Actually option 4 is the most difficult and expensive option for CX, involving redundancy packages and depending on the base a severance package and possible litigation.

But I agree it could be option 2-4. Option 1 seems unlikely.

I doubt anything will happen in the immediate future (eg the remainder of 2020) as the GMA has already communicated to the base unions about the present status and short term plan for the bases.

God you guys are ******** painful

Got something to add? Peoples whole lives are in the balance. Our caring, engaging company which values their crew as important part of the team are saying nothing. In this vacuum people are looking for information. So again, Got something to add?

FYI, everybody on the bases is paying full HK tax. Some also pay tax on top of that in their place of residence, depending on DTA.

Well as far as I can see, option 4 is not available on my freshly signed 3 yr agreement. Unless of course it's in accordance with LIFO.
I'm concerned they'll approach the respective unions with, "we need to renegotiate this freshly signed agreement, or we'll just close the base."

This won't make me very popular but I will say it anyway.

To have one group on productivity pay and one on fixed terms is disadvantageous for the latter. Terms on bases need to be simlar, or the HK pilots ( with much higher living costs) will get rostered last. Additionally,lucrative long haul flights to Europe, Aus and US are by nature predominantly crewed by based guys.

You must be on the 777! The long haul to North America and Europe on the airbus is all HKG based pilots since there are no pilots based in either of those locations!

Personally I wouldn't worry about the situation you described as the majority of us are in HK and the base numbers are so so small by comparison I don't think a situation such as that would happen, also at the moment the only people flying are a select group of HKG based guys so we have no fear of any based pilot being used to stop us from all
flying above minimum! When things pick up again we will all be so busy as the company shrinks, especially after the next round of layoffs

Curious, if things are going to pick up in a year or two, why would there be a 2 yr transitional contract hoping to retain those previously on more expensive contracts. If the company wanted to get rid of more people now, shouldn't they reduce the term to 1 yr transition or a more lucrative retirement package? Isn't a given some of them who are near to retirement would exit after 2 years of decent housing and schooling?

And I truly believe things are going to pick up once borders open. Did anyone watch the videos of the flood local tourists on mainland mountains? And the number of HKers who love going to Japan and Taiwan 6x a year.

Edited: to add on, do you remember how hard is it to catch a flight back and forth Australia, London, Japan, Taiwan just last year? Skiing season you will see at least 30 IDs trying to get a flight to Japan. And for people who think travel will be different permanently after covid, how else do they travel? By ship? I'm optimistic.

You should have seen Heathrow on Wednesday the last day before Lockdown 2.0.... absolute mayhem. People will be travelling like crazy as soon as borders open for regular travel

Sure Cathay can closes bases and send the pilots back to Hong Kong, but those pilots will cost more money than at the base, both with zero hours a month or 85, it may also force some retirements.

But I would be surprised if they want to spend more money at this point as they are in survival mode.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly told CNBC's “Squawk Box” on Tuesday. Kelly said he is forgoing his base salary until the end of next year.- Oct 6, 2020. What will ours do on survival mode?

Frank W. Abagnale

The HK government only wants to protect itself. It’s not about protecting jobs for them. They’ve shown that with their stance of cathay dragon. Their only agenda is to please the mainland. If that means killing off a few pilots... they’ll gladly do that.

Rumour of the day is bases to stay but some to shrink and some to close! On what kind of T&Cs is anyone's guess at this point, and which bases are to be targeted is also unclear.

Ballon Buster you may wish to check facts before making an off the cuff statement about “everybody....full HK tax” and stating it as a fact.
Unfortunately you are wrong in the above statement.

In many base jurisdictions, I believe crew claim a partial exemption from full HK tax, and that HK tax that is paid, is then deducted from their own countries tax liability. That said, there may be some (Kiwis spring to mind) to whom paying full HK tax is beneficial, in order to have no NZ tax levied.

However, whilst the tax issue is somewhat irrelevant in whether a base remains or closes, or whether crew are left on their contracts, or “agree under duress” for even greater pay concessions, or perhaps in the Australian case simply kept on “Stand Down” and put on on zero pay, the Company will no doubt already know in fine detail what they will do with the bases.

Based crew at 777 ports it seems would be most at risk of base closure.
Australian Airbus crew who could be kept on, but put on zero pay according to Australian Employment Legislation seem at least risk, with all other bases somewhere in between.
Whatever it will be, crew who are HK or overseas based will have ZERO input at all in the CX decisions. There is therefore little point fretting about it, other than going through your own “what if ...” scenarios so when the base review decision is communicated to you, that you are not surprised.

[QUOTE]Based crew at 777 ports it seems would be most at risk of base closure.
Australian Airbus crew who could be kept on, but put on zero pay according to Australian Employment Legislation seem at least risk, with all other bases somewhere in between.[/QUOTE]

No one knows, why would 777 based crew be at more risk? CX is not allowing based crew to fly, 747 as the exception. Why is a 777 pilot not flying at more risk that a airbus pilot not flying? Do you really think that when this is over the airbus will be the main aircraft into LHR LAX JFK YTO YVR?

Do you really think that when this is “over” we will have ANY 777’s?

[QUOTE=SloppyJoe;10920667]definitely, airlines around the world are doing their best to get rid of inefficient aircraft , cx is no exception. When you compare the 777 to others in its class, and the forecast reduced pax demand, it doesn’t make sense to operate them. 787/350 will be the face of the foreseeable future.

No such thing as a "foreseeable future".

Why can't 777 NAM pilots convert to 747?

Sam Ting Wong

at the moment no, hence the reason the majority of the pax fleet is on the ground. In order for them to start operating, there has to be an immediate foreseeable future.