Thank you
 

Thank you to all those who did the right thing.

Fight's On

Right, so everyone's been talking the talk, lets see if your all prepared to walk the walk.
:ooh::ooh:

It's a classic tale of "gullible's travels", yet another pay rise missed due to living in fairy land.

My prediction of the future:

Company offers 2% increase, not back dated and starts D&G proceedings on all those naughty Airbus SO' s who were doing illegal sick outs.

Let the fun begin, interesting how we never learn from past mistakes

The company couldn't get a 4% payrise over the line, and you reckon a 2% payrise, non-backdated, will do it?

..... and given the company's inability to attract sufficient new joiner S/O's (by their own admission), you really think they're about to go to town on the ones they have?

Settle VS.

We're being inundated with new joiners. 3 numbers added to the seniority list in 3 months. Outstanding job by the recruitment (and retention) department.

Good point Progress; outstanding effort that!

Only about 348 numbers short for this year, not to mention the 100 - person shortfall for last year :}

CX won't be short when they unilaterally institute 3 man ULH to Europe, 2 man to Aus, along with our meager % pay raise and HKPA increase without back dating. Followed by a sick management program and a healthy dose of intimidation and defensive rostering. And they won't have to waste time negotiating anymore....we solved all their problems for them.

Whats happening with the RP's?

I hear that the numbers don't add up if the company want 3 man Europe.

Wow the conspiracy theories are flying----

They cannot send 2 crew to Aus where there is currently 3. I'd love them to try that with us on the base subject to EBA discussions and good faith etc.....

Bring it on.....

Okay I'm very happy accept the majority decision and go straight into contract compliance we certainly don't need another vote. We should have done this months ago.
As for 3 man to UK it's very restrictive on the company One pilot goes sick they can't get another with min rest as they can at the moment .All crew will require 2 nights rest if I read the FTLs correctly

Defensive rostering Yup but they are seriously short of crew so they are going to end up paying a lot more for all the reserve we will be doing

Screw it, now the vote has been taken we need to stick together, wish it hadn't been so close

Kenfoggo something above 20% would be acceptable , 4% is not

MY increase??? Seriously??

Yeah, spoken like a true spineless, self-centered whining baby. Do you need a tissue? Time to man up and think about someone other than yourself. I'll bet that you're a G-day hero, as well!

So how many of the 49% yes voters will now vote in favour of CC? The company already knows we we're divided, now they have seen it in action... But clearly almost half the group thought this was good enough. Can that half now be relied on to take the next step into CC? And if not, does 51% of the AOA (which is of course we all know is much less then 51% of the entire pilot group) get the message across in CC while a potential majority is just doing the job (and probably working G days) as per the usual.

What does the company do next? One of two things in my opinion:

1. Offer "just" enough more to convince 30 more pilots to change their vote.
(5/4/4%??? 2500 HKPA?)

2. Present another offer that is "just" enough less to scare 30 more pilots into changing their vote before they come after expat housing and 3 man long haul?

Either way we are screwed. Probably 70% NO would have been needed to deliver a strong message. 51% yes probably would have been better. At least then we could have moved on to other issues. But now I fear the company will see a chance to devour a divided group.

Jeezuz people, grow a pair! Some of you really need to ask yourselves whether you want to work for an employer that instills fear into you? The offer was sh*t, we said no thanks, the bogey man isn't going to jump out of the closet now, FFS! :mad:

Tres;
A couple more options for them:
1. Do nothing.....their SOP is procrastination. They can simply move on the RP and Housing. Come back to Salary later - say 12 months from now.
2. Impose a salary increase. This does not need to be agreed upon; it is an improvement in COS.
What are we gonna do? A thousand guys go into CC for 10 weeks? I'm sure they're shaking in their boots.
Swire has been doing this a long time and our GC has been on the job a couple weeks.
Who do you think is more prepared?

Well Kenfoggo - do you think that CX is being

" Honourable and acceptable " in there behaviour.

And the AOA is not.

As it took 9 months for CX come up with this offer and it was at the last
moment ! ( With conditions). Really others got 4.5% last year for Nought!

The GC were bound , as it was a offer from the company
to put it to the troops.

Of course the, lazy non thinking voters were going to vote Yes.
There was a BS condition that the GC ratified the offer.

You are not the anti Christ just for voting NO.

Well done to the SO's and junior crew who had their thinking caps on:ok:

Stand up for your rights!

Turkeys voting for Christmas.

Let me get this straight. If the vote was accepted, US and Kiwis would resign from the AOA. If the vote failed, part of the 49% would resign from the AOA.

So basically, a significant number of our pilots are little children that will take their ball and go home if they can't win the game. How proud I am to be a part of this team.

Finally we show some balls & tell the company exactly what we all thought when the offer was first announced. It's the likes of you "ken" that are happy to bend over & take what amounts to another CX pinapple. " Your" pay rise got exactly what it deserved. To answer your question 8,4,4 would have been acceptable.

Exactly.

The current offer on the table is 0/0/0.
I'd be surprised if the 49ers aren't going to fight to improve that.

And by the way, where have all you YES voters been hiding the past month? Maybe had you had the courage to be more pro-active pushing what you saw as the benefits of this unilaterally conceived deal you could have got a few more votes and got it over the line.
The NO campaign seemed to be more organized even without the help of the GC.

Behind the AoA in every respect.
I doubt it's in the companies interest to do zero with Christmas and CNY up the road....

[QUOTE]Behind the AoA in every respect.
I doubt it's in the companies interest to do zero with Christmas and CNY up the road..../QUOTE]

And come February, we will still be saying…we missed an opportunity :ugh:

With Communism coming down on HK, and civil unrest in the city, I doubt that 15/6/6 percent over three years would even be enough to keep many expats around too much longer. Surely the company knows this, so agreeing to 6/5/5 will be easy for them. After all, all they needed was an extra 4% of the vote.

What rubbish you write..........

Some people shouldn't be allowed out alone....

I'm ok with accepting an immediate 9% raise for last year and this year, and start negotiating for next year starting now. Then, we can see the companies P and L for this year, have professional accountants break down everything from how our assets are valued (mark to market), to whether all aircraft leases are legit and not grossly benefitting another party (I.e. Swire, CY Leung, directors, air china), and reconcile the results. We can also have our new AOA lawyers in charge of negotiations show up and whip things into motion.

Had they removed the housing component the pay rise would have passed. Any new agreement needs to address pay and housing separately.

Hear, Hear....!!!! :D

And now both negotiating teams are left with egg on there faces , with the chief responsibility for this mess being the company for taking the nickel and diming one step too far ......
they have clearly reaped what they sowed

They should have imposed 4.5%, just as the rest of the company had it imposed.

Try 'their behaviour', 'company's interest' and 'their faces'. My kids do better in primary school.

We are a group of people insufficiently educated to spell correctly in our native language, what hope is THERE that we can negotiate or cajole anything more from this company? The board must be laughing THEIR heads off at us as I'm sure they have been for years.

Talking about being granted a pay rise that protects us against inflation. Which salary/wage earners in the world have been so protected for a generation or more? Why would CX pay us a higher rate when hardly anybody is resigning? Surely this is what matters to them. Not negotiations with the AOA.

Why aren't they (we) resigning?
Because we are already getting the best deal we can.

I stand to be corrected because I don't know how many people are resigning. But anecdotically, it doesn't seem like many. Certainly not enough to worry CX.

But assuming I'm correct, why should protection against inflation be the goal? It's unobtainable. Take the money THEY'RE offering I say and if it's not enough go and take the better job which I'm sure everyone has waiting for them.

It's not about market forces (i.e.. people leaving) at this stage, Bengaluru. That is a separate issue.

It is now about the cost/benefit analysis of paying us more versus paying us what we currently get.

As someone pointed out on a similar thread, it actually won't take much by way of an agreeable, inflation-matched pay rise to change the working habits and productivity of the pilot workforce.

Sickness rates will fall, goodwill will start to return. The cost reduction in achieving so, will be far greater than a few percent here and there.

Being as smart as you imply, I find it odd that you don't realise this.

To answer your question regarding inflation protection;

The entire company, except pilots and flight attendants have received unilaterally imposed, inflation matching pay rises on the first of Jan each year, for as long as I have been here.

Bangaluru....
You joined this forum in Sept 2014 and this is your second post which is more a anti-pilot diatribe than it is a positive contribution. Hmmmmm.

I suspect you're not even a pilot but a middle manager with a chip on your shoulder.

Regards your last para....be careful what you wish for.

Although I like to think that piloting is highly professional, I am taking a more realistic view that pilots are just highly trained factory workers. As with all factory workers, it will get replaced by automation, and eager young people from China, India, and all corners of the world. What is a higher trained job today, will become readily replaceable factors of production of tomorrow. Management knows this.

So the question is, do you hold out for a better offer, or do you take all the short term gains now? The caveat being the longer you hold out, the more time you giving to the company to find a replacement for you that will work for less. There are no better offers out there. CX is a the best gig going around. What's to come is a just race towards the bottom.

Wow, etopsmonkey... you must be one of those 'glass half full' kind of people.
Why don't we all just wrap our lips around the car exhaust, it's just no use.

etopsmonkey,

Please read the report on the CX 780 incident, and get back to us with what you think the result would be if there were a couple of factory workers in the cockpit?

I'm looking forward to your reply.

CX will get the workers they are willing to pay for. Are they going to settle for "factory workers"? Those are the only ones that will join under the current conditions.

RE: half-full / half-empty
It is not about seeing half-full or half-empty. Only just seeing the obvious market forces at work. No one (individual company, or employee group) can do anything to alter the path. It is an industry wide thing that what was once highly skilled would become "commoditize". If lots of people possess the same skills you have, then you are not highly skilled anymore. As with all commodity, the price is the same across the industry. Just the trend of the industry.

RE: CX780
So what questions were you asked during your hiring interview that can a predict a successful outcome in a untrained-for situation? What answer did you give that differentiate you from others? By your reasoning, all CX pilots have gone through a rigorous recruitment process, and so should have such a great level of skills and creative thinking, such that all CX pilots will have the same successful outcome in 780 situation? Lots future flyers applicants will have similar skills and experiences ON PAPER, how to look for those with exceptional out-of-the-box thinking? Point is that when company does hiring, it looks for a specific level of skills/experience (on paper) for the price offered .... gets back to my previous point of being a commodity. It will not give a premium to exceptional thinking (and how to test for out-of-the-box thinking anyway?). Safety is NOT the first thing on the minds of the executive management team. Their first priority is making the most profit for the company, and getting the most bonus for themselves in the process. Having good safety is just a tool to accomplish their first task.

marine news
 

Schettino lawyer in a conference with the media yesterday said:
You get a helmsman from Sorrento you have to pay him 5000 Euros
one from Bali will cost the company only 1000….


http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel...-1226725604906

etopsmonkey
 

I don't disagree with the general idea of what you wrote, I must say.

That's not the topic of discussion, however. Right now, the company needs to attract vast numbers of pilots in the next few years. It also needs to keep the show on the road in the meantime.

Regarding the latter, it appears that goodwill is currently necessary for that to happen. If it doesn't happen, that is a very costly situation for the company. If that weren't the case, the company would simply refuse to negotiate from the outset.

Deliberately employing a lean workforce is a balancing act. It can work very well for both sides or it can be a disaster. Southwest being a good example of the gains available for both sides, in a lean operation.

If one wishes to employ a lean workforce, one has to realise that you are at the mercy of the 'over compliant' workforce continuing go the extra mile and to be willing to work harder. At this stage, whilst I am not unhappy here, I believe that morale is utterly broken at this place, and engagement levels & the willingness to help out are just not there to the extent needed to man a lean operation. CX could have made the choice to heavily over-man, like the US legacy carriers. They may need to raise the conditions in order to attract the numbers needed, but they would have far greater control over operational outcomes in the event of contract compliance, etc.. They have made their choice, and this (finding the lower limits of what keeps the rails on track) is a natural part of that cycle.

Market forces will dictate any external issues such as hiring/resignations, and this is, to me, a separate issue at this juncture.

CX do not have to raise the conditions AT ALL McNugget. You of all people are evidence of this. By disgracefully lowering to C-Scale those with experience and credentials walked away. Those with the new minimum experience (zero hours), or without the experience to be competitive previously now applied in their tens of thousands: worldwide, like yourself.

Market Forces? Come on, stop kidding yourself. Like yourself, there are always those willing to do it for less and scream and kick and debate their right to have willingly and proudly contributed to the downturn.

"I had to". "It was all that was available to me at the time". Rubbish. Utter rubbish. It was a choice.

You contributed to this rape of pilot terms & conditions and now seek a high horse and platform, let alone offer advice and direction? You have no credibility on this topic.

ChinaBeached,

I've just sat down and read your post. It made me think for a while and try and write a constructive reply but i couldn't get past this one…..

You are an absolute plonker!