Long Service Pay in Australia is crippling the company. Based pilots more productive. Rubbish. Zero flexibility in their rostering, fleet transfer or promotion. Brought back to HKG ( if they are lucky ) on non expat terms. AND BEFORE YOU SAY IT I repeat the old contracts are being torn up as we speak.
Now I see that what others have said about you is true.

"Long Service Pay" doesn't exist in Australia. If, however, you are talking about Long Service Leave, then that's equal to about 13 weeks off after 15 years completed service (on average - varies between States.) That doesn't cost the company a penny, just manpower. Please add up 15 years worth of education, housing and 13th months and I suggest four months off is a damn bargain. "Crippling the company"! Ha.

84 hours is 84 hours, flexibility or not. Fleet transfer? I don't think anyone who is living in their base wants to transfer to an aircraft that doesn't go there. What are you talking about?

Read the PBPA to see which contract they would be brought back to HKG on.
OK4Wire is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 10:01
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 147
What happen to the 'records' profits for several years already.

Where all the cash go?.
wongsuzie is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 10:09
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 187
Asturias is awake and smelling the coffee alright. Everyone that thinks that “they can’t do this” or “they can’t change that” or whatever other thing they can think of doesn’t seem to understand that they simply don’t need us right now. Possibly not for the foreseeable future.

What are you gonna do, go on strike? Even if they cause conflict with the pilot group, have you any idea how flooded the market will be in a few months with extremely competent and experienced individuals looking for a way to feed their families? Not to mention getting any court to rule in your favour in this scenario. Good luck with that I say.

Anyone that thinks they are safe or their contracts are safe is dreaming.
drfaust is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 11:00
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by wongsuzie View Post
What happen to the 'records' profits for several years already.

Where all the cash go?.
Upside down fuel hedges, over $4B USD!
That’s 30,000,000,000+ HKD. Let that sink in... And it’s a conspiracy theory to think Swire is on the back end of those. I think it’s a conspiracy theory to assume that they’re not. Swires are bad at running airlines, but they are extremely adept at accounting tricks to snake money away from the other shareholders and employees.
cxorcist is online now  
Old 2nd May 2020, 13:40
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by OK4Wire View Post
Now I see that what others have said about you is true.

"Long Service Pay" doesn't exist in Australia. If, however, you are talking about Long Service Leave, then that's equal to about 13 weeks off after 15 years completed service (on average - varies between States.) That doesn't cost the company a penny, just manpower. Please add up 15 years worth of education, housing and 13th months and I suggest four months off is a damn bargain. "Crippling the company"! Ha.

84 hours is 84 hours, flexibility or not. Fleet transfer? I don't think anyone who is living in their base wants to transfer to an aircraft that doesn't go there. What are you talking about?

Read the PBPA to see which contract they would be brought back to HKG on.
Yup.

Not to mention out of seniority layoffs are very clear cut and enforceable contract breaches on a couple of the bases. Easy case for Arbitration or perhaps court even depending on how it was done. So no reason to go down united's path. Just leave them alone for now.

Better to come up with a package of early out that some of the seniors might go for if they really want to keep the new guys.
Slasher1 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 16:44
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Posts: 580
Originally Posted by unitedabx View Post
Can't believe you are not reading what is going on elsewhere in the world. Take the UK which has some pretty strong employment rules and regulations plus a powerful pilots union. Their contracts have been ripped up by BA. Sickness, D&G, seniority, fleet seniority all torn up. BA is cherry picking who will stay and who won't. CX Star Chamber doing exactly the same this weekend. Bases save the company money. You are joking aren't you. Long Service Pay in Australia is crippling the company. Based pilots more productive. Rubbish. Zero flexibility in their rostering, fleet transfer or promotion. Brought back to HKG ( if they are lucky ) on non expat terms. AND BEFORE YOU SAY IT I repeat the old contracts are being torn up as we speak.
unitedabx, as a concerned ppruner I’m obviously amongst those who worry about your mental health... please accept this in the spirit in which it is given. You can obviously use it to increase your authority when talking to Willie Walsh in his bizjet...
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/477240891736772032/
Kitsune is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 17:49
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: HK-CRoC
Posts: 591
Angry Silence is not golden !

While I have my entire life tried to be optimistic and have lived thru 2 > 3 significant downturns, I'm afraid I see no light at the end of this tunnel.
Simply poking around at various travel related web sites (including governments) indicates this is long from over. Argentina, as a South American example, indicates NO international travel until September (min) and the entire Carribean may follow that footprint. You get what I mean and additionally, consumer travel (personal) sentiment for 2020 is ZERO with some expecting only a 20 > 30% rebound for the entire of 2021... As an aside, you can consider the massive cruise industry and its 100's of thousands ++ employees, as DOA.
Below I have attached a link that will make eyes water. While watching, keep in mind the numbers you see are for 1 Airline only AND that the repercussions of the China Virus at that same airline have not fully evolved and much more carnage is 100% eventual.. That same airline, with the other 3 biggest US carriers being in the exact same situation, is loosing 100 MILLION $ PER DAY ! Each of the other 3 airlines are losing the same amount individually.. Extrapolate these kinds of numbers world wide and the numbers are indescribable..
It's estimated now that the GDP loss in 2020, for the US ONLY, will be in the area of 6 TRILLION $ and, as the US accounts for ~ 15% of world GDP, this would approximate a global loss of nearly 40 TRILLION $$$ This will decimate both business and discretionary spending ( i.e. travel)
The silence is deafening.



Flex88 is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 23:20
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: HKG
Posts: 173
Based pilots are cheaper than HKG pilots (housing, education).

CMP wanted 50% of aircrew based.

The Oz long service leave has been an issue for the company due to manning levels (that was back when we operated flights), not a problem of $ as the pilots overall cost less than HKG pilots.

The problem CX has with bases is due to having to comply with modern world labour laws as they can't just do it their own way. Remember Temp Bases? Got too hard and the Swire way is to cut. Staff don't matter. Many other multinationals I know of regularly temp base employees around the world and they just follow the law.

A smart way forward would be to base 50% of crew on 50% pay until there is a recovery. Guys would jump at it and there would be an instant cost saving. Not the Swire way though.
controlledrest is offline  
Old 2nd May 2020, 23:43
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 819
I'm playing devils advocate here, so don't shoot the messenger!.

ControlledRest; Firstly, I have had it clearly explained to me that bases are in fact not a cost savings at this point. You can agree/disagree, but I can assure you there are many factors that come into the costing analysis, and when it's taken as a whole, the bases are, if not more costly, certainly don't save enough money to really be worth all the extra hassle.

Secondly, you are making your assumption based on the CURRENT cost basis. CX could simply eliminate ARAPA and there would go probably the only real advantage the bases have (and as I just explained, that is offset by many other costly aspects). CX will almost certainly either establish significant cost cuts on the bases, or close them. For HK, they will certainly implement significant cost cuts. The overall outcome will be a HK airline with an average Asian cost basis.

The simple fact of the matter is that CX could do with probably 1000 less pilots than they have. They will achieve more productivity, which will lower even further the numbers needed. I am not any happier about this than any one of us, but these are the facts. For the sake of each of you and your families, i'd start dealing with facts and not wishful thinking. Life tends to turn out better that way...
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 3rd May 2020, 01:13
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 368
The old adage "Prepare for the worst, but hope for the best" seems never truer than at present.
It certainly seems that with the anticipated reduced demand for travel in the future, that numbers of aircraft, pilots, cabin crew and possibly office staff will need to be reduced.
How they deal with that RIN aspect for the pilots, considering the different ranks, different CoS, different fleets, and different jurisdictions, will be difficult to manage. Whether they go down the contractual LastInFirstOut principles, which would have a short term effect on the Freighter fleet looking at many of their lower seniorities, or start looking at creative, but almost certainly legally challenged options, will still result in a less than ideal situation for both Company and individuals.

Never has there been a better time for the Unions and Company to put past differences aside, and work for the common good of, quite simply, survival !
LongTimeInCX is offline  
Old 3rd May 2020, 01:15
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Cesspit
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by mngmt mole View Post
I'm playing devils advocate here, so don't shoot the messenger!.

ControlledRest; Firstly, I have had it clearly explained to me that bases are in fact not a cost savings at this point. You can agree/disagree, but I can assure you there are many factors that come into the costing analysis, and when it's taken as a whole, the bases are, if not more costly, certainly don't save enough money to really be worth all the extra hassle.

Secondly, you are making your assumption based on the CURRENT cost basis. CX could simply eliminate ARAPA and there would go probably the only real advantage the bases have (and as I just explained, that is offset by many other costly aspects). CX will almost certainly either establish significant cost cuts on the bases, or close them. For HK, they will certainly implement significant cost cuts. The overall outcome will be a HK airline with an average Asian cost basis.

The simple fact of the matter is that CX could do with probably 1000 less pilots than they have. They will achieve more productivity, which will lower even further the numbers needed. I am not any happier about this than any one of us, but these are the facts. For the sake of each of you and your families, i'd start dealing with facts and not wishful thinking. Life tends to turn out better that way...

Tend to agree.

The direct savings made from bases tend to be balanced by the issues they cause.
Where bases are an extremely useful asset to the company is through retention, and to a lesser extent, recruitment. Throughout 2017/18 100% of the company’s training resources went towards training other airlines’ crew as pilots were electing to return to their home countries faster than the company could replace them. The opening of bases throughout 2019 saw the retention rate reverse direction for the first time in years.

Unfortunately in 2020 and probably for a few years after that neither retention nor recruitment will be much of a consideration for the airline. What that may mean to its pilots is anyone’s guess. But I wouldn’t rule out anything.
Progress Wanchai is offline  
Old 3rd May 2020, 01:32
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 819
The biggest difficulty the company is dealing with when it comes to amending our contracts (downwards in case there was any doubt!) is the issue of the Freighter fleet. The freighter pilots are working their backsides off. Accordingly, it would prove extremely difficult to impose a pay/benefit cut across the board, as you can imagine how well that would go down amongst the freighter pilots at the moment. I am not sure how management works around that conundrum, but I am sure they are burning the midnight oil attempting to come up with a plan that addresses that complication. The next two weeks will probably reveal the future of this airline as far as a pilot career is concerned. Good luck to all.
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 3rd May 2020, 02:18
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,009
Originally Posted by mngmt mole View Post
The biggest difficulty the company is dealing with when it comes to amending our contracts (downwards in case there was any doubt!) is the issue of the Freighter fleet. The freighter pilots are working their backsides off. Accordingly, it would prove extremely difficult to impose a pay/benefit cut across the board, as you can imagine how well that would go down amongst the freighter pilots at the moment. I am not sure how management works around that conundrum, but I am sure they are burning the midnight oil attempting to come up with a plan that addresses that complication. The next two weeks will probably reveal the future of this airline as far as a pilot career is concerned. Good luck to all.
With respect to others’ opinions, it would be quite easy to retrain excess 777 pilots onto the 747 (and Airbus if necessary) and get on with it. This notion that CX has to do some kind of out of seniority furlough (redundancies) is a total farce.

The entirety of the training department can quickly be repurposed from training new hires to converting and keeping current more senior pilots. Sorry new and cheap pilots, but that’s the way this industry works. Bases might be closed, but that does not necessarily run counter to LIFO. The guys affected by base closures either bid on new base openings, return to HK, or resign/be fired. Demotions to FO from junior captains might be necessary.

Sorry, but that is the way displacements work. This isn’t a new concept within the industry, and CX would be wise not to get cute and recreate the wheel. Every day they put this off, the closer they get to turning the lights off in CX City. There simply aren’t many leaders within the upper echelon at CX. It’s a bit of a rudderless ship to say the least.

Good luck to all. I hope the requirement to have a plan B is obvious, especially for those on the bottom of the seniority list.
cxorcist is online now  

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.