What justifies any labour agreement?
Funny discussion going on here.
Some are saying: "Go for it, LH jocks!"
Others whine over spoiled brats.
Then there's are some who are going to be stranded due cancelled flights.
But what is the essence here?
Why is any contract value justified (or not)?
Why are there 'low cost carriers' as opposed to high(?) cost carriers?
Here is my personal opinion.
The LH fight is the first of many others over a good labour contract that the EU is going to face. If they win, it is going to be really tough for BA or AF for instance to try to break this tight barrier. But if they loose it's going to be avalanche in EU for all labour agreements. Including the so called 'low cost' contracts, because they too benefit indirectly of higher paying carriers on the Continent.
Job security in EU is the highest in the world. The union strongholds made sure that this prime wish of any labourer was firmly fixed in any contract. The LH fight is mainly about job security. Not only their own jobs security, but also their job remuneration that could result in lost high(er) paid positions in the company. Most probably the ones who already hold top jobs at LH don't have to be afraid of loosing anything.
In other words: jobs would still be there, but the compensation will go South for that position over time. So today when a promotion to a larger type is simply put: more money in the bank that could change over time with the access of lower paid pilots (contracts) on LH flights or aircraft.
For one I must say I agree with the effort of trying to hold on to good conditions. Why? Low cost carriers have gone crazy over the abundance of 'zero timers' on the market having them fly for nothing at all and throwing them out after reaching like 300- 500 flight hours (that depends on airline).
The container of unemployed somewhat experienced pilots is so large that is really scary. They all carry with them an enormous training debt of like €100.000 or greater. And of course feeling being treated unfairly and being envious of LH pilots taking home €250.000 per annum or more.
But isn't the reason of those high salaries that they started flying in the first place? Isn't the high pay in industry the reason why banks still serve pilots with credit for their training? I know it is in some countries in Europe.
Now, having said that, there is, I my humble opinion, some solution in way of labour conditions adjustment that would interest LH board and, at the same time benefit all pilots, including those unemployed with a burden of debt. And that solution is raising retirement age. LH pilots are so expensive because they have a generously low retirement age although law allows them to continue fly through 65. That is costing LH a fortune.
Raising it has the nice side-effect it will affect ALL LH pilots, not only the junior jocks. And, for some of you thinking it might interfere with career options for junior and unemployed pilots when the elder stay longer: think again. The enormous money saved by LH when raising retirement age will allow LH to grow much more effectively (certainly when the crisis is over) against much lower cost and growth will benefit all pilots. Now VC will probably say differently, but for sure all pilots that hold top positions at LH today did not climb the ladder all that much as compared to looking at a huge group of their junior pilots. Simply put: since joining they jumped not more than 500 to 1000 places on their seniority list but saw the junior group multiply in LHs' growth. So growth, not retirement, dictates promotion.
Now any walk-out is bad for publicity, not only for the pilot community, but also for LH brand name. And the solution is so simple really.
Looking at that I regret the strike enormously and hope for wisdom of both parties.
Don't touch the pay, raise retirement age!
SM