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

Base Training, Command Courses, POS18 and job cuts

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.

Base Training, Command Courses, POS18 and job cuts

Old 11th May 2020, 04:28
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: HKG
Posts: 171
Base Training, Command Courses, POS18 and job cuts

Why are base training and upgrades (including commands) occurring while we are also facing POS18 and redundancies?
controlledrest is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 04:46
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: rice bowl
Posts: 112
Why indeed.
As the redundancy, “keeping the band together” talk-threat is the push towards COS18.
However the optics of training and upgrades is very contradictory.
markontop is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 04:59
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the road
Posts: 157
Everything in the press is either virtue signalling as part of the negotiating strategy or the usual catch up third hand dross from the likes of the SCMP.

mr did is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 05:28
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: 35,000 feet
Posts: 40
SCMP. Click bait, We are attractive and help sell newspapers, and last I check SCMP isn’t being loaded on the 200 plus Passenger aircraft departures a day.
viking avenger is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 10:29
  #5 (permalink)  
hyg
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: hong kong
Posts: 112
it's because to the company, a 15year Capt cost a lot more than a 1 year Capt..... same for FO at the top of the scale cost way more than a JFO.... if you want conspiracy theory? they are training the replacement of the guys who might be tempted to take the very exciting voluntary byebye deal
hyg is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 12:12
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Earth Orbit
Posts: 16
Fair enough hyg, but if they want rid of, say 500 pilots in line with other major airlines, I would suggest, at best 100 or even 200 will be tempted with what you call “very exciting voluntary deal”, if CX is capable of “exciting”. That still leaves 300 to 400 redundancies from the bottom.
Base closure would probably see more leave on the “exciting” deal as compared to having to relocate to HKG. But even then, they would still need to clear some from the bottom.
Angel 8 is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 13:07
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: London
Posts: 3
Cathay express scheme

I have it on good authority that the plan for Cx express involves getting rid of a scale / b scale / travel fund goodies at dragon by offering any ex dragon pilot to join Cx on cos18.
SabrinaSenior is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 13:52
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 513
There will be no redundancies from the bottom.

Why get rid off the cheapest crew?
AQIS Boigu is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 16:02
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2020
Location: Earth Orbit
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by AQIS Boigu View Post
There will be no redundancies from the bottom.

Why get rid off the cheapest crew?
Even if they change contract and all pilots sign for the new CoS then they will still need to trim from the bottom up. That is the only acceptable and contractual way, whether cheap or not.
Angel 8 is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 16:26
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 813
Aquis. You seem quite certain of that. I think all levels will be hit. Bases, senior people in hk (probably a meager buy out offer) and probably some junior ranks (otherwise the legal aspects will prove difficult for CX). Regardless, worrying times and no one really has any accurate idea (and that certainly includes me !). Good luck to everyone...we'll need it.
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 22:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by AQIS Boigu View Post
There will be no redundancies from the bottom.

Why get rid off the cheapest crew?
ah, because they are not really pilots yet?

Sabrina, I agree.
OK4Wire is offline  
Old 11th May 2020, 23:40
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 71
The losers on here have spent the best part of a decade going on about the wonder of first world labour laws everywhere else. Virtually no first world airline, BA, QF etc are following contract and culling in seniority, yet youíre all expecting CX to?

bwahahaha. Funniest thing Iíve read all day.
Pickuptruck is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:03
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Pickuptruck View Post
The losers on here have spent the best part of a decade going on about the wonder of first world labour laws everywhere else. Virtually no first world airline, BA, QF etc are following contract and culling in seniority, yet you’re all expecting CX to?

bwahahaha. Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
That's not correct. US carriers are following their contracts.

It is true they've avoided layoffs (which will probably happen anyway) through the use of voluntary compensated leave schemes (to include early retirements with significant compensation). But when push comes to shove they will have to follow the contract and layoff by seniority. As will elements of CX stationed in the US. And this IS enforceable.
Slasher1 is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:18
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 187
Well thatís why redundancies suck donít they? What do you do? Fire the future of the company essentially, precisely the people that are driving unit production costs down in order to save your senior crew? Fire young, vulnerable and also significantly local crew and by doing that actually driving unit costs up? It would be madness.

On the other hand, do you fire the senior crew on these elaborate contracts after they have invested their entire careers working for you and that have come in a time when not many wanted to be here? Not to mention the not so insignificant factor of experience that needs passing on. Also madness.

Wouldnít it be an idea to make people redundant in a way that would still maintain their name on the list and their slot on their seat, should they wish to return when business picks up? (This may already be the case) Regardless of what happens with contracts. There is no fairness in an unfair time, but this could be a way forward? What about agreed unpaid leave as opposed to redundancy? Eventually pilots will be needed again, to throw the baby out with the bathwater doesnít seem productive to me even though we can all see that something needs to be done to ensure survival on the long term.
drfaust is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by drfaust View Post
Well that’s why redundancies suck don’t they? What do you do? Fire the future of the company essentially, precisely the people that are driving unit production costs down in order to save your senior crew? Fire young, vulnerable and also significantly local crew and by doing that actually driving unit costs up? It would be madness.

On the other hand, do you fire the senior crew on these elaborate contracts after they have invested their entire careers working for you and that have come in a time when not many wanted to be here? Not to mention the not so insignificant factor of experience that needs passing on. Also madness.

Wouldn’t it be an idea to make people redundant in a way that would still maintain their name on the list and their slot on their seat, should they wish to return when business picks up? (This may already be the case) Regardless of what happens with contracts. There is no fairness in an unfair time, but this could be a way forward? What about agreed unpaid leave as opposed to redundancy? Eventually pilots will be needed again, to throw the baby out with the bathwater doesn’t seem productive to me even though we can all see that something needs to be done to ensure survival on the long term.
There is no 'fair' way to do things and the concept of 'fairness' is wholly in the eyes of the beholder.

Seniority is a mainstay of most airline contracts simply because there isn't a clear cut better way to do things. Kind of a moot point in that CX's contract is clear on the matter and forced redundancies MUST be in reverse seniority order (and as such actionable in countries where there's real law). Seniority is a barrier towards jumping towards what would be ultimately a better career for the person (having to start all over) but is also a retention tool as much for the employer in that it keeps the person there after the company has made an investment in them. As such, seniority has a very high equivalent dollar value on any type of contract where it's enforceable.

SO

If there IS some form of 'better way' the only way to do it would be to recognize the dollar value OF the investment the person made in his seniority and justly compensate him (or her) for allowing the contract to be modified. Which is exactly the plan many US carriers have implemented so far (to be completely accurate it's more of a means of both company and union using procedures in an existing CBA to allow an individual to voluntarily bow out with an exit package or take partially paid leave with benefits). This also side-steps the 'stick' factor of attempting to abrogate these contracts which for the company would be extremely costly. So a meaningful deal must be negotiated; not a one-sided 'plan.'

There are all kinds of options (payment to retire early, partially paid but guaranteed leave with benefits, etc. -- these were the ones embraced by US carriers). Another plan could be partially paid leave with some form of future share in the company when things pick back up. The possibilities are endless but the thing to keep in mind is the carrier can't simply tear up the contract without it ultimately costing itself MORE than a reasonable deal.

Last edited by Slasher1; 12th May 2020 at 00:43.
Slasher1 is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:39
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Slasher1 View Post
That's not correct. US carriers are following their contracts.

It is true they've avoided layoffs (which will probably happen anyway) through the use of voluntary compensated leave schemes (to include early retirements with significant compensation). But when push comes to shove they will have to follow the contract and layoff by seniority. As will elements of CX stationed in the US. And this IS enforceable.
where to begin.....writing in Caps on PPRuNe to make your point. Iím sure the company will be running scared. Not talking layoffs, talking shutting the base. Big difference.
Pickuptruck is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:48
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by Pickuptruck View Post
where to begin.....writing in Caps on PPRuNe to make your point. I’m sure the company will be running scared. Not talking layoffs, talking shutting the base. Big difference.
Not that big.

Shutting a base to evade fulfilling a contract which requires seniority based layoffs would not turn out well in some places for the company. Nor would it be particularly cheap with recall rights and the contractual benefits this entails (which are staked under the base contract not some arbitrary HKG one). Not only a can o' worms but an expensive can o' worms.
Slasher1 is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:48
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 813
The company has ascertained that the way around the legal necessity to lay off workers in seniority order is to actually make them voluntarily leave. They do that by closing the bases and then offering those pilots a return to HK on the "new HK" terms, which will also be much reduced. The gamble is that most will refuse to relocate to HK on what effectively would be a COS 18 (+/-) contract. Many senior pilots would not agree to such reduced terms, never mind actually relocating to HK as well. Unfortunately, the perfect storm is upon us. Seems we will find out the actual details in the next week or so. The package is already settled, only waiting to be released. Of course, the management could come to their senses and back away from triggering Armageddon, as the unintended consequences for the company will make the 49er debacle seem a minor inconvenience.
mngmt mole is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 00:55
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 187
Originally Posted by Slasher1 View Post
Not that big.

Shutting a base to evade fulfilling a contract which requires seniority based layoffs would not turn out well in some places for the company. Nor would it be particularly cheap with recall rights and the contractual benefits this entails (which are staked under the base contract not some arbitrary HKG one). Not only a can o' worms but an expensive can o' worms.
Iím not sure why that would be? If they want to shut their overseas bases, they are free to shut them. The staff then gets an offer to come back to HKG, no?
drfaust is offline  
Old 12th May 2020, 01:04
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: All over
Posts: 218
Originally Posted by drfaust View Post
Iím not sure why that would be? If they want to shut their overseas bases, they are free to shut them. The staff then gets an offer to come back to HKG, no?
Not if the intent was to evade the contractural terms by so doing (i.e. closing a base to evade furloughing in order of seniority mandated by an existing contract would almost certainly generate a claim and a quagmire--kind of like skipping town to avoid paying a bill). Yes; right of return on an expensive contract.
Slasher1 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.