Originally Posted by
brunos
Housing package might well be viewed psychologically as part of salary, but realities of a changing world have to be taken into account. Housing packages have basically disappeared in the finance industry and most companies in Hong Kong within the past ten years. Nobody liked to see it disappeared but it did. Why would CX be different.
Why would all the staff suffer but pilots be privileged by conditions totally outdated.
Sure, we going to hear again that they will leave en masse. But they fully realize that they are quite privileged and won't get better package elsewhere. Not with Hong Kong airlines. Not with fast-growing Asian LCCs. Maybe with the ME3 if they accept to work harder and be based ... the Chinese-speaking pilots could move to China, but few seem tempted and tax situation can be heavy.
The real threat is industrial action. A leverage that no other CX employee really has. But please don't say that there is any other motivation behind it than defend anachronic private benefits . It has nothing to do with the public good, the good of pax or other employees.
I think the point here is that there are different ways of going about this. My (Asian based) organisation went through a similar exercise of cutting expat housing benefits about 5 years ago. New joining staff were offered the new package and could take it or leave it in terms of their decision whether or not to join. Existing staff (who had joined based on given set of contractual terms including the legacy housing package) were given incentives to move to the new scheme but if elected not to do so were grandfathered (ie could keep the existing package for a long transition period). Giving staff a few months notice that one of their key compensation components will be axed IMO is not what the company needs, particularly in light of its history with the management/cockpit and cabin crew relationship. Add to the mix the current shortage of pilots, re-fleeting and training needs, staff perceptions that they are being forced to pay for incompetent fuel hedging decisions and questions being asked by high-value FFs around cuts to service quality and it seems a poorly timed/executed move IMO. The company needs a period of stability and the support of its frontline staff seems critical for this.