G day workers
 

We still have people giving up Joker GDOs to go flying . Seriously what hope is there of Contract Compliance being totally effective whilst our own ranks sabotage us

Are they hkaoa members? If so, contact the union and ask that they contact the individual with a reminder of what is at stake.

It coulda been a swap, but if not, then reminders may be the order of the day.

Here we are, 11 months later, and still no C C campaign. :rolleyes:

All has gone very quiet from the ranks of the HKAOA GC. Are we waiting for another 11th hour, final FINAL (not so Good Faith) deal, or are we flogging a dead horse here?

I find it astonishing, truly remarkable, that a whole group of professionals ( well, 51 % at least) is willing to accept an argument without ANY proof, without any hard data, nothing.

Has anyone of you heroes any real information about how many g days are used to solve crewing problems? Any idea?? What difference would it really make if nobody would use a gday for a duty? Do you think the secretary is right when he talks about the significance of three people resigning? Why? How many could resign before it would be significant? Do you know, for a fact, what difference it would make if we would not be contactable when not required? What about reserve duty instead of a roster?? Do you know any relevant numbers, e.g. average flight hours per pilot, number of guys on reserve, etc etc? How many freighters could be operated by other carriers? Are they cheaper or more expensive than our own ops? Why? Do you really think the current crewing numbers are insufficient?How do our crewing levels compare to other airlines? How many do we need? Or is the current level the result of misplanning? Why? Any hard facts to back this up? Is there a causal relationship between total crew numbers and our pay deal?? Why? How many are missing, on which fleet?? Do you think overtime is bad for the company? How many flights are delayed/cancelled because lack of crew? How much is that in $? Do you think one ore two flights delayed for 10 hours makes a difference? How much does it cost? How much does it cost to have more crew? Do you think crew numbers are what they are because of crew planning or a result of our terms and conditions? Would it be difficult for CX to increase/decrease crew numbers? Why? Why not? How many trainers have we? Is that enough? Do you think because trainers say they work too hard/too much this reflects the actual facts? Do we really need more trainers? And if we would need more trainers, would it be so difficult to produce more? Do you think the amount of trainers is a result of misplanning/ because there are not enough capable/qualified people in Cathay? Could it be that there are actually enough trainers? If not, how many are missing?? On which fleet? How many crews could be trained outside if necessary? Would that be cheaper or more expansive? What are the savings on the other side of the balance sheet? How much more does it cost to have 10 % less trainers versus X numbers of upgrades less? What is the difference?

Why do you care so much about crewing levels in general ( with a contract that honours overtime) ? Do you see a correlation between crewing levels and your pay? If so, how?

I see a group acting purely emotional, driven by rumors and opinions, blaming the invisible other guy for being responsible. For the last 10 years some individuals talk about " interesting times", "the wheels are going to fall off", etc etc, but they never do!

I know you will now fall over me, call me names, etc. But I bet my red lanyard, nobody of you is able to come up with evidence.

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
I will get back to you on that one
Yes
Yes
No
Good point...not sure
No
No
All of the above

HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE LEFT?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Clearly not on the Airbus!!!
No

Dan, my sincerest apologies. I didn't know that your roster shows a missing crew member next week. Of course that changes everything.You win.

Sam Ting,

Spot on.

Anyone else bored with hearing this as a battle cry? The implication by the accuser ( not just you Dan ) is that the accused MUST - CLEARLY be in agreement, (I mean there's only one viewpoint right? - Yours), but for reasons of pure lily-livered cowardice is taking the opposite stance.

Ever thought that your colleague may have made a carefully considered cost/benefit analysis, trying to cut out the emotion because, ITS A JOB! in order to come to his opinion? Thought not....

What are you complaining about STW?

You got awarded the paycut you wanted so badly. Or should I say shoved down your throat?

As long as you don't answer the phone when you're asked not to...

STW, valid argument but don't we receive the same mindset from our supposedly learned managers upstairs? Cost index lowered to reduce fuel burn yet there hasn't been any data considered for the entire equation relating to the additional crew EFP inherent with flying more slowly, additional engine and airframe time etc. Just fuel. Just so that some 'manager' can boast about his personal cost saving measure.

Back on thread

A TC was for second time called on leave and he dropped everything to come do the empires bidding.

Off leave! Again!

Would have thought our Canadian friends would know better.
But to do it twice! What a ****

monster,

can you tell me how many g days per month are transformed into duty days by "g day workers" ??

If you cannot answer this question it is impossible to know the impact of CC. It means you chose to start a war without knowing your own force.

History( and about half of Shakespeare's dramas) should tell you how that can end.

To put it into perspective: if the average pilot in CX works on 15 days per month, there are about 45 000 ( in words: forty-five thousand) regular duty days per month. That means the one case you know represents 0.002 % additional work days.

All I want is to know the facts. No emotions, no fury, no blind attack, just pure facts please.

STW
 

1. My post referred to a captain on the airbus who again, for second time, came OFF LEAVE to operate as a SO

Not G days- L DAYS

2. Regard your mathematical point, there are times when the minute measurable effect of ones actions transcends its measurable quantity and becomes something far more fundamental and game changing.

It's not all about the maths.

It doesn't matter if it was a G day or L day, that's why I used only 15 average duty days per month, hence another 15 G ,L and U days each month. It is a conservative number I think. But feel free to use only 10 duty days per month, then your case would represent 0.003 %.

The point is that we do not know how many of those extra days are being used, and therefore what impact CC would have.

It's only about math (=money). What else???

STW, you want facts.

At a focus night a few months ago, one of the GC gave an exact number of G days utilised in the previous 12 months. This was a factual number from the company in a JRC meeting.

The exact number is a bit foggy in my memory, but it was about 1010 - 1020. I do remember someone using the calculator their phone to divide it by 365, and the answer was 2.8.

That's 2.8 G day workers EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE YEAR, or, 5 every 2 days. Obviously that's an annual average, so during quieter times it will be less per day, and during busier times more.

If those 2 or 3 guys would stop helping out EVERY DAY, then either flights would be cancelled (less likely) or they'd be forced to use reserve coverage and pay EFP to people on reserve (more likely). Either way, it would be an increased burden on resources.

2 or 3 guys out of 2000 (the average number of pilots who might be available to work on any given day)

Wow. That's gonna make a difference.

BC, thanks for engaging with some interesting numbers. I really appreciate it.

So,let's assume 2-3 G's per day.

I agree with the theoretical severe impact of a possible flight cancellation. Whether that would happen in CC is unclear though, as you said.I personally highly doubt it, but I admit I have no proof for that. But neither have you or anybody else.

If it is only about overtime, clearly 2-3 G's a day won't create a cost problem worth mentioning for the company. We are talking 0.00something %...

Anyway,it would be very easy for the company to increase staff numbers by a handful, it probably long happened.

I think we agree that attrition is something that since I can remember only is "about to happen", but actually never does. The actual figures are just too low to make an impact.The Americans don't leave, as the most of of the MAN or CDG guys have eventually remained putt.

I really do not see a logical correlation between pay and staff numbers, it is totally irrelevant to our pay debate!

Much ( and dangerous) ado about nothing.

If you want to fight, fine. But you need more firepower. Unless you come up with some new ideas I am not impressed.

If CC is not going to make any difference then why do you or the company care?

“Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Maybe not so STW, so lets look at some of the other mathematical facts.

The real underlying issue of the matter is the ability to increase staff numbers.

Do you think it is easy for them to recruit qualified applicants with the current package?

There has been a trickle of resignations, admittedly not a flood yet, but let's see what happens in the next 12 - 24 months. A few have resigned in NAM, and at least 2 very senior captains recently in Australia.

Aside from resignations, there's the unfortunate fact that (statistically) a few pilots will lose their medical each year.

And then the biggie - the retirement curve. By extending people to 65, they didn't get rid of the problem, they just deferred it. That happened 5 & 1/2 years ago, so does that mean the problem is in the background for another 4 & 1/2 years? I say likely not, because (once again using historical statistics) most people don't actually go to 65. Most go somewhere around the 60 - 61 mark. So, that wave is possibly about to start.

Add in the fact that the airline is starting an expansion phase. Yes, some of the orders are replacements for -400s & 340s, but the nett result is an expansion. They need to recruit to crew those aircraft plus anyone leaving.

Whether you agree with my figures or not, I'm sure you'll agree there's interesting times ahead.....