Redundancies- would you take it
 

If and when the inevitable happens, should senior A scalers fall on their swords ? Should senior B scalers take the opportunity to leave the company many despise, with a pocket full of cash, and a new life to look forward to ?

Or will it be a case of compulsory layoffs or furlough, from the bottom up? Unlikely, knowing CX.

bottom up, just like any airline worth it's salt.

What?!?! Lay off the cheapest and most vulnerable? No, that is counter cultural to our kind and caring employer. Let’s purge the guys with families, housing in HK, kids in schools, etc. Those are the bad ones. New joiners are good, loyal, hardworking employees. It has very little to do with money you see. CX just just wants to be fair after all. They are newly woke and progressive. Thank God we work for corporate moralists.

I would think an 'early out' package (properly negotiated)--like many other airlines--would be quite attractive to many (self included). IF the company were looking for something to mitigate layoffs (procedures are clearly defined in the COS/CA/EA/CBAs and cannot be modified as such) this is what I'd do if I were them.

By definition, it'd have to be a great deal better than the 6 months and recall rights which is the current layoff/recall protection in many of the contracts.

But the way this place historically has done business renminbi to donuts it'll be screwed up and the standard bait and switch on the cheap kind of deal.

Simple: the most expensive swan goes first.

Last in.. first out..

Maybe Wong should switch to wrong

I can think of several B Scale captains that would jump at a Voluntary Redundancy package if it were offered.

b.

....And a few A scale as well.
I would expect it to be done in two waves.
First the voluntary, to entice as many high paid A/B scalers as possible to POQ.
Then once those numbers are done, a second wave of involuntary layoffs, to meet the target set by the all knowing, always getting it right (out of phase!) bean counters.

Honestly. How many A scale do you think are left ? 10. ? 5 ? It’s in that ballpark. and most who chose to extend to 65 had to come off A scale.
The last round of redundancies was back in 96 ? Maybe 98. And the deal was 6 months. Pitiful. A handful took it.

Glob: Straight off the seniority list it's 140.

I guess some of those might be on COS18, and perhaps most have been/are on a base, so don't have the big provident fund payout left.

Added: I would have thought that in this scenario, there would be no difference to the company in cost between an A and a B scaler. Both are likely to be on COS08, on housing, and getting the P Fund. The top 300 are either topped out on salary scales, or very close. A B scaler who never left HKG might even be more expensive than an A scaler who has been on a base.

Unlikely. If they’re on cos 08, they are no longer A scale. As a condition of signing over COS. I think the only exception would be the AKL base. As a result of the court case there.
And yes they are topped out on salary.

And don’t forget that last in first out is illegal in some of the base countries.

And which country would that be?
As far as I know, that’s the norm in any employment situation...

OK maybe not illegal as such but it can’t be used as a sole criteria. You could of course do you own Google search and educate yourself but I’ve copied and pasted some info below for you.

Reality:

To dismiss someone fairly for redundancy you must adopt a procedure that is fair and reasonable in all circumstances. Part of this involves identifying fair selection criteria to determine those members of staff that you will retain and those you will make redundant.

The starting point is to consider criteria that are largely objective and measurable and do not discriminate against individuals who are protected from discrimination. In the past many employers adopted a policy of making redundant those with the shortest length of service (LIFO) as it was both simple and objective. However, since the enactment of equality and anti-discrimination legislation, LIFO cannot be used as the only measure to decide who is going to lose their jobs in a redundancy situation. This is because younger people are most likely to be selected for redundancy and this amounts to a disadvantage based on age and may give rise to a claim for indirect age discrimination.

Most of the CA’s/CBAs/EAs/COSs have (legal) specific procedures for layoff and recall. These follow the master seniority list which is effectively last in first out.

Oh... I... See... so you get your legal stuff of Google, so it must be correct.
How about educating yourself some manners? perhaps you should google that too.
Employment Law all over the world is more or less similar on Redundancy, with no exception.
You, on the other hand, are mixing apples and oranges.
Discrimination includes all kind of areas, and though one of them IS age, it does not apply in this case because the selection would not rely on age, it is only a pure and simple last in first out.
If you joined as a Direct entry F/O or an S/O then you will be made redundant if you were last in.

For anyone taking voluntary redundancy:
One thing to consider for British employees is that you won't get government housing benefit if your savings (wife/partner included) exceed £16000. So a large chunk of your farewell payment might well go on maintaining your mortgage/rent until something else turns up. The payment itself isn't taxable below £30,000 but nest eggs will go against you. Ask me how I know...

55 year olds are being made redundant at CX every week. A contractual redundancy will not happen as they are conveniently shedding their most experienced/expensive pilots using age discrimination already. Do not ever forget that your Google lawyers don’t have any substantive workplace “law” to use in Hong Kong.

You can bet your bottom dollar that a couple of bright young things with freshly minted MBAs have developed models and war-gamed the various strategies. At its most simplistic, the governing variable will be “someone’s” best guess of how long this Covid19 debacle will go on for. This guess will define how management will play this game out.
You saw how quickly the mainland airlines dispensed with their expat staff. Experience, training and quality counted for nothing. Cost cutting was the sole driver.

They might think themselves bright and have MBAs.

But what they ain’t got is a crystal ball that actually works.

No doubt there will be some scheme/scam to jettison and reduce costs.

But until then they’re stuck with contracts. Some of which are quite pricey when the engines are at idle.

Or, we had the choice, the company gave us months to decide. Can we grow a pair and stop blaming everyone else for decisions we made?

That would be last on first out?

Though the politicking of those hoping to circumvent seniority always inevitable. Krone are you B Scale KA or Local Contract?

I doubt whether a redundancy package would be generous enough to see many senior pilots exercising that option. Extricating yourself from HKG at the most opportune time will take time if you have kids in schools and assets. Many will just ride on-wherever that ends up.

[QUOTE=lightlysalted;10707294]Instead of making fools of yourselves as usual, maybe you should read the "Redundancy" clause in your COS, except COS18 crew (since it has no meaningful redundancy clause).[/QUOTE

or read the termination clause 3 months no questions asked bye bye?

[QUOTE=AllWobbly;10707398]Right but if you terminate to create a reduction, that wont hold up in court. Same thing with a cos in your box type event, if they are canceling a contract again in a poor climate then that is a hire and re hire onto a new contract situation. This will end up in court as a redundancy aswell.

[QUOTE=Natca;10707710]A new contract being argued in court as a quasi redundancy is certainly an argument that would have lawyers salivating but few others. The company last tried this during the Asian financial crisis.

If management are half smart (big if) then they will not link a new COS with a desire for a reduction in numbers. The RIN will simply be an “unfortunate, unexpected and undesirable” consequence of insufficient crew seeing the benefits of a change of contract.

In about 2030 we’ll find out if they’re on solid legal ground. But that finding will do little for those that will be affected by a morally corrupt company.

3 months for every year of service , I would go in a heartbeat along with a number of other more senior pilots I suspect . For someone with 25 plus years in the company and less than 5 years to retirement it’s a no brainer . One bright spark in all of this mess is that oil prices are below $30 per barrel , But this covid19 is going to decimate the airlines , the cruise ship industry and the tourism industry . It all depends how long it lasts and the level of concern or hysteria amongst the general population

"three months for every year"....what are you smoking?? At best such a scheme would be a month for every year worked plus three months. So, a 30 year pilot would be offered at best 33 months. That would also be age dependant. If you only had two years left, they would factor that so you would only get 12 months total (as a guess). If you have 5 years left, then you would probably get the full whack. However they do it, it has to save them money. They did this back in 1998, and it was much like i've just described (others with better memories can chime in). I do suspect they will do something like this, as it is the perfect opportunity to downsize the airline and get rid of their high cost (ARAPA) pilots. CX is probably never going to be this size again. Glory days well and truly over.

With oil at $30-ish a barrel, I'm waiting with baited breath for the announcement that Swires have hedged their fuel purchases for the next three years at $80/barrel. All to stabilise the business, of course, and steady the income stream (or whatever Ivan the Terrible was trying to say in that catastrophic Bloomberg interview).
This developing crisis will be yet another opportunity for Swires to asset-strip CX and make off with untold billion$, unhindered by that nuisance, the law.
Hold on folks, this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Sadly, my guess is that is exactly what they've done (again). You know that if they should have "zigged", they "zagged". Put money on it.

Just watching the US markets. Don't doubt that the world as we know it is changing. CX will certainly be changed right along with it. Considering useless upper management, political concerns, economic issues and a general falling of HK as a hub of importance, CX is doomed to a slow and inoxerable death. A colleague left 7 years ago for BA, and he told me he wanted to get out while the getting was good. Nailed it. (btw, he's a Captain there now, living in Surrey and loving life...and his wife and kids are even happier).

ps. forgot to mention their villa in Portugal they spend weekends/holidays at.

Sadly, also in their models will be the crew’s reactions and the associated costs of dealing with them. They’ve had plenty of opportunity to collect this data since July 2001.

Anybody who thinks that ANY offer from management will be desirable in its details really need their head examined. I don't doubt there will likely be an offer, but it will certainly be one that only attracts the desperate. Anyone that thinks it will represent a retirement plan is really in need of help.

Then they can follow the contract with redundancies and pay protection. Or else wind up both in court AND arbitration. Not to mention this takes the threat of base closure away in that you couldn’t shut a base (or threaten such) in a deliberate scheme/scam to avoid contractural responsibilities and obligations. That is fraud.

I was only speaking of a possible early voluntary redundancy scheme. Used about 22 years ago to shed many high cost pilots. Probably a good time to do the same, but it won't be on very desirable terms. And btw, they can close any base they want at any time. Don't fool yourself otherwise.

shareholders have limited liability- they don’t need to pay up anything.

Korean Air CEO tells employees virus is 'threat' to airline's survival

Who will fund the long court cases with many protracted appeals.? I would doubt the cohort of “ambitious” new joiners would be too keen.

You can be sure the costs of legal manoeuvring have been included in their strategy as will their estimation of pilot solidarity. July 2001 was a watershed moment.

Away from HKG, most contracts are adjudicated under arbitration which is relatively straightforward.

In the case of a court claim, in some more developed countries, these are usually funded on a contingency basis. So, in actuality, the company itself is funding the protracted legal battle against themselves when it is genuinely guilty of breaking a contractural provision and/or law.,

Redundancies
 

USA, beginning Friday, will ban ALL flights to/From "Europe" ( not incl UK - yet?). Better hang on !!!!!