Numero Crunchero

Yeah on an update they have said the WEF date is now 30Sep20.


Yeah maybe it was obvious to others that this was just a long term money grab - but my initial instinct was that any VR or ERS scheme costs money in the short term but saves money in the long term. But after doing a little 'back of the fag packet' this ERS costs nothing at all other than bringing expenses forward from say end of April next year back to 30 Sep this year.

Now to put this into more perspective - my best guess is that there was $10-15B in cash by the time the government bailout happened. Add another $39B - total today of say $45-50B.

SLS 2, assuming 100% uptake by pilots, would have saved around $200-250M. (I don't know what the uptake rate was - but clearly not 100% because of the freighter).

If 100 pilots take ERS let's say $100-200M in salary&benefit payments brought forward from Oct20 -Apr21. So basically, we have funded our own ERS.

If all Hong Kong pilots worked for free - we would go from losing $1.5B a month to losing about $1.15B per month.


Net conclusion of all the previous numbers I have just thrown around? Deck chairs on the titanic metaphor springs to mind.

Dragon Pacific

It’s there Iain on the Hub. KA too now 30th Sept. another month’s pay for doing not much.

D.B.er

Does not help me as I am on 4 months UPL but thanks I will try and do battle with the Hub...Deep breaths....I CAN do this....

Memorylapse

You can do it Iain!

cxorcist

With the exception of a few dozen 777 pilots going to the 747, the Company is not conducting training to get ahead of the seemingly very slow recovery. Clearly, the A350 will be deployed entirely before the 777 is brought back in a meaningful fashion. Therefore, it would make sense to me to start training A350 crews sufficiently senior to backfill those who may be made redundant. I believe we have 1000-1500 too many pilots for the foreseeable future.

Why isn’t the Company setting itself up for furloughs? Are they just planning to pay everyone until the money is gone and claim they did their best via SLS, VR, and pay cuts for based pax crews? It makes no sense and seems they are waiting for visibility that is not necessarily forthcoming. Put another way, it’s a massive gamble (we know they are capable of gambles via the fuel hedging debacle, 30B+ HKD disappeared from the CX ledger). They are betting the entire airline on a travel recovery that isn’t materializing thus far.

Sam Ting Wong

The matter is way more complicated than you suggest. The governmental cash injection might have been attached to certain conditions, just as an example.

I also would suggest you abandon your pilot-centric perspective, this crisis is not about which pilot is on which aircraft, it is so much bigger.

The entire Network configurations of our hub and spoke model, including subsidaries, codeshares etc, need to be recalculated, slots and traffic rights might expire if not used, aircraft leasing contracts need to be adhered to, order status and obligations need to be evaluated, legal hurdles considered, shareholder interests must be balanced, political influence needs to be managed etc etc.

You are seriously underestimating the challenge on hand.

Additionally, you don't know what options are on the table and discussed right now.

I am very happy I don't live in the hire-and-fire culture of your home country. Layoffs destroy lives and families, I hope we agree this should be an absolute last resort.

So if you are asking for furloughs... beware what you wish for, it could come true ( and possibly not the way you like it).

SanMig

CX has been sewing the seeds of their own destruction for years now. This pandemic has highlighted the companies problem of too many contracts. They would like to lay-off 1000 pilots, but the can’t because the D scale pilots are the first to go and those are the cheap pilots they want to keep. They are also mostly the locally hired pilots and the HK Government would not look kindly on a mass lay-off of local staff. CX would like to close the bases and try to get rid of the remaining A scale pilots, but due to collective agreements that would mean the potential return of some very expensive staff to HK making them more expensive. The company is stuck with a manning issue they created. So they come up with the same solution they always do, throw some money at the problem with an early retirement scheme. One years salary sounds pretty attractive, until one does some of the math and figures out it really isn’t much more than one would get through sickness and 3 months notice. No thanks, either sweeten the offer or stick to the contractual terms.

fly1981

the offer will not be sweetened...options down the line could be much worse.

Angel 8

All that should’ve been done in a week, as we are blessed with over 36000 employees, half of which are Managers and office/planning teams.
No one is asking for “furloughs”, pilots like to, and are trained to plan ahead.

cxorcist

In the end, it doesn’t much matter if the airline goes belly up. Keeping thousands on the CX dole whilst running out of money is bad for everyone, including those potentially furloughed because they have no employer to return to.

As for the thinly veiled threat of out of seniority redundancies, bring it on. The bases would have a field day in court if that were to occur, and most of the based unions are sitting on heaps of cash to pay for legals.

Closing the bases is certainly possible, but the expense to the company would be significant, as previously discussed.

STW, I’m afraid your dreams of a command inside 20 years are no closer to reality, but actually much farther off than before the pandemic.

Numero Crunchero

cxorcist - I admire your optimism on the power of courts in other jurisdictions imposing their will on a communist company in a communist enclave in the worlds most populous, and arguably most powerful(communist), country.

Let me think - in a 1st world country an airline leader shut the airline down to show who was boss. Consequence? "you shouldn't have done that - that was naughty" verbal remonstration by FWA.

AMS and PAR laws too difficult for CX to deal with - shut the bases down. Consequence? Small change payout on Paris though a profligate former chairman almost bankrupted the union with his blank cheque legal agenda fighting this.(would have been cheaper for the AOA to just pay the legal money spent to the plaintiffs)

Fire for no particular reason - a bunch of pilots to show who is boss - result, after many many years of court (up to highest court) - 3-4months salary should have been paid.



So yeah - tell yourself that Canadian courts, US courts, Australian courts etc will give a **** about trying to get a fairer outcome for a few pilots if they are laid off. All CX has to say is "it is not ideal to have people based" which is actually true. From a rostering point of view - it is sub optimal. From a financial point of view - they save money because expat pilots are expensive. So you have to prove to court it wasn't done for a commercial reason - good luck.

But hey - what if they could get 100s of pilots for cheap due to an oversupply - what if they were all experienced and desperate for a job? We could have heaps of DEFOs come in to replace the HKPA pilots being upgraded to CN. Now imagine if they all lived in HK? Rostering is easier!


So yeah - there is a doomsday scenario for you. Of course I could be wrong - the US, Canada and Australian courts will have plenty of free time after covid- plus there is nothing more important to them than 'million dollar morons' living in their country working for a foreign carrier. I mean seriously - why should anything else be more important than the 0.0006% of Australians working for Cathay as pilots based in Australia. Or the 0.000076% of Americans living in the US working for Cathay. I mean - in a close election - that 0.00076% could make all the difference.


So if you think we have bases open because of fear of courts - you are mistaken. It makes sense to have bases for two reasons - it saves money on expat terms - it makes CX a more attractive employer as you know you have the chance for one (maybe).

Zapp_Brannigan

That's a stupid statement. Thousands of court cases are just about one individual. Should a good verdict only be given if you do a class action representing millions of individuals?

Didn't the company settle in the PAR case because they were about to lose? That plus a huge fine.
Didn't a manager (or two) get fired over this?

If the union can't even fund some lawyers, what's the point of being in a union?
IMO, the past chairman was bloody right to make the union fund a court case.

There are good excuses in closing the bases now. Why haven't they done it? Maybe not as easy/legal as you suggest?

FlyingNun

Apart from the legal stuff, didn’t they say that the new rostering software actually recommended that 60% of pilots should be based in order to save costs?

positionalpor

On this one one I agree with Zapp. Sorry numero

cxorcist

You’re losing it NC. The numbers don’t matter in this case, the law does. CX can certainly close any or all bases, but you cannot furlough (make redundant) out of seniority while they are still open. There would be a lawsuit, and the Company would lose, even fantastically perhaps. They know this and don’t want to get themselves in the proverbial poo AGAIN with western courts. They’ve got enough on their plate at the moment, and closing the bases would destroy any remaining pilot morale at CX, including in Hong Kong.

This isn’t about democracy or demographics. It’s about rights. Cathay pilots on the bases have rights, period. I know CX doesn’t like that, but they’ve learned, the hard way in some cases, that doesn’t matter. Shut the bases... fine, but do it legally or get ready for a court fight. It really is that simple. Your numbers don’t mean squat. CX wants to keep flying to the US, Canada, Australia, etc. So I think they are stuck playing by their rules if CX is going to keep employing people in these countries.

ACMS

NC was on a base WHEN IT SUITED HIM until it suited him to go back to HK to make more.......

Next.

mngmt mole

Pretty childish response ACMS. NC is entitled to be on a base, not be on a base etc as per HIS CONTRACT. Nothing wrong no matter what he decides. His opinion on the facts is valid, and is something to seriously consider. Stop with the ad hominem attacks. Always the last resort of those who have nothing positive to contribute to the debate.

MENELAUS

And NC happens to be right; pinning anyone’s hopes on future legal action in these straitened times assumes that there’ll be an entity left to sue for one thing. And is specious at best. Further, it hasn’t worked for Balpa, Unite, VC, SNPL, VNV etc.etc. all of whom are facing layoffs, despite their efforts. In most cases out of seniority and dictated by fleet, merit, supposed demerits and within countries that have allegedly superior contract “protections”.
The legal system here will be a shadow shortly of what it once was, and hamstrung by new interpretations of various laws, referred to a ‘ higher power’ just because they don’t like the result. We are ‘guest’ employees here. Always have been, always will be. Just dressed up to look slightly better than the ME3. And look how they’ve behaved.

Fly747

And don’t forget it was also in accordance with his seniority. So what’s the problem ACMS?

OK4Wire

What are you talking about, ACMS? Everyone I know is on a base because it suits them!