Curtain and Liam,

interesting theory. But how do you know it is true and not just a myth?

Can you give me numbers?

Any specific example?

Can you name one specific case where CX overpaid in order to benefit Swire?

Average Fool,

you are asking for more solidarity, after years in CC and training ban.

What specifically do you have in mind?
I know what you want to achieve, I know what you think the company should do, that is not my question.

I am asking you: how do you want to achieve your goals? Can you give me feasible and realistic examples of actions you would want to see? What is it that you are asking for? Where do you want your "army" marching to?

STW ,

You are so obviously management or management wanabee , so whilst I could respond to your posts I just couldn't be bothered .
I'm all for different opinions but you just keep beating the management drum

Fair question STW,

I'll answer your question with another question, do you think the Swire owned HAECO competitively tenders for Cathay Dragon's business?

As for solid numbers, it's relatively easy to hide these transactions. However, one they can't hide is the service fee to John Swire & Sons Ltd which can be seen in the Annual Report (para 27 page 91). It's set at reimbursement of costs plus 2.5% of profits. So in a year the Swire Managers lost us $8bn in Fuel Hedging and ensured a loss, they didn't take their 2.5%. They did however take $241m in reimbursed costs. Looking at the accounts, it seems Anna Thompson's and the other Swire Directors salaries are paid by Cathay, so this looks like "costs" additional to salaries. These are of course in addition to dividends payable to JSSS.

So, if the Company wants to save $500m per year, I can see an easy way to save $241m.... Job half done.

All these concessions you want us to give, JSSS takes 2.5% out of every dollar conceded. Doesn't that make interested based bargaining, rather interesting?

Formal picketing with the largest amount possible.

In HK, this is a very profound statement. NTM CX absolutely hates bad press.

If I remember correctly, the FAU conducted something like that and was very effective.

I certainly would not hurt.

I hope you guys the best.

I've voted with my feet.

Liam,
the reimbursement is a reimbursement, it is a zero sum game. The 2.5% of profits are interesting, this could indeed be a way for Swire to squeeze money out of Cathay. But it's 2.5% of profits only, so as you said correctly none has been deducted in 2016. Plus a 2.5 % profit share would actually be an incentive for Swire to increase profits at Cathay, not the other way round, don't you agree? It is a contradictory argument in my opinion.

I do not know the role of Haeco, that was my question for you!

Oriental,

if I were management I would not need to ask, I would know the answer. I think you are trying to distract, you just don't have an answer to my question.

Average,

I do not believe that you will ever see a pilot group forming a picket in front of Cathay City, this is just not a realistic proposition, but more importantly I am absolutely certain no customer would care even if there would be one. Industrial conflicts are everywhere. Think about your own consumer habits. Did you ever care about the salary of employees when out shopping, buying a product, booking a flight?

I think it would do more to show the company, not the traveling public.

Unfortunately I think you're correct in thinking any more than a handful would show.

I'm a bit worried after watching the video from the focus night about HPE. Supposedly our main goal is to change the culture of how we deal with the company. I don't think the company gives a f### about how we feel in that regard, they want cold hard cost cuts.

THEN ask yourself if you should be asked to accept giving away anything more to "help" them recover from their management style, most notably, fuel hedging decisions.

And remember that just because you bought something for $1000 and some guy across the street then bought the same thing later for $500 does NOT mean that you have lost $500. Try claiming that on your taxes and see what they say. But in HK, for some reason, the company's employees and the IRD let the company claim a "loss" because they missed the sale on fuel by buying too much too early. Now what if another airline paid less for an A350 this week? Or next month? Or a light bulb? Or a pilot?[/QUOTE]


Rod, I think you misunderstood the concept of fuel hedging. Cathay agreed to buy fuel at a certain price for a period of years. This price is the cost of fuel, it is not the comparison to the actual fuel price that causes the lost, it is the high price Cathay has actually to pay.

I totally agree with you regarding the unjustice this terrible decision is now creating.

I disagree with you regarding the general decline of our COS and the root causes. Apart from hedging, the real reason for the decline is in my opinion a reflection of the industry as a whole. The market price for pilots has been in decline everywhere, not only at Cathay. I also disagree with you concerning the actual B package. I think it is a fair package, and we should concentrate our forces keeping it, not risking it all by having unrealistic demands.

Just shoot me 🙄

You may not like STWs opinion but I'd bet it's representative of the majority.

Unfortunately

You know, there's probably a good bit of truth in that--at least from a 'results' standpoint.

How else has the place gotten to where it is today ?

But the sword of despotic management cuts in many directions and certainly doesn't result in a particularly efficient operation.

And it bespeaks volumes toward managing ones' 'career' path.

I think it is deeply unfair to blame my side for the current situation.

You guys started this war, I did not and strongly opposed it from the start.

You guys rejected the offer, you guys keep following unrealistic goals like B scale for everybody or double digit pay rises.

I am not the majority.

Unfortunately.

Meanwhile HKA will start flying to LAX in December, daily in January. More pressure on Cathay

[QUOTE=Sam Ting Wong;9849436]I think it is deeply unfair to blame my side ]

STW; unlike some here, I value your opinion. and truly don't think of you as being "another side". While my longer - ex A scale - memory of the relationship with the Company might cause me to pause and process a different viewpoint to yourself - I don't believe it is wise to divide ourselves.

I'm sure you get my drift :ok:

Agreed. Just saying I was in the loser camp at every single AOA election of the last 2 years or so.

That's in addition to AA already in the market, and to DFW too. "Lost opportunities" I think Rhodent used to call them.