No pay leave
 

2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks ? Any idea for next year !:ouch:

Won't happen.

Last time they "offered" unpaid leave daily pax numbers went from 40k/day to around 5k/day. That is not happening yet.

Which airline is this?

load factor 87% yesterday. Above 80% all week

September didn't seem that great with 72.3%

Cathay Pacific - About Us : Press Room

During SARS, we need ~30000 pax/day to break even.
Now we have much more a/c and fuel is more expensive.
We may need ~40000 pax/day.
As cash is king, they may reduce the cash flow by NPL.
Just wonder what would happen for those extendees !!!:confused:

Their planned to be the first ones out the door.

All set up by management a long time ago.

I haven't heard about pilots, but I hear strong rumours that cabin crew will have "voluntary unpaid leave" next year. For how many weeks? I heard 4-6. :(
If the new aircraft are still coming, and we are not yet cutting back on flights, then I guess the company will crew the aircraft with the minimum of one per door. Self serve meals anyone?
I hope that this rumour is baseless. :uhoh:

With three A346s and five 777-200s leaving the passenger fleet will be shrinking!

they will ONLY sell the 772's if they get good money for them.

Who wants 12 y.o. 772's at a premium price anyway?

Well, the last time we had 'no pay leave', most of us agreed in order to preserve the jobs of our more junior colleagues who may be laid off otherwise. This time, after all the 'love' expressed to me by the junior staff in respect to age 65 etc....won't be voting for or taking 'no credit leave'. Too many staff, lay them off. :mad:

cancukrevenger,
oooohhh..you are scaring all us junior guys. Lets see, about 50 old guys, about 2000+ young guys, yup, your vote will really make a difference!

Canuck...the selfishness shown by Hiro justifies your comment. Some enforced no-pay leave might adjust the 'world owes me' attitude some of these guys have.

However, CX is short of pilots. Any temporary (they always are) slowdown will only serve to correct that imbalance. Layoffs unlikely.

Yeah, real selfish of me to want to stick to my contract and not at all selfish of you to want another 10 years of A scales after your contract is finished. Oh sorry, thats right, the world owes you! And people say my generation is selfish!

...uh, Hiro, CX 'broke' my contract long ago...so why should I be expected to adhere to it? btw...they will break your's also...:ok:

ps. i don't think your generation is selfish, just naive and immature.

My Canadian warrior,
Your statement " after all the 'love' expressed to me by the junior staff in respect to age 65 etc" is not correct. The AOA comittee decided it could not endorse the company's proposal for NRA to age 65 and by default deny bypass pay for 1500 pilots junior to you on the seniority list, and thereby lining your pockets whilst at the same time short changing the junior crew. This is not how the decision was portrayed to the pilot body but it is the truth. I will leave you to decide who muddied the message.
You are placing blame where it does not belong.

canuck revenger.

You right I agree with you, before we take unpaid leave let get rid of all of the guys that have extended beyond 55 , on lower terms, thus screwing you in to ever being able to get an extension on A scales.

These are the guys that have had a big pension pay out (defined benefit) while the rest of us have just halved our retirement benefits. They have earned 30% more than a B scale captain doing the same job and taken commands away from eligible FO's.

They also have had a travel allowance, so they could go on holiday without having to save for it like the rest of us.

So now I guess you want us to give away our BBP so that you can happily go to 65 on your A scales.

What a selfish p..ck you are...and now you wonder why they junior guys are " Not showing you the Love!"

Before you even bother to insult us, just look at what your retirement package is going to be and compare to what a younger crew member will be able to achieve by 65!:=

...oohh...you hurt my feelings. :=

As flawed as it may be, would I be correct in assuming that those who advocate RA65 wouldn't mind resigning at 55 and rejoining at the bottom of the seniority list as S/O's? If their contention is that they don't see any harm in increasing the RA, lets put them in the position where they may see differently!