Bases are next
 

Just heard a rumour that after the Hong Kong Pilot cost savings are achieved and completed, bases are the next topic on the agenda. As there are barely any cost savings left, too many labor laws to comply with and a cost to administrate the bases, each basing area will be assessed how to achieve a closure of the particular basing area. Some speculate that for North American bases this will coincide with the expiry date of their respective CBA.

Well at least there is a end date to the misery of CX. After the battered pilot syndrome we have endured. A US airline will feel like a day at the beach.
Next thing will be no credit for the rest time on long haul flights. Just like Emirates.
This management is the worst I have ever experienced.
God Speed

And by then the Company's fortunes will have turned. Good luck CX!!!

Well, that'll give everybody based in the USA two years to get a job with an American airline. Shouldn't be too hard, except for the Canadians based in the USA.

That about sums it all up.

We can't compete on UK bases because we have to obey laws we don't like. Funny how BA and Virgin manage.
I imagine Qanatas do quite well with their labour laws too.

Now we can't compete out of HKG because that's too expensive.

Is there something wrong with this picture?

The only picture that is 'wrong' is the one of the grinning idiot on the Friday Flyer each week.

They want it to be cheap to employ cheap pilots in HKG....where there are no first world labor laws to contend with.

That negates the cost benefit arguement of employing pilots on a base.

Bases are done under this scenario.

I guess so.

So whose idea was it?
How did we end up in this situation?
Who were the cystal ball gazers who didn't see this coming?
Was it the "troublesome cabin crew"?
Was it the "greedy pilots"?
Oh hang on a minute.............

Well, I guess they best hope the kiddies don't wise up.

And that the A350 keeps on giving. FWIW Gillette made a fortune by giving away the razor and selling the blades (but they DO make quality shavers for what that's worth too--just a bit on the expensive side).

I keep getting this old black and white movie image of a balding haggard looking bespeckled gent with a temporary girlfriend way out of his league standing over a roulette table and nervously betting the company payroll on "Red."

I call bull**** rumour.
The guys on bases are the expensive guys to have in HKG. There's no $90,000HK rent + school allowance paid to me.....

Will IB Fayed

Well it sounds like ARAPA will be gone pretty soon if you believe AT. Everyone will be getting the same deal HKPA or whatever they will call it.

More likely scenario is that ARAPA is gone as we know it. It'll be replaced by a fancy new name and a lot less $$$. Meanwhile the HKPA team get nothing. Savings from culling ARAPA are for Anna, not you.

[sarcasm] Let 'em close it... I'm gonna be rich from the U.S. lawsuit anyway![sarcasm/]

Correct!!! If you have a military pension, a seniority number at UA, and/or a wife in tall cotton and you're planning to leave soon anyways; then this CA lawsuit might be a nice top-up. For the rest of the US base, it's a career killer unless you're willing to come to HK on HKPA. The plaintiffs will tell you otherwise, but that is nothing more than their guilt talking.

Management is the career killer, not a lawsuit.

Don't forget how many times CX has broken laws to go the cheap/greedy route.

They are rotten to the core.

So if I walk up to a tiger and poke it in the eye with stick, is it the tiger's fault I got mauled. CX is what it is. As you say, "rotten to the core."

Poking a tiger with a stick is just retarded and you deserve to be mauled. The tiger is a animal and is doing what is natural for it. It's protecting itself from harm from a idiot who pokes it.
Those who standup to abuse and reckless disregard for the law are not poking a tiger. They are hunting it. Big difference.

So show me how the US base ends up winning from this... Some guys get paid and a few ride off into the sunset. What about the rest??? Base closure? HK? Career FOs? Guys stuck on bases on opposite coasts?

We may win the battle, but we will lose the war.

Yea, the bases were growing like weeds prior to the lawsuits. <------- that is sarcasm


Another major blunder by CX.

This lot couldn't get f####d in a wh##e house.

Your making a rather large assumption regarding bases. The US bases have been under staffed by hundreds of pilots long befor any lawsuit. When the first pilot showed up willing to take HKPA. The bases were doomed.
Anyone who belives different is not reading the tea leaves correctly. I will give a example of why I am correct. The Canadian bases are all understaffed. Yet, no vacancies. If I deduct all the reason why not as unsuitable answers. The only answer left is.... they don't want anymore pilots on bases. My mind is open to any logical argument disputing my theory.
Remember there are a hell of a lot of pilots working under first world labor laws. There companies appear to be successful and thriving. Any reason CX puts fourth other than, we don't want pilots on bases any longer, is a lie.
Standing by to be disputed.

Open mind? There was a base bid open in the US at the end of last year. Why would they do that if the intention is for bases to wither on the vine. Why negotiate a JFK LOU?

LOL ya got that right.

They'd get right up to the point they had to pay the hooker.

Then try to figure out a way to stiff her (and in a bad way) at the last minute and in comes the bouncer and out the door.

As far as whatever LOU, why NOT agree one which allows productivity averaging (albeit staked to calendar month and not rolling so there was protections all around there) and which is productivity and revenue neutral ? And has a sunset date. Don't cost nothing (it had no commitment factors) and has the added effect of stringing a few dupes looking for a glimmer of hope along for another year. How many times has Lucy yanked the football ? How many "wait till next year" has there been. How many if only's have we gotten over the years ? Just a few onesies and twosies to keep the hook set. But they could've gone large for years. And I've never seen anything resembling a genuine 'going large' commitment to a NY (or any other) base (and will scoff at anyone who claims they have).

Now, they very much COULD save money going large tomorrow. And carriers who operate on the bases are doing quite well and don't seem to have many problems dealing with the sandbox they are in.

But they're betting big on hiring cheap in HKG and retaining the illusion of control--as well as being able to impose whatever they want (and perhaps having to pay somewhat more for this). To be honest I wouldn't want to take that bet--but then again I guess they do have an 'out' (provided most of their core experience doesn't leave--and if the newbies can be strung along just enough to become entrenched before they've become marketable or find greener pastures elsewhere) doing what they have done and keeping a skeleton crew (and presence and framework) on the bases. If it fails, go large (and perhaps hire) on the bases. If it doesn't, leave them where they're at. Hard to accept, but just because a situation is hard to accept doesn't mean it's not true.

The JFK LOU is dead. There is not intention from CX to renegotiate the LOU or open up a New York base in the near future.

I believe this to be true, but I would like to be wrong. Despite making all the financial sense in the world, CX is padlocked on HK and reducing costs there. Why? Because they aren't very good at managing. They are betting on a win-lose when there are win-wins available.

Yup. And you gotta remember it's not a straight ineptitude thing; they've been advised of (and sometimes even pleaded with) a multitude of win-wins. More like a willful ineptitude type of thing. There is forethought behind the rejection of the win-wins.

So it's impossible to take with any degree of credibility any tales of financial woe when they deliberately cause their own woe.

And you are right; there are very many win-wins available. With the bed they've made for themselves perhaps they will get a win-lose; perhaps it'll be a lose-lose.

Most probably it will be lose-lose if their track record is to be maintained. Hence my statement, they are bad at management. They consistently choose lose-lose over win-win. They are, in FACT, awful at their jobs. At some point, the finger has to be pointed at Swire, not Swire Pacific, but Swire U.K.!!!

They added what 4 new guys to the bases. The rest were just transfers.
As far as a letter. Not worth the paper it was written on. Have you ever heard the expression, talk is cheap? I want action. CX has had plenty of time for action. Besides the US bases are understaffed by a 100+ guys. So what they did was shut people up for a few months.
Again why would they not open Canadian bases. Same understaff issues. THEY DO NOT WANT BASES!!

"THEY DO NOT WANT BASES!!"

Write it in all capitals a few more times and then it will be true. Is that how it works?

Truth is we don't actually know what they want. The TB and CC have made their intentions very difficult to determine.

While I was initially angered by what is a completely frivolous lawsuit, this company has managed to stoke my contempt to the point that I'm reconsidering my convictions. Bring them to their knees. I have no f*cks left to give to them and have given up on any expectation of a career.

The amazing thing to me is that ANYONE here still thinks they have a 'career'. This company has no respect or regards for you, your family or your skills. They intend to use you to the maximum productivity they can force, at the lowest possible cost. Think of the boiling frog analogy and you will be about right. They are the most immoral, cynical and dishonest group I have ever had the displeasure to deal with in my life. They should be ashamed, but they know NO shame. As AT told one of your 'new' captains a while back, we like hiring from parts of the world where the pilots have no other option (think possibly SA). For those of you from countries with real airlines, real environments, real labour laws....the longer you waste here, the more bitter you will become and the more junior you will eventually be when you finally do end up leaving CX for another airline. Read carefully AT's letter and you will appreciate the depth of contempt she/they have for you. If you don't get it now, you NEVER will and you will have a 'career' you deserve. In the meantime, we all need to resolve to fight these bastards just on principle. Or do you think 'cooperation' and 'reasonableness' will get us somewhere. :mad::ugh:

...and before anyone comments, I am no longer in training. I had to wait a 'defined period of time' before stating this so as to not give our wonderful management SS members a possibility of identifying me accordingly. I think at this point however the AOA should keep all trainers in their jobs, with a threat of mass resignations as a further ramp-up of CC. Better than one or two a month in hindsight. Meanwhile, don't let the management divide us. Remember, once there was a B scale...and then THEY became too expensive. Then there was a C scale...and now THEY are deemed too expensive. Can you see the pattern? :/ To allow ANY reduction in the top end only GUARANTEES the eventual cutting of the low end (...as based on AT's comments regarding pension etc...). This company has resolved to impoverish YOU and YOUR families, to pad THEIR pay and bonuses. A more immoral bunch I have never encountered. Honestly, I wish I was one of the 49'ers all those years ago...at least I would have probably found myself working for a company I respect. It certainly isn't this one, and NEVER will be. If you have ANY other option, exercise it. You will bitterly regret staying here. It is only going to get worse...year after year after year after year....

Whenever you want to think what CX wants think Emirates!

No basses, total control and even a reasonable turnover where senior ($$$) crew leave with a never ending supply of shiny jet pilots. A similar safety record is ideal, no deaths but a number of incidents proving training is safe enough. ($$$). CXs current safety record is clearly too expensive thus the cuts and changes to manning levels etc.

...except a friend at a high level at Emirates has told me that they are panicked about the crewing situation, are effectively 'parking jets' (due to low average daily usage) and can't keep up with resignations. People are heading back to their home countries, and don't want to put up with the crap anymore. Are you listening CX...? :/ CX management, the 'Destroyer of Worlds' (careers), the 'Destroyer of Hope'. Get out if you can.

Good show Traf. 'I dips me lid'.

Strategically, I feel the AOA should encourage the remaining C and T's to stay in place. It will have far more effect if they all (or most) resign enmasse if there is an AOA directive. I left 'many' months ago, and at one or two a month there is really not that much overall effect. A mass resignation will cripple the company. That and an unfortunate virus that grounds about 2000+ pilots the same week will really be a bit of a problem. The time to fight is here, and it can't be with Marquis de Queensbury rules either. They are playing dirty (as they ALWAYS do), and we MUST react at the same level (are you listening DS?)

....I will acknowledge it was a bit uncomfortable taking the criticism over the past 'few months', knowing I had resigned, but as you can appreciate I couldn't state on the day 'i've just resigned'...!! Anyway, I would appreciate it if you don't attack your colleagues who still remain in the department. Most of them are as upset as you are, and are considering their positions. As I mentioned, it may be more beneficial to wait for a declaration by the AOA that staying a member is antithetical to the overall best interests of the membership. Then at least there will be a firm delineation of who/who isn't onside. Most of my former colleagues are good people who have a genuine interest in their task. Ultimately, attacking them now is counterproductive. I support a full ban on training. Wait for the AOA to lead with that. It will be far more fair and effective at that point.

Hats off to you Traf..

I will also add that my own discomfort in remaining was the company's complete dismissal of the C and T letters. If we continued to train after stating that we felt categorically that the operation was becoming unsafe, then was I personally endorsing that change, and perhaps becoming legally liable? I felt that there was no option other than to resign. Ten % just wasn't worth it. Again, at this point, let the AOA leadership dictate the direction this takes. Hopefully DS and co will realise that they are in a war, and act accordingly. The individual member can always make their own choice later if need be. In the meantime, please don't attack the remaining C and T members. Our management love that, and that is all you need to know. Ultimately, if there is not a fair settlement, then every one of them SHOULD resign. Immediately. And I would add that if there is ANY degradation to pay/housing/pension, then resign immediately. AT stated in one of her first newsletters that she would 'improve the conditions for C and T members'.....so far of course 'nothing' has resulted. A degradation would be an insult too far. This is not to devalue the desperate necessity of improvements to the conditions of every other pilot in this company.

Yep, they are so panicked that they removed them paying for hotels on the new freighter contract, one of the few points that made it worthwhile.

If they were panicked, then they would offer MORE not LESS.

Traf Out of interest has there been that many C&T resignations that after just a few months, you won't be identified as one who quit back then?