Swiss European Air Lines
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys
Here are some thoughts of mine:
Danou_71: Mabe there is some sinister plan behind the 99 seats in the AVRO. But they make perfect sense if you look at the legal minimum cabin crew. You can save quite a bit of money by eliminating one cabin crew member on every flight, every day. I assume you are familiar with the regulations.
Winglet74: Maybe SWISS, Aeropers and politics(
) are really conspiring against the SWU pilots. But Maybe it is just an economic reality that, as Voeni put it, a regional feeder cannot pay the same salaries as the maincarrier. The choice is yours!
If you have trouble deciding what of the above is more probable, you could apply occam's razor. It says that, if you can choose between two explanations, the simpler one is usually correct. For a better description check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Sorry now it's me who is wandering - off topic...
Another principle I had to learn the hard way is that statistics are usually biased. So let's check Winglet74's AVRO vs A319 comparison:
1) The A319 has 126 (not 118) seats in the SWISS version (will be modified to 149 next year)
2) There are no A319 pilots, as SWISS is operating the A319/320/321 as a family
3) The A320 has 168 seats and the A321 has 186 (will be modified to 199 next year)
4) Many A320FAM pilots fly the A330 in MFF
So instaed of adding some more biased statistics, I just ask some questions:
- Why is everybody talking about the A319?
- What would you say if somebody compared the AVRO with the A321 only? (99 vs 186 seats)
- What would your seat-capacity based salary comparison look like with the mathematically correct average seat capacity of 159 for the unmodified A320 family?
- How about after the cabin modification is finished by the end of 2007?
- What if you take A320/A330 MFF into consideration?
I guess seat-capacity based salaries might not be the best line of argumentation for SWU pilots after all...
The famous court rouling needs some explanation too. It basically says, that you must have the same salary if you fly the same or a similar (i.e. A320 & MD80 according to the court) aircraft within the same company. So SWISS had to (and did) pay the MD80 & A320Charter pilots the maincarrier salary. After the MD80 phase-out, SPA decided to distribute the additional money throughout its corps instead of paying the A320Charter pilots higher salaries. But it is entirely an interpretation of SPA that the AVRO and the A320 are similar in the sense of the rouling. The court never said anything like this!
Furthermore all SPA pilot have singed their SWU contract by the end of 2005. As SWU is a legally independent entity, they are not working in the same company as Aeropers pilots anymore and that's why, today, the court rouling is not applicable any more. You might argue that SWU is 100% owned by SWISS, but then SPA (and Aeropers) should ask for Lufthansa salaries, as SWISS is owned by LH now. Not practicable? No, I fear not. Not fair? Well, court roulings are justice and justice has nothing to do with fairness! Sorry folks.
So, instead of staging unreasonable salary claims, SPA should IMHO concentrate on improving the working conditions for SWU pilots, as SWU FDRs are simply unsafe if you ask me (e.g. 6 days duty/2 days off). If you start fighting for safety, you will certainly earn public (and my) sympathy. Even tough you will certainly not have to go on strike to achieve improvements in this context.
Now feel free to crucify me!
keep the blue side up!
Here are some thoughts of mine:
Danou_71: Mabe there is some sinister plan behind the 99 seats in the AVRO. But they make perfect sense if you look at the legal minimum cabin crew. You can save quite a bit of money by eliminating one cabin crew member on every flight, every day. I assume you are familiar with the regulations.
Winglet74: Maybe SWISS, Aeropers and politics(
) are really conspiring against the SWU pilots. But Maybe it is just an economic reality that, as Voeni put it, a regional feeder cannot pay the same salaries as the maincarrier. The choice is yours!If you have trouble deciding what of the above is more probable, you could apply occam's razor. It says that, if you can choose between two explanations, the simpler one is usually correct. For a better description check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Sorry now it's me who is wandering - off topic...
Another principle I had to learn the hard way is that statistics are usually biased. So let's check Winglet74's AVRO vs A319 comparison:
1) The A319 has 126 (not 118) seats in the SWISS version (will be modified to 149 next year)
2) There are no A319 pilots, as SWISS is operating the A319/320/321 as a family
3) The A320 has 168 seats and the A321 has 186 (will be modified to 199 next year)
4) Many A320FAM pilots fly the A330 in MFF
So instaed of adding some more biased statistics, I just ask some questions:
- Why is everybody talking about the A319?
- What would you say if somebody compared the AVRO with the A321 only? (99 vs 186 seats)
- What would your seat-capacity based salary comparison look like with the mathematically correct average seat capacity of 159 for the unmodified A320 family?
- How about after the cabin modification is finished by the end of 2007?
- What if you take A320/A330 MFF into consideration?
I guess seat-capacity based salaries might not be the best line of argumentation for SWU pilots after all...
The famous court rouling needs some explanation too. It basically says, that you must have the same salary if you fly the same or a similar (i.e. A320 & MD80 according to the court) aircraft within the same company. So SWISS had to (and did) pay the MD80 & A320Charter pilots the maincarrier salary. After the MD80 phase-out, SPA decided to distribute the additional money throughout its corps instead of paying the A320Charter pilots higher salaries. But it is entirely an interpretation of SPA that the AVRO and the A320 are similar in the sense of the rouling. The court never said anything like this!
Furthermore all SPA pilot have singed their SWU contract by the end of 2005. As SWU is a legally independent entity, they are not working in the same company as Aeropers pilots anymore and that's why, today, the court rouling is not applicable any more. You might argue that SWU is 100% owned by SWISS, but then SPA (and Aeropers) should ask for Lufthansa salaries, as SWISS is owned by LH now. Not practicable? No, I fear not. Not fair? Well, court roulings are justice and justice has nothing to do with fairness! Sorry folks.
So, instead of staging unreasonable salary claims, SPA should IMHO concentrate on improving the working conditions for SWU pilots, as SWU FDRs are simply unsafe if you ask me (e.g. 6 days duty/2 days off). If you start fighting for safety, you will certainly earn public (and my) sympathy. Even tough you will certainly not have to go on strike to achieve improvements in this context.
Now feel free to crucify me!
keep the blue side up!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skypointer, I agree with you in most instances. I wouldn't also talking of a conspiracy. It's just much simpler to try to attack SPA pilots because Aeropers is much stronger - CEO Christoph Franz once agreed on this publicly.
Swiss as a company has a right to treat regional pilots differently than mainline pilots. I don't see a problem there. So, salary is a no-brainer.
BUT, as a company, you have certain ethics and moral principles. If you allow an A320FAM pilot to sleep for a certain amount of hours per night stop or for a certain amount of off days per month, you have to be convinced somewhat that this amount is necessary for the safe recovery of the crew. You cannot have two different ethics and moral principles for two different pilot groups in the same company (although they are artificially separated by two companies). It's clearly a matter of discrimination, if you look at the non-money factors in this equation.
If you wouldn't agree on that, you would have to say that those Avro pilots are somehow super-human, they need less rest time to recover. And the same applies for all the other non-salary issues: career planning, expenses, grow guarantee, bonus, insurances, pension founds etc.
These points all have to be changed, or Swiss will continue to discriminate the regional pilots, there will remain unrest and there will be the treat of legal battles.
Dani
Swiss as a company has a right to treat regional pilots differently than mainline pilots. I don't see a problem there. So, salary is a no-brainer.
BUT, as a company, you have certain ethics and moral principles. If you allow an A320FAM pilot to sleep for a certain amount of hours per night stop or for a certain amount of off days per month, you have to be convinced somewhat that this amount is necessary for the safe recovery of the crew. You cannot have two different ethics and moral principles for two different pilot groups in the same company (although they are artificially separated by two companies). It's clearly a matter of discrimination, if you look at the non-money factors in this equation.
If you wouldn't agree on that, you would have to say that those Avro pilots are somehow super-human, they need less rest time to recover. And the same applies for all the other non-salary issues: career planning, expenses, grow guarantee, bonus, insurances, pension founds etc.
These points all have to be changed, or Swiss will continue to discriminate the regional pilots, there will remain unrest and there will be the treat of legal battles.
Dani
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dani
We seem to agree on the FDR issue. As I stated before FDRs urgently need to be changed. If Aeropers pilots accept their new CLA, the differnce will not be very big anymore
and I think that SPA can achieve tha same conditions with negotiations. (at least 6/2 roasters would not be possible anymore)
I tend to disagree with you on the pension found and bonus. Those are clearly salary related matters. Under The new CLA Aeropers pilots buy themselves into the Managemant bonus program by giving 4% salary. I doubt if SPA pilot are abale to do that with their already not very comfortabe payscales! But if they want to do it anyway, Swiss should give them the chance.
Insurances and expenses are to be solved in a new SPA CLA. I guess it should be possible to achieve the same regulations as in the Aeropers CLA. Mr. Franz still speaks about replacing the whole AVRO fleet with Embraer 190. But it is clear that he needs to be sure that SPA is not endangering the future of SWU by unreasonable claims, court appeals and industrial action. Also the SWISS long haul growth guarantee depends on the condition that Aeropers accepts the new CLA. So it should be possible for SPA to negotiate simlar clauses in a new CLA. But one thing is clear for me: you cannot achieve growth by going on strike!
Carreer planning needs to be solved for sure. Unfortunately for SPA pilots they brought themselves in this position by declining the merged seniority list of the B-GAV in 2002. It would be nice to find a solution here, but I think it will be difficult as SWU is legally separated from SWISS. One thing is sure: A solution can only be found together with Aeropers. SPA has to convince Aeropers that they are not trying to rob their jobs. Unfortunately SPA does not seem to have realised this so far. Hey, if unions are fighting eachother there con only be one winner: the management! I guess we agree that this is not what we are looking for...
We seem to agree on the FDR issue. As I stated before FDRs urgently need to be changed. If Aeropers pilots accept their new CLA, the differnce will not be very big anymore
and I think that SPA can achieve tha same conditions with negotiations. (at least 6/2 roasters would not be possible anymore)I tend to disagree with you on the pension found and bonus. Those are clearly salary related matters. Under The new CLA Aeropers pilots buy themselves into the Managemant bonus program by giving 4% salary. I doubt if SPA pilot are abale to do that with their already not very comfortabe payscales! But if they want to do it anyway, Swiss should give them the chance.
Insurances and expenses are to be solved in a new SPA CLA. I guess it should be possible to achieve the same regulations as in the Aeropers CLA. Mr. Franz still speaks about replacing the whole AVRO fleet with Embraer 190. But it is clear that he needs to be sure that SPA is not endangering the future of SWU by unreasonable claims, court appeals and industrial action. Also the SWISS long haul growth guarantee depends on the condition that Aeropers accepts the new CLA. So it should be possible for SPA to negotiate simlar clauses in a new CLA. But one thing is clear for me: you cannot achieve growth by going on strike!
Carreer planning needs to be solved for sure. Unfortunately for SPA pilots they brought themselves in this position by declining the merged seniority list of the B-GAV in 2002. It would be nice to find a solution here, but I think it will be difficult as SWU is legally separated from SWISS. One thing is sure: A solution can only be found together with Aeropers. SPA has to convince Aeropers that they are not trying to rob their jobs. Unfortunately SPA does not seem to have realised this so far. Hey, if unions are fighting eachother there con only be one winner: the management! I guess we agree that this is not what we are looking for...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FDR are still way different! And look at the amount of leave days! Holiday definetly belongs to one's recovery time.
Bonus is clearly a company-wide achievement, as it might be very difficult to proof who is making the profit anyway (I'm not talking about the balance sheet, which is an art in itself). So bonus has to be given to both sides.
Same is valid for expansion. I think it really unique that a union has the guts to prescribe a management which target have to be fulfilled and how it has to be punished if they aren't. It's again a sign that Swiss is at ransom by Aeropers (no, it's not Swiss that is the winner!). But we know this very well from old Swissair days - 5 years ago we saw the result
<polemic intended>.
Pension fund and insurance: You might argue that this is part of the salary, but it is morally unjustifying to give the same profession in the same company different non-salary remunition.
Your recollection of the B-GAV is rather one-sided. This contract would have lead to the immediate dismissal of nearly half of the Crossair pilot group, that's why it was not acceptable. Trust in Aeropers is never possible for SPA. Who rob which job? Charter? Went to Aeropers. SPA has lost nearly 1000 pilots, while Aeropers' workforce is nearly as big as it used to be during the full blown expansion before the grounding. With this golden new GAV for Aeropers, they once again proof that they are in charge of the company and are never willing to give up any of its power. If Aeropers would be willing to solve the situation, they would fight for the same ethics and moral standards for their collegues - it is in their best interest, in the long run!
Dani
Bonus is clearly a company-wide achievement, as it might be very difficult to proof who is making the profit anyway (I'm not talking about the balance sheet, which is an art in itself). So bonus has to be given to both sides.
Same is valid for expansion. I think it really unique that a union has the guts to prescribe a management which target have to be fulfilled and how it has to be punished if they aren't. It's again a sign that Swiss is at ransom by Aeropers (no, it's not Swiss that is the winner!). But we know this very well from old Swissair days - 5 years ago we saw the result
<polemic intended>.Pension fund and insurance: You might argue that this is part of the salary, but it is morally unjustifying to give the same profession in the same company different non-salary remunition.
Your recollection of the B-GAV is rather one-sided. This contract would have lead to the immediate dismissal of nearly half of the Crossair pilot group, that's why it was not acceptable. Trust in Aeropers is never possible for SPA. Who rob which job? Charter? Went to Aeropers. SPA has lost nearly 1000 pilots, while Aeropers' workforce is nearly as big as it used to be during the full blown expansion before the grounding. With this golden new GAV for Aeropers, they once again proof that they are in charge of the company and are never willing to give up any of its power. If Aeropers would be willing to solve the situation, they would fight for the same ethics and moral standards for their collegues - it is in their best interest, in the long run!
Dani
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: where I shouldn’t be
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the smartest, most constructive and civilized discussion between presumably ex-Swissair and ex-Crossair I've seen in a long time. Y'all have equally valid points and as skypointer points out it would be the smartest if SPA and Aeropers would work together. Seems that the differences aren’t too big at the end of the day.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back from a long working day...
I probably didn't express myself very well, Dani. I agree with you not only on the FDR issue but also on the holidays!
The bonus thingy is, as I discribed above, not for free. If SPA wants to give 4% salary to buy itself into the bonus system, that's fine with me too. You wouldn't have to discuss who is making profit, as the system is very simple: if management pays itself a bonus, it has to pay it to the pilots too, if mangement doesn't get anything, the pilots get nada. As simple as that. After all its the pilots who fly the aircraft. And the passengers pay for the flight, not for the management.
Now to your "polemic" part: Do you really think it was Aeropers, who was responsible that Swissair collapsed under debts of over 17 billion CHF? I think you are to smart for that, Dani! (no offense) What about the following approach: Swissair management unfortunately didn't listen to Aeropers or the company would still exist
OK, no joke: What has to be the most important goal of a union? It's protecting the jobs of its members! That's what Aeropers is fighting for. SWISS at at ransom by Aeropers? You got it completely wrong buddy. Let me explain:
SWISS said that it was willing to expand its longhaul fleet but only if the expansion was profitable. For that, SWISS said, it needed more productivity (i.e. FDRs that allow more work plus concessions with the number of holidays).
Aeropers decided that it was willing to accept the deal, but they did not trust the management! They asked: What happens if we are accepting the higher productivity and SWISS decides to cancel the expansion? Right! There would be to many pilots and layoffs would be unaviodable... So they turned the tables on SWISS and said: OK, we accept higher productivity but SWISS has to guarantee a certain amount of growth! If SWISS was really willing to expand, the guarantee would be no big deal for them. (As it seems this was the case)
Now, guarantees can be broken. What then? You could sue the compay and wait for the court decision (That's the SPA way!) or you can settle the penalty for non-fulfillment of the contract already in the contract itself! (That's the Aeropers way! And the way business contracts are done today.) It has to cost them money, that's the language management understands!!!!
You think SWISS is at ransom by Aeropers? I think this is a showcase of far-sighted negotiation! (Something SPA could learn from Aeropers...<polemic intened too>) You cannot decide which of the two is more probable? Remember my old fried occam!
The infamous B-GAV: Well probably you are right that 50% of the Crossair pilots would have had to leave. The regional sector needed restrucuring - the maincarrier part already was restructured (with the loss of about 40% of the jobs). But look at the situation today. How many ex Crossair are left? 25%? And how about their carreer outlook? Bleak? If I were ex Crossair today, I would prefer the double number of jobs (50% left vs 25% left) with good carreer prospects and participation in the expansion (due to a common seniority list)! I am sure ex Crossair pilots would fly Airbusses today - and not only Charter. Saying no to the B-GAV was IMHO the biggest mistake SPA ever made. They didn't grab the chance and decided to gamble for the full enchilada and it blew up into their faces. Big time!
You say that it was impossible to foresee this outcoming? Well you might want to check what I wrote in May 2003:
Ok, the company is called SWISS European - so I do not call myself a prophet just yet... 
- The contract isn't that golden. Less money for more work...
- Aeropers is in charge of the situation not the company.
- Why should they give up their power? That's what a union lives from!
- Aeropers offered ex Crossair to help them to reach a new CLA. Not the same salaries, but decent working conditions - Because they realize it is in their best interest, in the long run!
- SPA spit them in the face by blaming them for the ****ty situation SPA manouvered itself in! Really sad...
Now I have to catch some sleep.
keep the blue side up!
I probably didn't express myself very well, Dani. I agree with you not only on the FDR issue but also on the holidays!
The bonus thingy is, as I discribed above, not for free. If SPA wants to give 4% salary to buy itself into the bonus system, that's fine with me too. You wouldn't have to discuss who is making profit, as the system is very simple: if management pays itself a bonus, it has to pay it to the pilots too, if mangement doesn't get anything, the pilots get nada. As simple as that. After all its the pilots who fly the aircraft. And the passengers pay for the flight, not for the management.
Now to your "polemic" part: Do you really think it was Aeropers, who was responsible that Swissair collapsed under debts of over 17 billion CHF? I think you are to smart for that, Dani! (no offense) What about the following approach: Swissair management unfortunately didn't listen to Aeropers or the company would still exist
OK, no joke: What has to be the most important goal of a union? It's protecting the jobs of its members! That's what Aeropers is fighting for. SWISS at at ransom by Aeropers? You got it completely wrong buddy. Let me explain:
SWISS said that it was willing to expand its longhaul fleet but only if the expansion was profitable. For that, SWISS said, it needed more productivity (i.e. FDRs that allow more work plus concessions with the number of holidays).
Aeropers decided that it was willing to accept the deal, but they did not trust the management! They asked: What happens if we are accepting the higher productivity and SWISS decides to cancel the expansion? Right! There would be to many pilots and layoffs would be unaviodable... So they turned the tables on SWISS and said: OK, we accept higher productivity but SWISS has to guarantee a certain amount of growth! If SWISS was really willing to expand, the guarantee would be no big deal for them. (As it seems this was the case)
Now, guarantees can be broken. What then? You could sue the compay and wait for the court decision (That's the SPA way!) or you can settle the penalty for non-fulfillment of the contract already in the contract itself! (That's the Aeropers way! And the way business contracts are done today.) It has to cost them money, that's the language management understands!!!!
You think SWISS is at ransom by Aeropers? I think this is a showcase of far-sighted negotiation! (Something SPA could learn from Aeropers...<polemic intened too>) You cannot decide which of the two is more probable? Remember my old fried occam!
The infamous B-GAV: Well probably you are right that 50% of the Crossair pilots would have had to leave. The regional sector needed restrucuring - the maincarrier part already was restructured (with the loss of about 40% of the jobs). But look at the situation today. How many ex Crossair are left? 25%? And how about their carreer outlook? Bleak? If I were ex Crossair today, I would prefer the double number of jobs (50% left vs 25% left) with good carreer prospects and participation in the expansion (due to a common seniority list)! I am sure ex Crossair pilots would fly Airbusses today - and not only Charter. Saying no to the B-GAV was IMHO the biggest mistake SPA ever made. They didn't grab the chance and decided to gamble for the full enchilada and it blew up into their faces. Big time!
You say that it was impossible to foresee this outcoming? Well you might want to check what I wrote in May 2003:
Fact is, that the court of arbitration ruling won't change a thing. You will get a new contract with Swiss Express after one year of remaining validity of your GAV under OR333. That's after transition to the new company. If Swiss Express decides not to accept SPA as social partner you might even get a single work contract. If the corps goes on strike this might give Swiss a very good excuse to downsize further - say to about 20 - 30 regional aircraft in order to get a reasonable size in relation to the mainline...
With this golden new GAV for Aeropers, they once again proof that they are in charge of the company and are never willing to give up any of its power. If Aeropers would be willing to solve the situation, they would fight for the same ethics and moral standards for their collegues - it is in their best interest, in the long run!
- Aeropers is in charge of the situation not the company.
- Why should they give up their power? That's what a union lives from!
- Aeropers offered ex Crossair to help them to reach a new CLA. Not the same salaries, but decent working conditions - Because they realize it is in their best interest, in the long run!
- SPA spit them in the face by blaming them for the ****ty situation SPA manouvered itself in! Really sad...
Now I have to catch some sleep.
keep the blue side up!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As previously stated, that's the most civilized discussion about the topic. Thank you guys, nice to hear such voices in here...
As you both stated your comments, there's not a lot to add. I tend to agree with skypointer, Aeropers is definitely in control of the situation, not the company, but can we blame them? That's what a union's good for!
We'll see how it works out, as SPA and the management are talking again. As experienced myself, there comes a situation where you have to take a step back in order to go forward in the future, although this means giving up some good cards...
A "merger" of SPA and Aeropers would definitely be the best for all pilots involved...
As you both stated your comments, there's not a lot to add. I tend to agree with skypointer, Aeropers is definitely in control of the situation, not the company, but can we blame them? That's what a union's good for!
We'll see how it works out, as SPA and the management are talking again. As experienced myself, there comes a situation where you have to take a step back in order to go forward in the future, although this means giving up some good cards...
A "merger" of SPA and Aeropers would definitely be the best for all pilots involved...
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mergers & Acquisitions
Agreed that its good that things seem - at least on the surface - to be moving towards a possible negotiation.
I can't necessarily agree with Voeni howver that a union merger would be good. Part of the conflict is the differences between the conditions of the 2 unions, and in all honnesty why would Aeropers help the Swiss Pilots get the same as they have. I say that because "the same" in managements eyes probably means Aeropers loosing some of its current advantages - to help make / keep the company profitable in the longer term. I Know, I know - the right thing to do would be for the upper management to also take some drastic cuts in benefits, unfortunately that is probably NOT going to happen - not in the short term or probably ever, they all have far to little honnesty or sense of fairness and team building ability.
A dozen or more mergers and acquisitions in my career have tought me that often the best move is an unexpected sidestep. Watch if it comes, because it could be a great improvement for the shorthaul guys not to get out manoevered by the so called management. Also don't forget the point that whatever is negotiated should be partially retroactive for the current and departed colleagues - and it should take precidence over management bonuses - especially if payout is spread out over 2 or 3 years (good idea taxwise).
Swiss must however currently be in a very tight spot for short haul pilots, with high attrition rates (more have announced leaving in the last few days (for many the RIGHT career move for certain - a much quicker path to the LEFT, if you get my drift for those in middle age)) and the work stress and sickness levels of the others is so high that quite a few flights were cancelled in the last few days or flown by bigger aircraft that were not full !!
Methinks that a little more of the "working strictly to rule" and perhaps getting both the Cabin Crew union Kapers and Aeropers to join in - using the arguments of security in times of stress and that this is only to help the management understand the pressures, so to get a solution ratified by all concerned ASAP or even sooner, would probably get to a quick result now that the bosses are starting to realise that a non-solution is probably their demise - as there are more pilot jobs out there than management ones !!!
Keep up the pressure guys and gals - and don't stop looking for other alternatives - Emirates
, Cathy , China Air
, Kingfisher
, or even Easy
or Ryan 
.
Good Luck and stay
.
I can't necessarily agree with Voeni howver that a union merger would be good. Part of the conflict is the differences between the conditions of the 2 unions, and in all honnesty why would Aeropers help the Swiss Pilots get the same as they have. I say that because "the same" in managements eyes probably means Aeropers loosing some of its current advantages - to help make / keep the company profitable in the longer term. I Know, I know - the right thing to do would be for the upper management to also take some drastic cuts in benefits, unfortunately that is probably NOT going to happen - not in the short term or probably ever, they all have far to little honnesty or sense of fairness and team building ability.
A dozen or more mergers and acquisitions in my career have tought me that often the best move is an unexpected sidestep. Watch if it comes, because it could be a great improvement for the shorthaul guys not to get out manoevered by the so called management. Also don't forget the point that whatever is negotiated should be partially retroactive for the current and departed colleagues - and it should take precidence over management bonuses - especially if payout is spread out over 2 or 3 years (good idea taxwise).
Swiss must however currently be in a very tight spot for short haul pilots, with high attrition rates (more have announced leaving in the last few days (for many the RIGHT career move for certain - a much quicker path to the LEFT, if you get my drift for those in middle age)) and the work stress and sickness levels of the others is so high that quite a few flights were cancelled in the last few days or flown by bigger aircraft that were not full !!
Methinks that a little more of the "working strictly to rule" and perhaps getting both the Cabin Crew union Kapers and Aeropers to join in - using the arguments of security in times of stress and that this is only to help the management understand the pressures, so to get a solution ratified by all concerned ASAP or even sooner, would probably get to a quick result now that the bosses are starting to realise that a non-solution is probably their demise - as there are more pilot jobs out there than management ones !!!
Keep up the pressure guys and gals - and don't stop looking for other alternatives - Emirates
, Cathy , China Air , Kingfisher , or even Easy or Ryan .Good Luck and stay
.
Last edited by gofer; 7th Oct 2006 at 10:07. Reason: opinions directly or indirectly expressed by smilies are purely those of the author as SLF
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: in my house
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what???
Hey guys,
I'ts been a year now that you went on strike
But now, what did you get
? From what I heard, not much and your little SPA is gone leaving you alone with your brand new IPG or IGP whatever there called anyway these are management's puppets.
Good luck!
D_71
I'ts been a year now that you went on strike
But now, what did you get ? From what I heard, not much and your little SPA is gone leaving you alone with your brand new IPG or IGP whatever there called anyway these are management's puppets.Good luck!
D_71
