|
Possible cabin crew strike during Easter?
According to this chinese newspaper article, CX will roll out a new "Swapping Guidelines" today. Under the new guidelines, cabin attendants who don't work for the min hours (70 hours) will not be allowed to swap their flights with other cabin attendants...
They have started a facebook group and there are more than 1,725 people/cabin attendants joined the group. Some even suggest to strike during the Easter holidays. The union will call for an emergency meeting to discuss this new policy. According to the union's vice-president, CX did not consult the union before rolling out this new policy. |
1. I don't see why the FAs need to fly 70 hours minimum before allowed to swap.
2. However, I don't see this is a good reason to strike. It sounded more like union politics. |
Originally Posted by cxfan1960
(Post 13582899)
1. I don't see why the FAs need to fly 70 hours minimum before allowed to swap.
2. However, I don't see this is a good reason to strike. It sounded more like union politics. |
Surely it would make more sense for management to announce this sort of changes after peak travel periods (e.g. Easter)?
|
What is CX doing?
1) Can they even talk to Union leaders first so at least they can tell the public that they tried to negotiate in good faith? 2) Can they wait till off-season to announce this kind of moves to minimize possible strike impact? 3) I'm not in the airline industry so I do not know if NOT allowing cabin crews to swap will actually save money and how much, but from an outsider's perspective if the cabin crews can work out the schedules to swap I don't really see what's the big deal. Anyone with know-hows care to enlighten us? Thanks |
Originally Posted by JALPak
(Post 13582953)
IMHO the worst part is that CX suddenly announced this change yesterday and did not discussed this with the union before hand. By doing this the CX management is just asking for troubles!
Anyway, CX has never cared about local crews they simply make rules against them. Then again, I'm surprised you can fly for less than 70 hrs and get paid for 70. now THAT's the problem. |
Originally Posted by Cathay Boy
(Post 13583532)
What is CX doing?
1) Can they even talk to Union leaders first so at least they can tell the public that they tried to negotiate in good faith? 2) Can they wait till off-season to announce this kind of moves to minimize possible strike impact? 3) I'm not in the airline industry so I do not know if NOT allowing cabin crews to swap will actually save money and how much, but from an outsider's perspective if the cabin crews can work out the schedules to swap I don't really see what's the big deal. Anyone with know-hows care to enlighten us? Thanks |
A good way to earn $$$$ for a couple both work in CX:
"A" gets pay of 70hrs even only works 50hrs in a month and swap 20hrs shift to "B", and "B" end up works 90hrs which 20hrs are OT! I'm considering change job w my gf! ^^ |
Originally Posted by TalkFlyer
(Post 13584748)
A good way to earn $$$$ for a couple both work in CX:
"A" gets pay of 70hrs even only works 50hrs in a month and swap 20hrs shift to "B", and "B" end up works 90hrs which 20hrs are OT! I'm considering change job w my gf! ^^ |
Originally Posted by kaka
(Post 13584143)
re 3) I think it's admin cost, and swapping brings some of them into OT (since CX needs to pay min 70 hrs even to those who work less than 70. (according to local papers)
|
Well, there's possibly another issue. I don't know what CX provides for company paid benefits, but under the old system, was there anything to prevent a crew member from swapping all of his/her flights, not working at all, but still receiving benefits?
|
CX has issued a statement on the matter: https://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en...0007d21c39____
Cathay Pacific General Manager Inflight Services’ message to staff on new swapping guidelines 16 March 2010 In response to media enquiries on new swapping guidelines for Cathay Pacific cabin crew, the airline’s General Manager Inflight Services today sent out a memo to clarify the situation. The full text of the memo is included below. Breaking News – March 17, 2010 In CCNL this week we mentioned two new swapping guidelines. The guidelines have led to a good deal of discussion amongst crew, and some misunderstandings, so I would like to make some clarifications. It is important to remember that the minimum guarantee of 70 credit hours was introduced to protect you from business downturns. This served us well during during SARS when crew hours fell to as low as 20. Crew on minimum guarantee of 70 credit hours per month are normally rostered for 80-83 flying hours per month, and have the flexibility to swap flights up to five times per month. You have consistently told us that control over your rosters is very important to you. ISD appreciates and understands this. We are working towards increasing your swapping flexibility. We have been reviewing the present swap system to move towards our ultimate goal of unlimited swapping. The review showed that some crew are consistently swapping below the minimum guarantee. Some crew swap well below the guarantee - as low as 10-30 flying hours per month - and still receive the minimum guarantee. This departs from the principles of swapping flexibility and minimum guarantee, and a restriction has been introduced to prevent it. It is unreasonable to expect the company to pay for hours not worked. A very small minority of crew who swap below the minimum guarantee – less than 5 percent - will be affected by the new guidelines. The vast majority of crew will benefit from the related lifting of the restriction on more than nine consecutive days off. The normal approval rate for swap applications is around 80 percent. Up to now, the approval rate has also been around 80 percent on the swapping applications for the April roster, which opened today at noon. We do not believe that the new guidelines will affect your normal swapping practices. If the change we have just announced affects your normal swapping practices, we will promptly take up your concerns. If you have any difficulties in swapping as a result of this new rule, or for any other reason, please contact ISD#ENQ and you will receive immediate assistance. Finally, let me emphasize again, we do not want to restrict your normal swapping above the minimum guarantee, and I appreciate your feedback. Sincerely, Charlie Stewart-Cox, GMISD |
Now I understand. If they swap and get below 70 hours, they will still be paid 70 hours. If on the next month they are above 70 hours, they will be paid the actual hours. If they consistently do that, they will benefit from the system. This practice will not be fair to those who work consistently above the minimum.
That makes sense. Was there a miscommunication initially? |
Originally Posted by cxfan1960
(Post 13586673)
Now I understand. If they swap and get below 70 hours, they will still be paid 70 hours. If on the next month they are above 70 hours, they will be paid the actual hours. If they consistently do that, they will benefit from the system. This practice will not be fair to those who work consistently above the minimum.
That makes sense. Was there a miscommunication initially? E.g. In order to swamp out long haul flights, they have to swamp out the short hauls first so they will be able to apply for the long haul swap. |
http://news.mingpao.com/20100317/gol1.htm
Union meeting this Friday to discuss what actions should be taken. There are 200 FAs want to join FAU (the union) after the new policy is announced. |
Has CX ever had a cabin crew strike?
|
Yes.. last one was around 2000-2001 if I remember.
CX had to charter planes to carry passengers. You show up at airport and realise that although you're booked on a CX flight number, the aircraft you're flying on is some other airline... (sometimes you're lucky and see some nicer airline taking you ... ie SQ, JL, NH. But other times its China Southern or whatever...). The strike lasted 3 weeks I think. |
Originally Posted by Guy Betsy
(Post 13588551)
Yes.. last one was around 2000-2001 if I remember.
CX had to charter planes to carry passengers. You show up at airport and realise that although you're booked on a CX flight number, the aircraft you're flying on is some other airline... (sometimes you're lucky and see some nicer airline taking you ... ie SQ, JL, NH. But other times its China Southern or whatever...). The strike lasted 3 weeks I think. I read another article from Apple Daily today saying there are 3 FAs from Thailand currently assigned to HKG-MEL right now. Their hourly rate is 20% of the HK FAs. Before this, they are only assigned to flights to/from Thailand. The HK FAs worried that it is CX's long term policy to hire more Thailand crew to replace HK ones... All these little things add up I guess... |
Originally Posted by JALPak
(Post 13588616)
JL has lots of 744 lying around for CX to charter this time around :D
IIRC, CX had a crew-training agreement with MU back then. So CX was using a lot of MU FAs (and probably planes) for lots of destinations. For the poor pax who paid premium price for CX, though, their two options were to take it or stay at the airport. |
Originally Posted by buschoi
(Post 13590151)
JL must be happy they stay in OneWorld with CX and BA.... :p
IIRC, CX had a crew-training agreement with MU back then. So CX was using a lot of MU FAs (and probably planes) for lots of destinations. For the poor pax who paid premium price for CX, though, their two options were to take it or stay at the airport. With AA and CX's FAs talking about strike, BA's going to strike...maybe OW should change its name to strikeworld ;) |
Originally Posted by JALPak
(Post 13587865)
I am not sure. But I went through some of the comments on the facebook group, in general they think it is harder for them to swap under the new policy and it requires much more work on their part because the application will be denied if their hours fall below 70. There is a piece of information missing right now. What is the average number of hours on their assigned roaster (not the number from PR, but from FAU)? If it's close to 70, it will be hard to do swaps...
E.g. In order to swamp out long haul flights, they have to swamp out the short hauls first so they will be able to apply for the long haul swap. The airline says most FAs work 80+ hours anyway, so it won't affect most of them. As for assigning Thai crew to other routes, maybe it will make the HK based crew pull their socks up and provide better service. Thais are great at providing a more graceful service. |
Originally Posted by JALPak With AA and CX's FAs talking about strike, BA's going to strike...maybe OW should change its name to strikeworld |
Originally Posted by JALPak
(Post 13588616)
I read another article from Apple Daily today saying there are 3 FAs from Thailand currently assigned to HKG-MEL right now. Their hourly rate is 20% of the HK FAs. Before this, they are only assigned to flights to/from Thailand. The HK FAs worried that it is CX's long term policy to hire more Thailand crew to replace HK ones...
|
CX has deferred this plan, understandably, avoiding a potential strike (probably in view of the BA / European strikes lately).
http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_...0007d21c39____ |
Originally Posted by toyotaboy95
(Post 13591597)
CX has deferred this plan, understandably, avoiding a potential strike (probably in view of the BA / European strikes lately).
http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_...0007d21c39____ |
Originally Posted by sxc
(Post 13590202)
Of course it is going to be less flexible to do swaps...they will need to work the hours they are paid to work! I don't really sympathise with the FAs in this case.
The airline says most FAs work 80+ hours anyway, so it won't affect most of them. What counts as hours worked? Always wondered this. When does the 'clock' start, and stop, for the following two examples: HKG-DPS-HKG (turnaround flight for crew) HKG-LAX-HKG (at least a 48 hour layover, if not more) |
Originally Posted by Jane's Addiction
(Post 13591743)
What counts as hours worked? Always wondered this.
When does the 'clock' start, and stop, for the following two examples: HKG-DPS-HKG (turnaround flight for crew) HKG-LAX-HKG (at least a 48 hour layover, if not more) |
Originally Posted by Jane's Addiction
(Post 13591743)
What counts as hours worked? Always wondered this.
When does the 'clock' start, and stop, for the following two examples: HKG-DPS-HKG (turnaround flight for crew) HKG-LAX-HKG (at least a 48 hour layover, if not more) Usually the 'clock' start 2 or 3 hours before flight schedule take off time and stop 30 mins after landing. (I can't remember it is 2 or 3 hours) For HKG-DPS turnaround it will be 3 hrs before took off and 30 mins after the plane back to HKG. (5+5hrs flying time, ~2hrs layover in DPS, 3hrs before/after flight duty= nearly 14-15hrs) For HKG-LAX-HKG, it will be 3 hrs before take off until landed at LAX. It starts again 3 hrs before takeoff from LAX til 30mis after landing.(12hrs flying, 3rs ground duty = 15hrs *2= 30hrs per round trip) A short TPE turnaround already give FA 6-8hrs working hrs. The problem is the CX will give FA around 70-80hrs working hours per month, with only 5 chance could swap. It is not easy to swap only <30hrs left. Those hardworking crew would like to earn more can't get those extra hours. With those working hrs <70 can't swap duty, where those extra duty come from? At the past it mainly comes from those who don’t want to work or prefer less working hours. Also after GFC, CX cut frequencies on many route. The result is CX actually can't give their crew >70 working hours per month. The other matter include deploy BKK based crew to MEL also help to trigger the huge negative respond from crews. |
I read on a public Hong Kong forum yesterday that the ill-informed public tended to side with the FAs. They blamed CX for changing the policies, cutting costs, supporting the FAs' strike proposal, blablabla. In this case, however, I fail to see what CX has done wrong. CX is just trying to impose a change to the unfair rule - those who trade away their hours below 70 hours "at their own will" should not share the same benefits as those working over 70 hours... It is just plain ridiculous to work 10 hours (hum.... less than 30 minutes a day...) and receive 70 hours of pay, and you still get to be picky of what you want to do from your employer, or no?
They then went on and blamed CX for not giving them pay raise, poor raise opportunity, getting paid the same HKD$15,000 at the 5th year of job, etc. Didn't they choose THAT career path from the start? What do they expect? Serve the F cabin with 5 years in the job? Also what is wrong for CX putting BKK-based FAs on other routes? IMHO, I would jump to take the flights that would have BKK-based crews. Regardless of their pay scale, I am more confident in them providing me with better CX hospitality. |
Originally Posted by Jane's Addiction
(Post 13591743)
What counts as hours worked? Always wondered this.
|
Originally Posted by buschoi
(Post 13592739)
I read on a public Hong Kong forum yesterday that the ill-informed public tended to side with the FAs. They blamed CX for changing the policies, cutting costs, supporting the FAs' strike proposal, blablabla. In this case, however, I fail to see what CX has done wrong. CX is just trying to impose a change to the unfair rule - those who trade away their hours below 70 hours "at their own will" should not share the same benefits as those working over 70 hours... It is just plain ridiculous to work 10 hours (hum.... less than 30 minutes a day...) and receive 70 hours of pay, and you still get to be picky of what you want to do from your employer, or no?
They then went on and blamed CX for not giving them pay raise, poor raise opportunity, getting paid the same HKD$15,000 at the 5th year of job, etc. Didn't they choose THAT career path from the start? What do they expect? Serve the F cabin with 5 years in the job? Also what is wrong for CX putting BKK-based FAs on other routes? IMHO, I would jump to take the flights that would have BKK-based crews. Regardless of their pay scale, I am more confident in them providing me with better CX hospitality. Getting pay 70 hours regardless of hours worked, and then any hours over 70 is overtime, holy crap, not even United Auto Workers in the USA has that kind of benefits. |
Originally Posted by buschoi
(Post 13592739)
In this case, however, I fail to see what CX has done wrong.
CX is just fixing the loophole which is the correct thing to do but they executed this poorly :td: |
Alright.... so CX pulls this off for now and is willing to go back to negotiate with the union. We will see how it goes.
|
Originally Posted by Cathay Boy
(Post 13596156)
It's easy for the average citizens to side with workers and not with corporations. Anyway, I have little sympathy for union workers since I have too many first hand knowledge of their evils, however, I am just trying to understand the CX situation.
Getting pay 70 hours regardless of hours worked, and then any hours over 70 is overtime, holy crap, not even United Auto Workers in the USA has that kind of benefits. In that, and by looking at CX's past behaviour towards their employees, I am sympathetic to their grievence. |
Originally Posted by hau cheng
(Post 13597360)
Please dont take this as an argument. I would say that I can see both sides. On one hand, as a passenger who would not be happy having my flights disrupted during this period and one who would like to see service improve. However, on the other, whilst CX's FA's may be better paid in comparison to their Thai counterparts, their wage, whilst higher than say HK grads entering the workforce does not seem to be hugely excessive, ie, they seem to be quite modestly paid.
In that, and by looking at CX's past behaviour towards their employees, I am sympathetic to their grievence. |
Just my own opinion CB.
|
Originally Posted by hau cheng
(Post 13597360)
Please dont take this as an argument. I would say that I can see both sides. On one hand, as a passenger who would not be happy having my flights disrupted during this period and one who would like to see service improve. However, on the other, whilst CX's FA's may be better paid in comparison to their Thai counterparts, their wage, whilst higher than say HK grads entering the workforce does not seem to be hugely excessive, ie, they seem to be quite modestly paid.
In that, and by looking at CX's past behaviour towards their employees, I am sympathetic to their grievence. |
Originally Posted by kaka
(Post 13598218)
do they still get paid around 10-12K right now?...
|
Originally Posted by hau cheng
(Post 13598480)
I think it's something like that, which is just above average HK monthly earnings. As such, many local FA's save their per diem overseas allowances and stay in their rooms eating cup noodles to save money (sounds like regular HK behaviour to me, lol)
|
Originally Posted by hau cheng
(Post 13598480)
I think it's something like that, which is just above average HK monthly earnings. As such, many local FA's save their per diem overseas allowances and stay in their rooms eating cup noodles to save money (sounds like regular HK behaviour to me, lol)
My parents-in-law make 20% of what I make in HK, and they have two fully paid off luxury apartments in HK, and now they are sitting pretty connecting rent. I make six digits US and is still paying off my mortgage on one home.... HK people are smart to save the way they do. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:52 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.