Unfortunately I have to agree with green dragon.
Most CX pilots (at least the ones who scream the loudest) never actually worked for a real airline besides CX. They flew in the military or some outback outfit.
Time for a reality check, don't you think?

CX pilots will never leave CX no matter how bad they claimed they were treated badly by the company. I bet my money on the company this time.

I have to disagree, yes there are various backgrounds at cx.... For someone who has worked with pervious airlines cx is not all great and glory, yes maybe 20 years ago but there is no free travel, i spend 20 percent of my salaary just for a trip home is business. Housing; mediocre at best, living in a 500sqft box, couldnt do it with a family no way.....

Most of the guys either have wives working a job or are single. No way in heck could i have a family on the cx current pay. And yes those with db boats got them long ago; the list is years just to get a dock.

As usual, the reality is far different than the myth. Most CX pilots are struggling just to raise a family and pay the bills. There is NO exceptional benefit to being in HK or working for this airline. A position with a legitimate carrier in ones home country is certainly a better future. Well done CX management.

The management trolls are busy in this thread!

What a load of utter bollox, ikemankk2001!
They are leaving, and in ever increasing numbers! Check the last five years of seniority lists if you are in doubt. CX is "loosing" approximately TWICE as many pilots as their own retirement figures state. For an airline which traditionally never had to worry about training costs, to have fully qualified and experienced pilots (and checkers) walking out the door well before retirement age is an unmitigated disaster. And not a damned thing is being done to retain these valuable-beyond-belief people.

Well, when you are SHORT over 300, 50 doesn't exactly help matters does it? I would say that is just the start. Mate trains, just did so for a RAF fellow, who already has a date with BA, just not mentioning it to CX yet. There are probably 100-200 actively looking for other employment. With the continuing surge of hiring worldwide, that will start to suck up that available CX pool of pilots pretty quickly. Sit back, keep doing your 'job' (cc) and get the popcorn ready.

It is when you expected to lose 19. And half of those 50 were FOs and SO leaving for other airlines. Can we afford to become a training airline?



Other employers - world wide, not just airlines - are bending over backwards with part-time work and other tricks to keep their people from leaving, while Cathay (almost actively) encourages guys to depart.

"I need/want 2 months unpaid leave, please"
"Sorry, cannot"
"Okay, here is my resignation letter, bye!"

A friend of my wife's works as a rostering manager in our local hospital. She reckons there are fewer than 10 full-time nurses (out of about 300). The rest all work 0.8, 0.6, 0.4 shifts. They need more, but can't get them, so they offer work sharing in order to keep the ones they have.

4wire,

Don't be silly. Part time and flexible work schedules are 21st century concepts. CX is at least two centuries back.

A little birdie told me that the post 31 May COS removed the discretion to turn down training, 8929 on steroids, in return for 10% pay rise and substantially increased HKPA. RA65 also offered to all but at a cost.

but we get to keep the really crappy staff travel, crew meals, rostering, hotels, profit share, Quality health.... what have I left out?

Nice one iPad... sounds like numpty management desperately casting round for ideas to get themselves out of the hole they are continuing to dig...

Also hearing a similar tune that AT has finally caved on everything but rostering. Well see how the meetings go.

It has always amazed me that high-falutin' university bizness grads never learned the childhood lesson of what happens when you push on a water balloon. When you push, something else pops up somewhere else. And if you push everywhere too hard at once it breaks (and now you gotta go get another balloon and fill it up with the water going everywhere).

Or that carrots usually work better than sticks for creatures with an IQ over 10. Especially if the creature isn't really afraid, has kinda gotten used to the stick, and really doesn't care anymore. Even with lesser critters. If you keep beating the cat over silly stuff it runs and hides where you can't get to it once you walk into the room (and if you try too hard to drag it out you get scratched, bitten and furry). But if you bring out the food, even the click of the can opening can get it where you want it.

Things go much better when people WANT to go the extra mile to help out and WANT to help the team succeed. This is a two way street.

There is a great deal of sad truth in this statement. Once I saw senior captains adopting this attitude, I knew there was a serious problem. CX managers pushed too far and do not have SARS to save them. Making threats about deadlines certainly wasn't the way to go.

Here's the funny thing about 'threats': The real danger is to the one issuing it. For me, all it did was stiffen my resolve to commit even further and stronger to CC. When the date comes, what can CX do? If they do something 'draconian', then they have effectively destroyed what little good will and co-operation that was still possible. Even more of us will make plans to leave. Certainly none of us will give two pennies worth of care to anything further that they say or want. They issued the date with the implied threat, not me. I will simply react to whatever it is they want to do. The real risk is to what little ability they have remaining to manage a sustainable operation. Try the 'stick', and you will see a seething rebellion the likes of which they will be discussing at business schools for decades to come. None of us really care any more. I've been threatened, abused and treated with contempt for 20 years. I find it comical that they think the way out of this mess is with yet another threat. Brilliant managers, every one of them. :hmm:

Willie the Wimp
 

You are correct - 50 is not a big number. But 50 out of 3000 pilots means over 1.5% less flying was possible(since all crews are either hour limited or days off limited) - and 1.5% of $100Billion is $1.5Billion.

We still have the same planes - just flying them 1.5% less - so 1.5% less revenue. Fixed costs remain the same - variable costs amount to about 40% - so that means losing those 50 extra pilots cost the airline a billion in 'opportunity cost'. That is actually lost revenue minus reduced variable costs. Unfortunately we can only reduce the variable costs by the marginal(spot) price of fuel not the hedged rate as the hedged stuff gets used first.

Now if the training machine is running at max chat - and let's just pretend it is for say 2-3 years - that is 2-3 years in a row that losing that 50 pilots CANNOT be recovered. So now we are up to $2.7Billion in cost(3 years).

If we lose 50 extra every year for 3 years - well, you can see the costs mounting up. For the year 2 loss of 50 pilots add another $1.8B, for year 3 add 0.9B. So for just that 3 years, a loss of $5.4B - for 'only' 50 extra pilots leaving per year!


So I guess we are like a fleet of a hundred spare Spitfires during the battle of Britain only missing 1.5% of their parts - just 100 propellers! Apart from that, they are good to go. Accountants see a 98.5% equipped fleet of fighters - the real world sees 100 grounded aircraft!

NC. Take a step back. Does your simplistic maths really make sense?

iPad. Simplistic (or not) it does.