Pilots Auditorium Boycott
 

RH has invited to another auditorium next week.

After all what happened the last few weeks, I think it is time to send a clear signal that the DFO and his GMA have finally lost the trust and respect of the pilot body.

I respectfully ask you not to attend.

100% AGREE. Enough of hearing of financials, doom and gloom, etc. Why not teach us something about their mark to marketing practices and how they manage to get out of paying us our 13th month this year. Sorry, but some of us have lives to live that don't involve the day to day details of an airline, we are simply the pilots that study our procedures to ensure the safe conduct of our operation, we are not shareholders, nor do we have an interest in the details as though we were. We are wage earners, concerned with our conditions of employment, not RH's 2-year commitment to ensure a lifetime of fixed salary after his 24 months are up. Of course he is energetic to dance with words. Us pilots have fatigue, family, fitness, health, and financial issues that are of more concern than the price of gas or cup noodles.

Or better still front up & ask him what has HE given up to help the company in its dire need? Has he suffered a pay increase or decrease in the "bad times"? Has his career stagnated at the revised retirement age? Was C-Scale not his baby & as such how's it working out for him personally & financially? A dramatic reduction in recruitment, standards, experience & (new) pilot remuneration under your watch - deliberately so? So a new CX pilot's career is worth so much less than yours (you arrogant ba$tard)? More bonuses Dicky Boy? CX's reputation as the recruitment standards of excellent still alive under your watch? What of fuel hedging? Price fixing? Your bonuses at times of loss? 25 year housing as trade off for CoS08 & SLS? 49ers? Proud are we?

How have YOU chipped in Dick? How do you sleep at night?

Any HKG based pilot doing one of these on his/her day off needs to have their head examined! Go see Dr. ML in aviation medical. She will give you some time off to address your condition.

I have never been to one of these before, not because of a boycott or anything like that, but because I have always had something better to do (and I don't mean that in a particularly negative way against not going).

But I am intrigued as to the make-up of the attendees. Is the audience of pilots a broad range? Are they brown-nose pilots looking for a management role in the near-future? Are the auditoriums full to a point where people need to stand at the back? Are most of the pilots there just to ask specific questions to give management a hard time vis-a-vis pprune type complaints.

Just interested really. I actually have no excuse for not going this time so I guess what I'm asking for from the less synical members here is it worth my time?

Attendance mainly management lickspittles and a few bored based pilots from the Headland Hotel.

Shouldnt the pilot group do the opposite, every pilot that is in HK and not working should turn up in protest, jam pack the place. have so many pilots on the street that normal business stops and the rest of the staff have to stop and take notice... let our grievences be heard. what would he do when 1000 pilots start asking him questions like, why have you not responed to AOA letters requesting talks, why have you not fulfilled your parts of the SLS08 deal...... im sure with todays technology it would get to the press faster than you could say goodby DFO..

Following on from Flyingkiwi
 

I have some questions that I wish to see John Slosar answer. I won't ask them however because I am lacking in the gonad department and also I know what answer I will get. To short-circuit the system I will both ask and answer the questions

"Mr Slosar, you arrived to us from Swire Bottlers and you introduced yourself with a confident, relaxed style of Leadership with a shallow gradient of communication aimed at promoting a two-way flow. You will be aware that over half the pilot force is currently Based and the company is currently conducting a wholistic review of Bases. We have already seen two EU bases close and the pilot body is concerned the Review could result in further Base Closure, with the consequent and dramatic impact on the Based Pilots and their families.

Question: The company has chosen to not involve the AOA in the Base Review process. Given the gravity of the potential impact on the pilots, is this consistent with your aim of promoting two-way communication?

Fluff answer: The Base Review is currently underway and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment. Whilst I hope there will not be further Base Closures, we will communicate fully with the Pilot Body as to the results of the Base Review and work with them to minimize any undue impact upon the Pilot Body.

"The arguments in favour of Bases are well known and promoted by the Pilot Body. The operational benefit of Bases is well known and promoted by Rostering. What is not known are your personal views of the benefit of Bases as they relate to,

1. The Company's bottom line, and
2. The Company's ability to recruit and retain pilots.

Question: Rumours abound that you wish to bring all pilots back to HK, what are your views on Bases?

Fluff Answer: Beware of listening to Rumours. I have an open mind and shall wait for the result of the Basing Review before forming an opinion.

Basings review
 

Heard on the street the basings review is complete, but not being released as it is for management eyes only............

Some more Q&As
 

Mr Slosar, you have published a set of standards defining how we conduct business, particularly the respect we show to our fellow employees. The 40 pilots on the Paris Base were given just 80 days notice to pack-up their lives and move to HK. Whilst not wishing to denegrate the hardship to any one individual, you should be aware that for some, particularly the solo parents, they now find themselves in a very difficult, if not impossible, position. No doubt you will answer the company has offered assistance to the affected pilots.

Question: Does telling an employee, particularly a solo parent, that they have just 80 days to relocate to the other side of the world meet the standards you set when taking over as CEO? Given the considerable resources available to CX, is offering a solo parent unpaid leave really an appropriate way of mitigating such a dramatic change to their lives?

Fluff answer: It would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases and I know the GMA is working closely with the affected Officers. I know the GMA joins with me in exressing sympathy and concern for the affected Officers. I am confident in the GMAs ability to meet the required standards of support which extend beyond unpaid leave.

Follow -up Question: When the Amsterdam Base closed, talks were held with the AOA and resultant of those talks, affected Officers were offered bases in other EU ports, notably London. What are your objections to offering the Paris Officers Bases, even Temp Bases, in London until either the Base Review is complete or the affected Officers have time to organize their affairs prior to moving to HK?

Fluff answer: As previously stated, I will not speculate on the result of the Base Review process. Regrettably, we cannot offer Temp Bases and the reasons for this Policy have been well publicized.

Liam: this could be said to many people on these pages, I just happen to be saying it after your post. Don't you think it's utterly pointless to spend time having hypothetical arguments between yourself and yourself?

There are many intelligent, motivated people on this forum with excellent powers of expression. Why not take the opportunity to use them. It might not achieve anything but it won't achieve any less than talking anonymously into anonymous cyberspace. If anyone wants to throw around childish comments like 'brown nosers', 'management lickspittles' who doesn't attend, I'd not lose any sleep over not commamding their respect. Anyone who hears you say your piece will know that the above criticisms are not applicable to you anyway. Win, Win.

Unless you are rostered to attend....why even bother to dignify them with your attendance?

Unless you came down with the last shower, you will know that these sessions are not for YOUR benefit.

Do you really think anybody outside the pilot group cares about the pilots?
(that's a question not a dig)
In this day and age nobody cares about anyone else except themselves.
Should they close the port where I am will anybody care, nope, and the way things are going that may well happen!

Spanners,

Do you mean close the Port as in "CX won't fly there anymore" or close the Port as in "engineering will be undertaken by another agency"?

White None,

Fair comment, however what else do you do stuck down route and sick of infomercials. Talking to yourself starts to seem attractive!

And for those who PM'd with ideas for other questions,...... Interesting stuff....

There all the same, take a cut in pay and conditions:mad: to keep your job,whilst they keep their bonuses

Great idea, instead of asking pointed questions such as Liam suggests to our leaders, let's boycott and bitch and moan on prune.
Imbeciles.

This one. :sad:

Blogsey, if you think you will get an honest answer to your "pointed question", who is the imbecile?

It wasn't a question!

I'm sorry, you're right. We'll achieve a lot more here on PPRUNE.
My sincere apologies.

More Questions
 

Mr Slosar, you have been employed by Swire since 1980. Swire is a major Shareholder of Cathay. Over the past 32 years you have risen up the ranks of Swire and now find yourself CEO of The Cathay Pacific Group. No doubt, you will continue to rise up the Swire leadership ladder, which may or may include senior Leadership roles in Cathay.

Question: When you are making a strategic business decision, which group of shareholders do you consider foremost, Swire or Cathay?

Fluff Answer: I do what is best for the Cathay Paciifc Group, as this is also what is best for the Shareholders, whether that is Swire, Air China or the very many "Mom and Pa" investors from HK

Follow-up question. You recently published interim results which recorded Group losses of just under $HK 1bn. You primarily cited rising fuel costs. However, examination of the Interim Results show Total Fuel Expenditure rose in line with Turnover and Staff Costs at around 9%. However, the standout rise was Aircraft Maintanence Costs which rose 24%. Numerically, that rise was just under $HK 1Bn, being essentially the interim loss. HAECO, in which your employer Swire, is the major shareholder and holds exclusive Management Responsibilities, received the bulk of that increased expenditure. Resultant of the loss, no interim dividend was paid and the payment of 13th month to HK must now be in doubt. Have any of the non-Swire shareholders or HK Staff expressed disquiet as to the abnormally large charge for Aircraft Maintainence?

Fluff Answer: Firstly, it is far to early to be discussing the payment of 13th month. Traditionally we see a rise in profitability in the second half year, although I do not wish to raise hopes because as your question rightly states, Fuel Prices are remaining stubbornly high. As for the rise in Aircraft Maintainance charges, that was fully and previously explained as being due to increase in maintainance and some additional costs on the aging 744 Freighters.

Further follow-up Question. Examination of the recent Swire Pacific Interim report shows the Cathay Pacific's Loss attributable to the Swire Shareholders was HK$421m, which was nearly offset by the HAECO profit of $HK361m. It must be very heartening that Swires can record a near neutral result for their Aviation Interests in such challenging conditions? It must also be heartening that Swires were able to declare an Interim Dividend?

Fluff Answer: I am not CEO for Swires so cannot comment. However, Swires are a multi- national company diversified beyond Aviation and it is therefore unsurprising they gave a Dividend on an occasion that Cathay did not.

Cadet Instructors
 

Mr Slosar, during your first Pilot Auditorim you fielded some pointed questions regarding Cadet Instructors. This issue has yet to be resolved. Some years ago the incumbent DFO wrote to the pilot body highlighting the difficulties FTA was having in both recruiting and retaining Instructors and how this shortage was having a very negative impact upon the supply of Cadets to CX. To solve this problem, the incumbent DFO said that in return for a period of time served as an Instructor at Adelaide, the Cadet Instructors would receive ex-pats terms for the remainder of their CX careers. Given that the majority of the Cadet Instructors are/were in their early 20's, the dollar cost of this solution represented a very significant sum, perhaps in the order of $HK1bn over the career of these young pilots.

Questions.

1. Putting aside all the various legal issues and focussing on the Cadet Instructors as a business decision, do you think the problem of the shortage of Instructors at FTA could have been solved by other, more cost effective means, perhaps a modest increase in the fees paid to FTA to enable them to recruit and retain Instructors?

2. Given the large sums of money involved, does it concern you that such a large number of the Cadet Instructors are sons of Senior Cathay Training Captains?


Fluff Answers:

1. I am sure the DFO of the day looked at the problem and took a course of action he believed to be the best. I do not have all the facts in front of me and do not propose to "Monday Morning Quarter-back" his decision.

2. No it does not concern me as well under half of the Cadet Instructors are sons of Cathay Pilots.

BF,

Agreed...what a disgrace...but since they are paying I might have to stop by for a beer "on the house"...

That beer is cheap access to your ears and mind.

Is RH the ex ops director at bmi?