|
Originally Posted by FlyPointyEnd
(Post 31430926)
CAAC just turned Rupert Hogg into a Martyr...I think being the CEO, employees feel some sort of emnity towards him and the CX management specially after the cuts these past few years...but after last Friday you'd think people will be submitting his name to the Vatican to be made a saint.
CX was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, ultimatelty some executives had to be sacrified to the "Dragon" for CX to survive. |
Originally Posted by CX HK
(Post 31430643)
Merlin Swire probably had his mind on his other, more lucrative Swire businesses in China (Swire recently moved the head quarters of their Coca Cola business from HK to SH) instead of the "troublesome" CX.
The Coca-Cola bottler this week confirmed to just-drinks the move, which will see Swire's China base relocate from Hong Kong to Shanghai's Pudong. A spokesperson said the switch will help further expand business in China. The company's global headquarters will remain in Hong Kong. |
I used to be on the senior management team of a major telecoms company which did something similar about 15 years back. There were various tax incentives from the Communist Party for us to move our AsiaPac headquarters to Shanghai. But those incentives proved short-lived. The Communist Party representative in the corner at all managment meetings proved oppressive. And it didn't actually bring any significant benefits to our China business.
And that was with a team of people who were employed specifically to look after the families of senior party officials both in Shanghai and Beijing, and to send their wives on shopping trips, and their kids to education, in Europe, all at the company's expense. The decision was, in effect, reversed a few years later. So many companies have got burned trying to do business with the Communist Party that you would think people would have learned by now! |
Originally Posted by christep
(Post 31431470)
I used to be on the senior management team of a major telecoms company which did something similar about 15 years back. There were various tax incentives from the Communist Party for us to move our AsiaPac headquarters to Shanghai. But those incentives proved short-lived. The Communist Party representative in the corner at all managment meetings proved oppressive. And it didn't actually bring any significant benefits to our China business.
And that was with a team of people who were employed specifically to look after the families of senior party officials both in Shanghai and Beijing, and to send their wives on shopping trips, and their kids to education, in Europe, all at the company's expense. The decision was, in effect, reversed a few years later. So many companies have got burned trying to do business with the Communist Party that you would think people would have learned by now! |
Originally Posted by christep
(Post 31431470)
So many companies have got burned trying to do business with the Communist Party that you would think people would have learned by now!
|
Originally Posted by sunzi
(Post 31426113)
I'll just say as CEO of a public company his first and foremost responsibility is to his shareholders. Whether you agree with it or not, it is just how it works.
Apparently a lot more than just me say it is not shareholders first |
|
I don’t understand how, after all this, people can say CX is becoming a mainland Chinese carrier?? They were the last in HK to bend to Beijing. HX did that so easily and so quietly that no one even had time to raise any eyebrows. You hear about CX staff protesting, but where’s the HX staff? CX crew has experienced and tried to refuse unreasonable searches and phone checks from Chinese airport security personnel. CX is getting all the flack from Beijing and HX is just there sipping its tea and nibbling it’s peanuts. How does any of this make CX more mainland? If any, the lengths to which Beijing tried to kick CX when it was down and how Beijing sees CX as the opposition, goes to show how much CX is not mainland. I’ve only got more admiration and sympathy for CX after all this. |
Originally Posted by hkgg
(Post 31435223)
I don’t understand how, after all this, people can say CX is becoming a mainland Chinese carrier?? Let's see. Their staff is now trained in China, their planes' maintenance done in China, most of their parts are now made by Chinese vendors (and we know the quality differences in that), etc. etc. But you're right, let's pretend they are not influence by China and Chinese airline culture at all. They were the last in HK to bend to Beijing. HX did that so easily and so quietly that no one even had time to raise any eyebrows. How does any of this make CX more mainland? |
Originally Posted by Cathay Dragon 666
(Post 31435314)
most of their parts are now made by Chinese vendors (and we know the quality differences in that)
|
Originally Posted by hkgg
(Post 31435223)
I don’t understand how, after all this, people can say CX is becoming a mainland Chinese carrier?? They were the last in HK to bend to Beijing. HX did that so easily and so quietly that no one even had time to raise any eyebrows. You hear about CX staff protesting, but where’s the HX staff? CX crew has experienced and tried to refuse unreasonable searches and phone checks from Chinese airport security personnel. CX is getting all the flack from Beijing and HX is just there sipping its tea and nibbling it’s peanuts. How does any of this make CX more mainland? If any, the lengths to which Beijing tried to kick CX when it was down and how Beijing sees CX as the opposition, goes to show how much CX is not mainland. I’ve only got more admiration and sympathy for CX after all this. |
Originally Posted by Isochronous
(Post 31436168)
Was there any coverage of what HX did?
|
From Canada's Globe & Mail today:
Pilots and cabin crew at Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific Airways described a “white terror” of political denunciations, sackings and phone searches by Chinese aviation officials amid anti-government protests gripping the former British colony. Cathay, founded by an American and an Australian during British rule in 1946, was caught in the middle of the crisis 11 days ago, when China demanded it suspend staff involved in the protest movement. The firm agreed, firing two pilots, but has since been plunged into turmoil after CEO Rupert Hogg was replaced last week. Another pilot, Jeremy Tam, who is also a pro-democracy lawmaker, said on Tuesday that he and others had quit the airline as the internal political pressure was intolerable... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ys-after-hong/ |
Originally Posted by Resurrection
(Post 31437188)
From Canada's Globe & Mail today:
Pilots and cabin crew at Hong Kong’s Cathay Pacific Airways described a “white terror” of political denunciations, sackings and phone searches by Chinese aviation officials amid anti-government protests gripping the former British colony. Cathay, founded by an American and an Australian during British rule in 1946, was caught in the middle of the crisis 11 days ago, when China demanded it suspend staff involved in the protest movement. The firm agreed, firing two pilots, but has since been plunged into turmoil after CEO Rupert Hogg was replaced last week. Another pilot, Jeremy Tam, who is also a pro-democracy lawmaker, said on Tuesday that he and others had quit the airline as the internal political pressure was intolerable... https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...ys-after-hong/ yikes.... |
Is this the Chinese cabin crew collating names on their HK colleagues and circulating in their private Telegram group as alluded to in other reports?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:24 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.