SAA asks for a R6-billion handout

[JG1]

From news24.com

"Johannesburg - South African Airways (SAA) has asked the government for a recapitalisation of about R6bn to fund operational costs, growth strategy and fleet renewal, according to a report on Wednesday.

The requested funds would be in addition to the R1.3bn subordinated loan SAA already had from the government, Business Day reported.

It also included the company's R1.6bn "going concern" guarantee it obtained to underpin its money requirements after the auditor general raised concern last year about its ability to generate cash to fund operations.

"This year we will have to go through the same process and the guarantee required will probably be higher," SAA chief financial officer Wolf Meyer was quoted as saying. He was addressing parliament's public enterprises committee on Tuesday.

Meyer said SAA's weak balance sheet would also have to be fixed if it was going to finance growth and fleet renewal, the newspaper reported."


***

I have to say, I really do not see how the HELL the SAA pilots can justify their inflated salaries and R100k+ bonuses. If your company is not making money, time to cut costs, streamline it and make it more efficient, not run to the bloody government every year with your begging bowl.

What makes it all stick in the craw even more is the arrogant attitude of, well, hell, let me just call a spade a spade and say MOST of the pilots there.
If I worked there, for a company that cannot turn a profit even though it has a virtual monopoly, quite frankly I would be ashamed to try and justify my salary.

What a crock of :mad: Bah.

[spacedaddy]

I guess the new M.D. is no better.

[Jetjock330]

How much did Comair ask for again....???;) Someone has got it right!

[jbayfan]

JG1, you are one angry, frustrated and sad individual. :{

[beechbum]

JG1 this is not a bail out at all but a recapitilastion in order for the airline to grow in order to expand SAA's network.

Just a little something from the CEO:
" I would like to state, once again, that this is not the case. Our airline does not need a bail out.
I re-iterate that SAA has never been properly capitalised over the past few years, and it is important that our airline is adequately capitalised to support its bold growth strategy for the next five years.
Airlines all across the globe are performing under pressure due to volatile fuel prices, low demand for air travel and increased competition on key routes. The capitalisation of our airline is linked to the growth strategy and fleet programme and is not a bail out."

So as a proud SAA pilot and one that is not ashamed to receive my salary or bonus for that matter that may come my way...get off your high horse, stop slagging something you know nothing about.....and go "bah bah baaaaaaaaaaaaaah" together with the so many sheep that ply these forums and that continually bash SAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:ugh::ugh:

[cavortingcheetah]

That's as I understand it from a recent dinner party conversation. Fleet renewal was the main reason behind the budget request as I recall and I thought it was a ten year re-equipment plan with the fervent hope expressed that airways would go for Boeing.
SAA flight crew salaries are well up on the top end of the international pay scale for pilots. Of course they're grossly overpaid but then look at the sort of places in which they have to night stop.As if London isn't already a disgusting destination full of foreign devils, they're soon to have five days in Beijing and that means they'll have to look down at their toes and not at the sky as they walk, lest they trip on the saliva laden sidewalks of the ancient city of duck worshippers.
Meanwhile, up near Bela Bela last week, another rhinoceros was slaughtered for its horn, this time by an opportunist drive by assassin who hopped over the game fence to hack off the horn before escaping down the road in his bakkie. The apocryphal aphrodisiac is quite possibly awaiting inaugural transportation to ZBAA at this very moment.

[Trossie]

They even believe their own propaganda...!!! (Normal airline have to approach investors for loans for fleet expansion, don't they? Must be nice having willing taxpayers to bail you out!!)

[beechbum]

They even believe their own propaganda...!!! ....yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You must be the head of the bah bah brigade ...if you're just south of the Black Sheep brewery then Trossie?????

[Ghost_Rider737]

I have to admit that it is unfair in many ways. When a private airline needs recapitalisation they have to go through a rigorous process to get the cash.

However , SAA needs to continue being an employment arm of the government just like Eskom , Denel , Transnet etc
Private carriers don't have that issue to deal with.

[cavortingcheetah]

Mind you though, one has to feel dreadfully sorry for the SAA company ethos. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, was so unimpressed with the standards of maintenance and quality control in the airline recently that he felt it necessary on a flight to the USA last month to have two back up aircraft along for the ride. This was a gross traducement by applied innuendo of the high standards of SAA and Mr Zuma has done nothing other than to make himself appear ridiculous whilst demeaning the national flag carrier in the process.

[Fuzzy Lager]

Its a bailout yet again, they are just trying to sugar coat it in the hope they miight avoid the standand public outcry that the states aviation black hole is hungry again.

It won't expand, already the average discerning traveller avoids it like the plague. Whats the point of flying more empty seats around? The airline sucks, the service is disgusting, the standards are collapsing. Its truly no better than Transnet, from where it came and what its again being compared to.

So lets hear it from all the 'proud' SAA pilots. Why not tell us how we are all just jealous because we aren't part of your statefunded cool-kids-club.:bored:. Seems your standard line when your thieving management is standing at SARS with the well used begging bowl.

Believe me guys, you get the respect you deserve. Its just that its not the respect you expect.

Happy flying, look forward to subsidising your Benoni lifestyle with my next tax return.

[beechbum]

Being in Fort Lauderdale you obviously haven't flown our "proud" airline in a while. Take a trip and you might be pleasantly surprised. You don't make a profit by the way in the last financial year by passengers avoiding it like the plague and 'empty seats?'. That's also something of a rarity.
So come on down and see for yourself!

[jbayfan]

Mind you though, one has to feel dreadfully sorry for the SAA company ethos. Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, was so unimpressed with the standards of maintenance and quality control in the airline recently that he felt it necessary on a flight to the USA last month to have two back up aircraft along for the ride. This was a gross traducement by applied innuendo of the high standards of SAA and Mr Zuma has done nothing other than to make himself appear ridiculous whilst demeaning the national flag carrier in the process.

Cavortingcheetah, great post considering that the SAAF chartered an SAA A340 as one of the backup aircraft and his family travelled on SAA to New York. Zuma travelled in the SAAF BBJ.

So lets hear it from all the 'proud' SAA pilots. Why not tell us how we are all just jealous because we aren't part of your statefunded cool-kids-club.. Seems your standard line when your thieving management is standing at SARS with the well used begging bowl.

Fuzzy, you must be mates with JG1. Did you guys meet at the same "South African pilots who were rejected by SAA" support group meeting?

Thanks for being Proudly South African :ok:

[Trossie]

This "proudly South African" :mad: amuses me... Proud of what? Your 'armed response burglar alarm' industry??!!

SAA... that's the bunch that had two entire crews arrested at LHR some time back, isn't it?

Tell you what: a 6 billion 'any currency' "re-capitalisation" is a bail-out in any normal language!! (Ask the Scottish banks. And are the SA tax-payers asking as many searching questions as the tax-payers that had to bail out the Scottish banks?? Doubt it though, they all get hearded like sheep in SA and believe the party line! How does it go: "bah bah"!!!)

Beechbum: stop lying around on that beach pretending to be a pilot and try some of that Black Sheep; it has real taste, unlike that Castle cats' pee!!!

Back to SAA: maybe they need that bail-out to be able to opperate those routes to China to be able to carry all those money bags for the politburo...?

[jmflying]

They must have got their financial advise from "Lehman Brothers" !!!!

[beechbum]

It's a pity actually that an individual who lives near or the to the south of Yorkshire has the audacity to comment on something he obviously knows nothing about.
As for lying on the beach Trossie, at least I can because it's nice and warm here and I ain't freezing my :mad: off in some poxy English pub on the mud island! :yuk:
But for once I agree with you,Castle is a bit like the yellow stuff hence the reason I lie on the beach and consume other fine nectar. Oh and it's nice and warm here....................not the beer that is!!
Oh yes I never pretend to be a pilot that's far too arrogant ......:cool:
Now where were we before Trossie interrupted us........:ugh::hmm:

[crew101]

Bailout!!:= I repeat it is a bailout SAA is a unproductive government pot that just boils away tax payer money. Everybody in the world can see it except those that do not want to see it. How much did Comair get? how much did One time get?

[NextLegUndefined]

SAA is not the only airline in the world that is being backed up financially by its parent state. However SAA has shown, for the first time in a very, very long time, that it may be turning a corner in its ability to turn a profit, but isn't quite there without the help of the tax payer, yet. The RSA government also applies various 'strategic' and politically motivated demands on the airline to service routes that the airline would like to give up. The same goes for some of its staff and departments.

This is not the United States of America where a deregulated, private airline industry rides the waves of the economy, without state assistance.

This is South Africa.

This is also PPRUNE, not a political or economic debating forum. Start a rumour about sub-standard training or unsafe flight operations at SAA and then at least the debate will be informative and interesting, albeit cut short by fact.

[JG1]

What is it, Beechbum? A “recapitilastion”? Yup, you are right there, it’s a recapitulation. Back to SARS for more cash because you’ve squandered the last lot you were given.

Angry and frustrated, jbay? Sure, because MORE of my money is going your way to fund your unearned lifestyle .. and guess what? I’m paying, so I get to be allowed to be. Blow me. Sad ? That the same old posters like yourself trot out the same old lines…’jealous, rejected by SAA, waa, waa, bullsh1t..’ ? Next time you sign on with your untouchable captain/PDI first officer and your beetle-like size-67-assed flight attendants who define inefficiency, spare a thought for those of us who are sadly and jealously pining away smilingly elsewhere at airlines who can proudly say they are standing on their own two feet and making it, as opposed to slavishly defending a tottering, inefficient, bungling, inept parastatal that’s effectively on a par with the SABC in terms of credibility.

It’s a bailout. When other companies need to buy new equipment, they have usually foreseen the need for some time, BUDGETED for it (look that word up, jy-pay & beechbutt), and have carefully applied policies which result in there being enough capital, or creditworthiness, to acquire the aforementioned equipment.

Whatever you want to call it, it’s yet another cash injection from us to you, so be good enough to be grateful and say thank you next time you pass by on the apron. In fact, change your callsign to ‘Thankyou261 Heavy’:E Better than 'Bringbuck'...:}

[Artrides]

+1 JG1

I am against any form of state competition against private business in a market related economy. SAA is like any other state enterprise: a bottomless hole with regards to money. State organisations do not have a motive for making profit: public health, police, rail transport etc. only exist to deliver a service, not to make profit. SAA seems no different. Privatise the airline, see how it fares when the competition and survival motivators drive it forward. If they struggle to compete with Emirates, that is not my concern and completely irrelevant: I do not wish to pay out of my pocket so that our "National Flag Carrier" can try to compete against an airline that has them trumped on every count in the market. If it cannot survive on its own, it doesn't deserve to survive: my own employer included.

[jbayfan]

JG1, we each get one life and need to make the most of it. I personally don't give a :mad: where SAA gets its money or what the company does to keep operating. Your airline / company is not, as previously mentioned in a post above, saddled with political interference and biased / EE hiring policies.

While SA is a third world country being run by a bunch of thieves, one either rides the wave or gets left behind.

So next time you pass me on the apron, I'll "just smile and wave".

Here's some food for thought:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for...another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

[divinehover]

"armed response burglar alarm industry"

What a silly, sad little man. Shame old chap, where did it all go wrong for you?

[Alternative]

Blah,blah,blah,blah!

[Trossie]

Here come a GREAT BIG WOODEN SPOON:

divinehover "..."armed response burglar alarm industry"

What a silly, sad little man. Shame old chap, where did it all go wrong for you? "

It hasn't gone wrong here, but I have been saddened to see how wrong it has gone for all the friends and family who have had to retreat behind the bars and barriers of their armed response burglar alarms there... It's actually gone very well here!!!

beechbum (and by the way, 'beech' is wood, or 'hout', not a stretch of sand!) well done with the 'Google', pity your geography's not quite up to scratch though! And we have a marvellous local pub (that serves 'Black Sheep'!) with a beautiful beer-garden; it's very pleasant walking back from it, even on a dark winter's night, without the fear of being mugged or run down on the road... and then we don't even have a closed gate when we get home and don't have to worry about disabling that 'armed response burglar alarm'!! Have fun in your 'Gangsters Paradise'!!!

Now, back to the topic: there's been a lot of talk of the problems in Greece; 'recapitalisation' and 'bail-out' are used almost as interchangealble terms. Like-wise with SAA, the 'party line' is that it is 'recapitalisation' while to the real world it is a 'bail-out'. With proper commercial airlines there has to be a proper business plan that involves planned investment, etc. Hand-outs from taxpayers is seen, in those circles, as a sign of failure and with more enlightened taxpayers a lot of questions get asked!! And there has been mention in this thread about SAA pilots getting 'bonuses'... Aren't the SA taxpayers going to be asking some searching questions about those bonuses being paid to a 'business' that is in need of such a large taxpayer-funded bail-out? I somehow doubt it. As has been said above, that is just the way it is in SA. The 'party line' always wins out against business logic and the taxpayer is loaded up even more and more with the tab. That wealth-creating taxpayer's "camel's back" is going to snap sometime and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down. Enjoy your flying at that airline that seems to be a 'money black hole' while you can, if your conscience doesn't make you worry about your burden on those taxpayers. But then the taxpayers there will probably just give in like sheep to the party line going 'bah, bah, bah' all the way!

It must be so difficult for other airlines to compete in such a 'state distorted' business environment. But then maybe it isn't so difficult if you can compete on service and win your customers that way! (I saw a report some time ago about SAA having a 77% increase in profits. It's like a comment that I heard many years ago about the HNP having a 50% increase in their votes... "If you start with 2 matches and you've now got 3, that's a 50% increase, but it still means that you've still only got 3 matches"! 77% isn't difficult if you start from a low number!!)

Those SAA crews arrested at LHR did cause quite a few humourous comments like, watching an SAA A340 taxy in: "Do you think that the crew are going straight to the hotel, or stopping at the police station on the way?"!!

Now don't try that old "you're not here so you don't know what you're talking about" bleat: it's as old and irrelevant as the ossewa!!!

[cavortingcheetah]

Can't quite imagine who in their right minds would want to walk, or slither and slide, along a dark wintery country road in Britain? They're always either wet or icy and full of pot holes. Perhaps though, a sensible precaution if you're too drunk to drive. Down here you still can drive drunk. The place is over populated anyway and you can see off the cops with a few buffaloes. But then if I lived in Britain I'd need to be inebriated. What else would there be to spend my benefit hand outs on apart from cigars? As for things going well in that part of Europe, it's a bit like mediocrity and the parable of the burnt matches. It's not as bad as those inside the country think it could be looking at their Greek cousins but the deterioration and corruption on the inside is noticeable to those on the outside looking in.
Anyway back to the topic and away from an insignificant little socialist island to the powerhouse of Africa and its quasi benevolent dictatorship.
South Africa thinks it should have and can afford a national airline. It's the privilege of rich nations to be able to waste their money how they will. Those nations who cannot even afford a train set should just be thankful that SAA, in being as dreadful as it is from a passenger point of view, might encourage people to desert to travel on other carriers such as BA and Virgin, ghastly and strike prone as they might be, thus enriching the coffers of those whose Olympic ideas of grandeur are on the point of discovering disaster.

[Artrides]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen!

You are sadly missing the point, and I am not even going to comment on the "we can at least drive drunk here" bit. I hope that was meant sarcastically.

Firstoff, this country's economy is growing at maybe 3% per annum, and has been known to shrink once in a while too, with various pieces of legistlation (the labour law, the new companies act, etc.) severly inhibiting the ability of the economy to grow.
We will be squeezed with higher fuel prices, fuel levies, toll roads and taxes...many of these funds embezzled by the government or spent to keep the welfare state going.

SAA will survive only as long as taxes are pumped into it. If it doesn't undergo a serious revamp with regards to management (style, ability, qualifications, amount) and staff, as well as equipment and assets and operations, it will not last forever. There is no justification on my tax money spent on this white elephant! Give me better roads, better policing, invest it in infrastructure, give me a tax break even FFS, but don't waste it on a "National Carrier"!

Sense and logic do not often prevail in this supposed "Powerhouse of Africa", that in itself being an oxymoron, just look at our GDP per Capita ($10,100) and compare it with Italy ($30,300)...we are not a powerhouse! We cannot afford these costly luxuries until this country has economic growth, and that is what this entire debate should really be about!

[Shrike200]

I personally don't give a **** where SAA gets its money or what the company does to keep operating.

I'll reword that for you, with the same meaning: 'I don't give a **** that we've taken some of your money against your will to prop up our company.' Epic moral failure, but anyway...

Your airline / company is not, as previously mentioned in a post above, saddled with political interference and biased / EE hiring policies.

Yes, it is. I can't see how you could even say that with a straight face. Assuming I could see your face. Which I can't. But I'll assume it was straight.

While SA is a third world country being run by a bunch of thieves, one either rides the wave or gets left behind.

Reword again: 'All that stuff that we hate about third world graft, corruption, incompetence etc is irrelevant, as long as I'm the one on top :)'

Here's some food for thought:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for...another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation!

Your food for thought was not very nutritious - I'll add some protein supplements:
1) You don't get it: YOU'RE the poor! Stop taking OUR money!

2) Yeah - WE'VE worked for our money, stop receiving it without working properly. MY airline partially funds YOUR airline via taxation, despite being a direct competitor!

3) Again - The government has TAKEN from my airline, a wealth generator, which has to get all super-lean and efficient or DIE, to GIVE to your airline, which is all bloated and useless and on constant life support.

4) So stop dividing my companies profits FFS!

5) YOU'VE gotten the idea that you don't need to work efficiently and can earn non-market related salaries, because WE (taxpaying entities) take care of you! We slave on, despite your voracious appetite for cash that you didn't earn, which comes from us! Thanks.

I'm not sure if you intended to unload the equivalent of a 12G into each foot with your post, but you did succeed. Or, epic troll, well done. I heard a friend say once that you guys are like those government ministers who buy ultra luxury vehicles - sure, the rule book allows them to do it - but it doesn't make it any less morally reprehensible. It was a good analogy IMHO.

I always enjoy the SAA posts, they do liven the place up, thanks.

[Artrides]

Shrike200, my point exactly.

Look, it's not your fault that you work for SAA, and I can understand that it is a bit of an emotional sore point to be told that your (very lucrative) employer should either be sold off or shut down, but in the bigger picture it is what is best for this country: a small step in the right direction.

You don't have to like the idea at all, hence why you tell us that your training standards are so fantastic: a point I cannot contest, but sadly an irrelevant point once again. An airline doesn't become financially viable only because its crews are well trained.

Please do not attempt to defend the indefensible by referring to jealousy, lack of ambition etc. Those statements do not change the facts, which happen to be that SAA is a parastatal disaster sucking my tax money like so many other government departments, without actually giving me any service. I have to spend some more money to get that...which is kind of rich since I have paid for it already.

[The Ancient Geek]

There is only one sensible solution for any state owned airline.
Privatise it. Sell it off to private enterprise and let it sink or swim in the real world. If it is as good as many claim it will become a thriving business.

Any state owned business becomes an inefficient job creation scheme, in private hands it has to operate efficiently and make a profit.

[jbayfan]

I always enjoy the SAA posts, they do liven the place up, thanks

Hook, line and sinker ;)

[Shrike200]

Or, epic troll, well done

I included that to cover all bases already. Not that it was the original base, IMHO. 'Just kidding guys', lame :)

[Trossie]

cavorting... " ...to walk, or slither and slide, along a dark wintery country road in Britain?" You've obviously throughly enjoyed the beers every time you've visited, haven't you??!!! Try walking on those roads a bit less 'tiddley' next time!!

"...and full of pot holes." Too much beer again: that was the fields that you were walking through... you'd missed the roads!!

"Down here you still can drive drunk." Hmmm... that'll explain the annual slaughter rate on the roads there!!

Several of the contributors above have got it spot on: it would be much, much better for the taxpayers there if their money was spent on things that improved their lives (like fixing those many, many pot-holes, some massive road saftey and crime prevention efforts, etc., etc.) rather than pouring that money down a bottomless pit like a state-owned airline. No real airline should be state-owned. And having high training standards is irrelevant if the airline doesn't have any rational business plan: I have known of many pilots working for airlines with good training standards that have ended up out of work as their airline went bust (that doesn't mean that good training standards are incompattible with good business as those doing well in business usually have amongst the highest training standards).

And this mindless 'proudly xyz' shows a shallow thought process. If you want to be proud of something then quantify it: I spoke to a pilot a few years ago who put it perfectly, saying "I'm proud to work for AB, but not proud of AB" (jumble those letters as you feel fit!).

So come on, get a taxpayers' revolt going and get that money better spent and give the business-minded airlines there a fair chance...

[FuelFlow]

The unfortunate history of Star Alliance subsidies

Airline Government funding
Adria Airways Lost €3.2 million in 2008 and €13.9 million in 2009, both absorbed by the Slovenian government. Sought a €50 million
capital injection in 2010, half of which has been received.
Aegean Attempted merger with Olympic Air blocked in 2011 by the European Commission due to competition concerns. Olympic
Air was the successor to Olympic Airlines, which received over €700 million in illegal state aid.
Air Canada CA$250 million loan from the government-owned Export Development Corporation in 2009, of which CAD$100 million
was from a special cabinet-controlled EDC account.
Air New Zealand NZ$885 million capital injection in 2001.
Asiana Debt of KRW3.76 trillion to state-owned Korea Development Bank was frozen in January 2010.
Austrian Airlines €500 million in state aid from the Austrian Government to cancel debts prior to September 2009 takeover by Lufthansa –
on the back of a €200 million loan from the Austrian Government.
Brussels Airlines Loan of €125 million SN Airholding (stakeholder in SN Brussels Airlines) granted from Federal Investment Company in 2002.
Croatia Airlines 195 million Croatian Kuna in state aid between 2007 and 2009.
Lufthansa €800 million German Government contribution to Lufthansa pension fund in 1995.
SAS Sought a new capital injection of SEK 4-5 billion, half of which comes from the Governments of Sweden, Norway and
Denmark - following a similar injection in 2009 from the same sources.
South African Airways ZAR1.5 billion loan from the State in 2009/10 in exchange for shares, following a ZAR 3 billion loan from the State in 2008.
Spanair €120 million in loans and capital increases from the Catalan Government in 2010/11.
Swiss US$1.5 billion state aid in 2002.
Thai Airways THB 23 billion loan from four State-owned banks in 2008/2009.

[Trossie]

cavorting... I missed commenting on this one: "...away from an insignificant little socialist island..."!!!

Methinks that you'll find that that "little ... island" powerhouse (with it's not insignificant aviation industry) is significantly missing from the above list (privided by 'FuelFlow') of socialist state-interference in the airline industry!! It doesn't take a degree in politics to see where the real socialism is!!!

Airlines should be cut free from state involvement and allowed to fly off into their futures on their own! And those that can't cope on their own should be left to the same fate as the dodo.

(However, please don't take this too personally as I've enjoyed many of your posts!!!)

[dash431]

So if I'm reading Fuel Flows post correctly... National carriers are a bad idea... Who would have thought!!!!!?????!!!!!

[308GT4]

If you are a tea-man, working in the Kuruman railway siding, for the last 35 years now, you probably buy a packet of sugar or jam now and then as a " luxury". Maybe even a packet of tobacco for your pipe. Bad man, no biscuit!
Of this ill spent money, 14 % will go directly to the country's income tax coffers. So tea-man, the closest you will ever get to flying SAA is seeing their con-trail overhead. But, your bloody hard earned money is going directly to keep the Black-Hole propped up! But no doubt in your eyes this is "right"? After all, all good African countries MUST have a National Carrier! (why?)

Now 'considering' that we "need" a National Carrier, if SAA were to have ONLY it's long haul aircraft and only fly LONG haul routes(Lagos is not), then EVERYONE in SA would be happy! SAA will not be pulverising local business toes, who ARE able to fly local and regional and cater for all the demand more than sufficiently, and thereby show reasonable to good profits.
The country gets to keep and show off it's National Carrier which is crucial for world/African standing....
(the pilots at SAA get to keep their [ what word?] salaries.)
We in honoust private business are allowed to do business in a way that IS good for the country's employment issues.
But alas, the BIGGER picture.... Who gets to decide on the routes and contracts and MOST importantly, the aircraft purchased? Not the correct consultants in the relevant fields, but the venerable hallowed politicians for the "commission"!!!
I reiterate about the modern politician. The only way the French got rid of the entrenched disgusting Royal rot, was not through negotiation, but by chopping off their heads! (Same goes for the voracious big business's insatiable lust to have everything AND prevent any others from getting anything more than what they need to stay alive! See the new slavery of the 21st century)

[Abbey Road]

I met a SAA captain late last year, whilst I was down-route in South America. Had a chat with him and his wife and they have decided enough is enough, and are leaving for ..... the UK. Interesting! Nothing in SA attracts them enough to want to stay. Just like I wasn't interested in remaining in Zimbabwe.

Africa is hell bent on turning itself in to a sewer. So be it. They can have their sewer.

[sayswho]

After reading all this my deliberation is as follows :
Start a process of privatization of SAA, make all employees reapply for their jobs should they wish to take the gamble and if non profitable let them take the path of so many more deserving airlines that have seen their demise. SAA staff are only so defensive because they fear the truth, you are expensive in relation to your true value and thats no fault of your own but rather inherited so don't feel bad:{
Guys were tired of carrying you so don't hate us Mwah xxx

[Trossie]

An SAA captain wanting to move to the UK... Why??!! To quote above: "Can't quite imagine who in their right minds would want to walk, or slither and slide, along a dark wintery country road in Britain? They're always either wet or icy and full of pot holes." !!!

But then, your risk of being murdered in the UK is 1.43/100,000 against 34.1/100,000 in SA (see the palindrome?); slightly more people are killed on the roads in the UK in a whole year than are killed on the roads during the summer holiday break in SA!! (Not opinions... facts.)

But more importantly, sticking to this topic, there is a very big non-state funded airline industry in the UK, showing how it can/should be done... That gives the fare-paying public a lot of good choice and good service and it gives pilots a lot of choice and (especially if they are 'regional' or 'lo-cost' pilots) better working conditions than many other parts of the world.

"Come on in... the water's nice!!!" And the beer!!

(The 'proudly South African contingent have gone rather quiet here... haven't they? All good fun!!)

[jbayfan]

Haven't gone quiet....just busy with my bidsheet trying to decide whether to go to Munich for some skiing, to Beijing or Hong Kong for some shopping, to Sao Paulo or Buenos Aires for some good meat or maybe just ask for some ad hoc leave so I can take my BMW 1200 down to the airport, hop in my RV7 and head down to my holiday home at the coast.

Decisions, decisions :hmm::hmm::hmm:

[Shrike200]

Haven't gone quiet....just busy with my bidsheet trying to decide whether to go ....snip bla bla crowing at the lesser mortals... take my BMW 1200 down to the airport, hop in my RV7 and head down to my holiday home at the coast.

Well, at least you've now openly embraced the moral low ground.

[Beechdrivr]

Hate getting involved in these mud slinging matches but having read jbayfans last post, all i can say to you is you re a childish tw*t. That's just a plain stupid post and just adds fuel to the fire.

I'll leave you all to carry on.

Safe flying :ok:

[jbayfan]

Truth is I don't have all those toys.....just tired of this constant SAA bashing.....you guys lit the fire (again) and I'm just fueling it out of pure irritation at your "bash SAA at all costs" attitude.

After the taxman has taken his bite out of my salary and I have paid for all those things that my taxes should have provided, there's actually not that much left over for anything else. Private schools for the kids (nothing fancy, just the same that thousands of other Gautengers send their kids to), medical insurance, a bond of just over R1 million, exorbitant rates, taxes, electricity and water bills, insurances and security services, vehicle payments (over-inflated initial vehicle acquisition cost with Netstar, insurance etc), there's little left over for anything else. Certainly not for a BMW motorcycle, private aircraft or holiday spot.

Took me 13 years from the day I started flying to get into SAA.....worked my ass off in many of the ass end of the world places you guys flew, possibly with you, and made it into SAA......no apologies from me for that. We don't look down on you as lesser mortals as so many of you have intimated. We understand that your airlines don't get government bailouts, but you also don't have government interference and politically motivated appointees or commercial obligations. We know your salaries are lower than ours for similiar work.......but 27 years after I first climbed into an aircraft and 15 years after being hired by SAA I am still an FO and still have to make bunks and fold rags and bags when rostered as a P3 while most of you obtained your command after as little as 2 or 3 years with your airline. If you see us on a nightstop in SA, pop over for a chat and a drink.........you'll find that we are friendly and humble and not a bunch of elitists.

Hope to see you out there sometime so that we can change your mindset over a friendly brew.

[Beechdrivr]

Jbayfan

Fair enough mate, just got a bit irritated with that post. Most of us have paid our dues. I've been there done that too, took me 10 years to get to the top. Just your good fortune that you happen to fly for Spoories. I can promise you that if i ever got a gap to go, i wouldn't hesitate as i'm sure most of the other posters here would too.

I suppose that's just the nature of the beast you guys are saddled with most of the time. Not that i condone what SAA wanna do, i think they should go it on their own like the rest of the airlines have to. Only fair i think. You guys work there, it's not your fault you have it so good. Anyways good luck.

Safe flying :ok:

[Shrike200]

jbay, we've all got bills to pay, and we didn't light this fire again actually - SAA did when they asked for (another) R6000000000 (that is a f**kton of money, seriously. Wow...just...wow. Not that they'll get it all. Be prepared for epic ignition if they do :) ) I'm not having a go at you, but what riles us is that you get more money to do it with (so it's not like that means you've got any more reason than us to moan about that stuff), taken from that massive chunk of our salaries that goes to tax....well, we don't like seeing it wasted. Nor do you. Not just on a company like SAA - on anything the government sees fit to piss our money away on. You know the feeling, as you've said.

SAA is just one, avoidable (IMHO) item in that long list. Not only do we also see ourselves also having to pay for everything that our taxes should get, to add insult to injury we have to sponsor you guys. Your next paycheck - just think, a tiny little fraction was paid by me personally, and a noticeable fraction by the company I work for. You must understand how that can be irritating surely? And you (again, IMHO) are trying to defend the indefensible. Loyalty to ones company is an admirable trait, within reason however. I (and, it seems, many others) think SAA has stepped beyond the bounds of reason in this regard. Surely you can appreciate this view as more than just 'bashing SAA'? Don't you think there is some merit to the argument against state sponsorship of a company that should be able to survive unaided?

My beef isn't with you personally of course - although I do believe that if you (any SAA pilot) wants to feel genuine pride in your airline again, YOU need to be agitating from within for change - YOU need to be advocating that your company stands on your own two feet - many of you may well do that, I don't know.

So.....that brewsky you offered.....the bottom line is, you're buying :)

P.S. I don't want to work for SAA - seriously, no CV in there. Happy where I am, thanks. Anyone know what the breakdown of domestic airline traffic in SA is? Pax numbers, aircraft movements etc?

[Avi8tor]

As a regular on this topic over the last 10 yrs or so, my comments remain the same. Sell it off! If it's such a great business, it will be listed and we can all make a fortune on the shares.

I read somewhere that SAA has had R16 billion over the last 10yrs. That sounds like properly capitalized to me.

[Deskjocky]

SAA is a ticking time bomb financially. One just has to look at the many government hand outs its needed and will continue to need to stay afloat.

Why is this? the major problem is SAA is battling to remain relevant in the wider global aviation market. In my view this is due to a few reasons:

-South Africa's geographic position forces SAA to focus on O&D traffic. This is why the route network has and will continue to shrink in real terms.
-Massive competition from not only legacy carriers but also the ones from the Middle East. SAA's product (holistically- FFP, route network, etc) is lagging behind. In add ton to this african carriers like Ethiopian and Kenya Airways are establishing their own networks that are diverting traffic away from SAA's Africa network.
-Domestic competition continues to grow. Comair's acquisition of new 800's is a watershed. Mango also seems destined to be rolled back into SAA at some point, which will have a negative effect on its cost base and by implication its fares.
-Political interference continues to hinder the company. Its an instrument of state.

SAA's future is secure as long as the government is happy to chip in cash when needed. How long will this last? Probably for a long time- right up until corruption has taken so much cash out the system that there is nothing left for SAA.

[dash431]

Its quite simple actually. SAA wont survive privatisation, as they dont make money. End of story. and thats what all the employees are scared of... as I would be if I worked there.:cool:

[Jetjock330]

I guess that bail out will cover this SAA fine (http://www.airnewstimes.co.uk/south-africa-singapore-airlines-fined-for-price-fixing-14219-news.html#.T3K3PEqdJ4E.facebook) too!

SAA was fined 18.8 million rands ($2.5 million, 1.9 million euros) and Singapore Airlines 25.1 million rands, the Competition Commission said in a statement.
The settlement will also resolve a separate case against SAA, which was accused of collusion over domestic fares and international cargo charges during the 2010 football World Cup, it said.
"SAA has offered its full cooperation to the commission in its ongoing investigations and prosecution of both the matters," the statement said.
"Similarly, Singapore Airlines undertook to do the same with regards to the Far East matter."
The decision made no separate finding against South African Airways in the World Cup case but the fine will settle the matter, it added.


Just amazing what the tax payer is in for!!!

[DRPAM007]

I can understand the frustration of those who think that SAA is being unduly favoured by the government. The truth is that the aviation industry is witnessing another downturn everywhere except China and the middle east, and even these two regions are not completely immune from the wider effects of the global slowdown. The industry is not usually profitable business in a developing economy, not with the social imbalance that still exist in SA and the current unemployment rate of nearly 25%. However, it is too strategic to be allowed to driven by pure market economics. Those of us that are non- South African Africans are proud of the efforts SA has done to keep SAA in the top 80 airlines world-wide. There is need for a more sustainable strategy than just throwing money into the airline considering other pressing issues in the polity. It is quite possible to run profitably but much easier to make losses. The traffic growth forecast for Africa has exposed African carriers to increased competition and usually those with deep pockets win since it becomes a battle of attrition. Hence without increased funding SAA will not stand much of a chance. 5 years ago American Airlines was the biggest and most profitable airline in the world and it is fighting for it's survival. Though the USA denies it, chapter 11 "protection" is actually a "protectionist feature".

However, a winning strategy will be to have cross-border mergers among the airlines in the SADC region. But as we all know SAA is 98% government owned and the balancing of public service obligation and economic objective will make this strategy nearly impossible to pursue.

A country like Nigeria (with the second highest rpk in Africa) must force it's privatized local aviation industry to quickly consolidate through mergers and strong long term commercial agreements or face extinction in the next five years because the foreign competition is going to heat up.
Any takers on the alternative to government funding in this competing environment?

[suitcaseman]

Is chapter 11 protection not available to all airlines in the US and not just state owned ones?

[Trossie]

Are there any 'state owned' airlines in the US, or the UK, or any other such countries? Why should the state own an airline in the modern world?

[NextLegUndefined]

A few thoughts:

The modern world doesn't apply to Africa.

Who will pay for Air France's massive loss this year?

Who will pay for KLM's massive loss this year?

Who will pay for Luftansa's massive loss this year?

The closure of SpanAir? Malev Airlines? Who do you think will pay for that?

Kingfisher and American Airlines going the same way? Maybe Quantas one day not too far away...?

SAA's income stream from operating in Africa is in relatively very weak currencies, yet bills are in strong currencies. SAA's chief international competitors are economically massive in comparison and can afford brutal price wars on routes and ambitious fleet replacements with new 787s, A380s, etc...

SAA is up against these and many other factors, including some despicable political interference by our own government, an unpresidented attempt at complete African airline industry domination by (government backed) Emirates, rising fuel prices on massive fuel quantities (relative to all other RSA airlines), increasing airport and industry taxes (EG carbon taxes in the EU, Heathrow charging 5 times normal taxes), escalating catering costs (a much smaller problem for low cost carriers), over-capacity on some routes and inefficient (old) aircraft as well as the restrictive access to highly-regulated markets outside of Africa.

It is not as well managed as a privately run business could be but it is of strategic importance to the country to have it, when it comes to growing tourism, new routes (and markets), diplomatic ties, trade agreements, etc...

How many South African aviation companies are operating a fleet of twenty or so wide body airliners up against these conditions?

What would happen to the pilot industry in RSA if SAA folded and 800 pilots (95% holding between 4000 to 25 000 hrs experience each) was to flood the market? And long term, what would be the effect of such a shrinkage in our aviation industry on flight schools, engineers, cabin crew training, and aviation management personnel development? It would all but kill it as the likes of Emirates and other big carriers would eventually dominate even the domestic market.

It burns tax payers no end to have to fund a business that should theoretically run on its own, no-matter what uniform that pilot/tax payer happens to be wearing. But over simplifying the problem into things like bad management, politicians and high pilot salaries is not hitting the nail on the head, in fact it just shows a lack of willingness to try and understand the complex answer.

I am willing to admit that the complex answer is beyond my scope of study and expertise as a pilot. But by writing, in this forum, generalised negative character traits in SAA pilots, the supposed 'rediculous pilot salaries' that are causing the airline to run at a loss, and coming up with other simplistic answers as to the cause of government funding of SAA is utterly useless. It does not generate understanding, stimulate debate or build knowledge. It is unintelligent and insultary.

I don't become a Marxist loving, corrupt politician when I put on my SAA uniform. I am not overpaid, my family live a modest lifestyle and I have very little money left at the end of the month because I believe in spending only what money I have. I also don't find myself sitting on holiday, I earn my monthly salary.

I would love to see SAA privatised, in an ideal world. But every day I am reminded that I chose to live in a beautiful but not-so-ideal world, called Africa.

[jbayfan]

Excellent post, NLU :D

[JCO7]

A lot of great points NLU.

I agree that there is some strategic importance to having a national carrier for the reasons you mentioned. But at what cost to a) the taxpayer, b) private airlines who compete against SAA in the local and regional market and do not have access to bail out funds and c) the free market system in general which in theory should allow efficient allocation of scarce resources?

When an uncompetitive state player is kept on artificial financial life support it skews the entire industry and everyone (except those benefiting directly from SAA) is worse off.

If SA's aviation industry does need to shrink, then so be it. However, I believe that our industry is actually being artificially limited by a state entity's over powering role in it.

A competitive and efficient SAA would take market share from other international operators like Emirates etc. and there is then no reason why SAA has to remain a small competitor against the larger airlines, rather than be a force to be reckoned with. However, to achieve this SAA would probably have to be privatised or allowed to fail in order for another airline to fill this role.

Yes should SAA fail there would be a flood of experienced pilots on the market, which would have very negative short-term consequences for the supply and demand dynamics, but these pilots would be absorbed into other airlines where they will likely be used more efficiently, including the private airlines which would be allowed to grow and flourish in the absence of SAA.

I believe the "complex answer" to growth and prosperity in the aviation industry in the face of the adverse factors that NLU mentions will be found by an innovative private sector when allowed to do so. SAA's and the governments' answer to the challenging business environment is merely the injection of more and more money, good money chasing bad.

The excuse that this is Africa and things don't work here like they should hold less water in SA than in the rest of Africa. We have strong, profitable, world-class private companies in other industries in this country, who compete on a square footing with international competitors. Why not in the aviation industry?

[NextLegUndefined]

Hi JC07, I agree with you (without correction) on every point of your post and I aspire to exactly the same thing. My answer to your questions: Because of politicians.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Any state which has a permanent staff of officials, they begin as our servants and end up imagining themselves our masters.

Cicero

[Shrike200]

NLU you make a well reasoned post, though I remain totally unconvinced, I'd go with JCO7 on this one. And of course my opinion is incredibly valuable in the aviation industry. /sarcasm :)

inefficient (old) aircraft
I'm going to genuinely go WTF and ask for some education as to which aircraft SAA has which are old and inefficient. Seriously? (I have my serious question face on now) Maybe you meant to say 'not brand new'. The A342's were a bit sucky, sure, but aren't they going/gone? Otherwise you've got reasonably decent aircraft all round surely, decent enough to work with at least?

insultary I entered that into my electronic dictionary and it made a smiley face :)

Also, the whole idea of 'strategic importance'. It's a bit of a nebulous concept really. Do you mean to say that tourists somehow wouldn't be able to fly here if SAA were to vanish? Or that business/diplomatic ties would somehow become untenable without SAA? If there's money to be made on the route, somebody will fly it. It doesn't have to be SAA, or even an SA company really, much though we might like it to be. We'll just have to face the fact that the SA government has removed SA's ability to compete with the big boys, by virtue of being incredibly dumb and short-sighted maybe?

The cost factors (Heathrow, fuel etc) you mention apply to ALL long haul operators - they need to make a plan, so does SAA. Preferably without involving yet another bailout. Emirates has massive backing, sure - are you saying that it's basically a question of 'do we go head to head with Emirates'? (Because it seems like SAA might lose that one, so let's not reinforce failure IMHO)

SA law prevents foreign carriers from operating domestically, so at least we'll have that. Yet SAA stifles competitive, sustainable growth there too. By the time we've all finished fighting over the scraps, we'll be weaker than ever.

Anyway. I think the horse might be dead now. Also, I get the distinct impression that our opinions on the matter are irrelevant. :D Nice quote SRT. The more things change....

[millertime]

I generally don't get involved in these threads as they are often emotional and childish (from both sides). The last few comments though, both for and against, have been interesting reading. The fact that SAA fly to the Americas, Europe, the East, Australia and Africa means that there is unfragmented unified competition on the routes and that the passenger benefits from the low prices that result. Emirates which is entirely government backed (and any other Airline) are not here because they like South Africa, they want to make money. In the absence of competition, prices would skyrocket and we would become another African country paying a fortune to get to the outside world. The only reason that passengers in SA can continue to pay the ridiculously low prices for long haul tickets ( in the face of $125 a barrel, EU emission charges and rising user costs) is by offering the passenger another unified option. The taxpayer does benefit and therein lies the strategic importance of SAA.

[Tableview]

Interesting views on here. I'm going to throw in another idea.

SAA is kept alive by government subsidies because it has not really moved on from the old 'Spoorweg' days when it was part of SAR & H, that nepotistic organisation which provided jobs for the boys, who in those days were the Van der Merwes, who were unemployable in the private sector. The lowest grade were paper-shufflers and form-stampers in those Limpopo-grey glossy painted offices, the ones who had the right assets were trolley dollies and check in clerks, and those with connections (Broederbond) were senior management.

Time rolls on and now SAA is a nepotistic organisation which provides jobs for the boys, who now are the Siphos, who are unemployable in the private sector. The lowest grade are paper-shufflers and form-stampers in those Limpopo-grey glossy painted offices, the ones with the right assets (skin colour) are trolley dollies and check in clerks, and those with connections (ANC) are senior management.

It's a good airline, although inconsistent in service delivery, I've just had two long haul flights on the same route, the second as outstandingly bad as the first was good. But it's an airline that really shouldn't be there in its present form.

[NextLegUndefined]

Shrike 200 - When I mentioned the "new aircraft" I was referring to the problem posed by SAA's long range and ultra-long range routes. They have stopped making the A340 at the factory, a while ago, which is an admission by Airbus that it has been replaced by better, more fuel efficient aircraft. Like the ones other major carriers fly. Also, the passenger experience (seats, in-flight entertainment, wifi, etc...) on a brand new 777, A380, 787, A350 is much better than in a late nineties aeroplane. The only long range aeroplane in our fleet that gives our competition a run for their money are our A332.

As for "insultary," I think that word can be put down to the poetic creativity found in a pilot that has flown through the night... Sorry, I meant 'full of insults.' :O

With regard to strategic importance, I was quoting Trevor Manual.

With regard to costs (taxes, etc...) I was trying to put the point across that SAA cannot be compared to other RSA airlines because it is operating on a relatively gigantic scale. The economic effect of weather delays, the places we operate to, etc... are other factors - the principle of comparing apples with pears.

With that in mind, a large portion of SAA's competition are also government backed.

[cavortingcheetah]

As was evidenced in the recent trip to the USA by the ever humble and frugally public spirited Jacob Zuma, the South African Air Force has shown itself incapable of providing the equipment necessary to satisfy the presidential transport needs. It is entirely right and proper therefore that South African Airways should receive from the state and the tax payer as appropriate, whatever subsidies are necessary to keep aircraft available at a state of 24/7 readiness so that they can be hired by the SAAF in order to provide the proper form of transport for the president and his sleeping arrangements. The last such trip to the USA apparently required three aircraft to be dispatched in case one or two broke down. With a maintenance reputation as poor as that, it is hardly surprising that the Office of the State President authorises such funding when dealing with his perception of the vagaries of maintenance of the state airline.

[michaelbarns]

just because you didnt get into SAA doesnt mean you have the right to slag them off every 5min... cry me a river and move on! Its our national carrier, so love it, and ask any pilot who they would want to fly for, and they will say... SAA! And then ask any pilot at SAA if they are happy, and the answer will always be YES, its the best airline in the world!

[cavortingcheetah]

SAA is a slave of the South African government and so of course every South African has an absolute constitutional right to slag the thing off every time they might want to. It's a freedom charter thing, don't you know?
It is a pathetic rebuttal to claim that any criticism of SAA comes from those who did not get in to the parastatal parasite. One might as well attribute jealousy and green eyed monstrosity all around one, a trait which does nothing other than exemplify the small mindedness of those who use such an excuse.
There are many pilots who use objective decision making to formulate their own opinions and a healthy disdain for South African Airways and its truly appalling concept of customer relations and cabin staff training in no way shape or form implies envy, rather a degree of healthy discrimination. So many that do join SAA only use the government branch as a stepping stone to the likes of Qantas, Virgin, Emirates, Cathay and even EasyJet that the quality of the department speaks for itself. The salary structure is, of course, sufficiently significant so as to dissuade most who fly for the company from leaving. That's an important incentive to keep one enchained.
As for trying to get into SAA, speaking personally, I am too old and too experienced to do so. When you had to be a South African, I was not yet one, when you had to speak Afrikaans, I never could, when you had to know a training captain or two, I never did. All in all I never fell into the prism of what some might term qualified bigotry necessary for entry into the national carrier of South Africa. Now of course, speaking reflectively, if you cop the drift, the tradition of bias continues.
Having said all of that, let me close this little article by saying that the quality of training for SAA flight crews is probably among the best in the world. The SAA captains of my acquaintance are fine and upstanding fellows who are absolutely professional in every aspect of their trade. They are of course grossly overpaid but then that is their good fortune. I do sincerely hope that the same qualities of character as applies to the commanders can be attributed to the first officers of South Africa's so heavily subsidized transport company. I have my doubts but then I distrust political mouthpieces.

[TAVLA]

@CC
Likewise FO's and Captains have doubts about your self flattery and self indulgence.

[michaelbarns]

My gosh I think we all need to stand up and salute you oh lord you! The part that I am refering to is that you are now, "too experienced!" hahaha... Yes I must admit Gerneral Chuck Yeager was turned away from American Airlines because he was, "too experienced!" They wanted someone who couldnt fly and possesed no brain cells.

Back to reality, you didnt get in, you are sour, you hold a grudge etc etc etc. But if you did get in back in the days, you would now be happy with a big house and nice car and have a smile on your face... But alas im sure you are stuck somewhere flying a C172 and blame SAA for everything. You didnt cut in then and maybe this is the reason, the physcometric test would have spotted you a mile out!

And with regards to the pilots salary at SAA, you know absolutely nothing! Did you know that a few years before the rainbow nation arrived in 1994, SAA pilots earned less than the pilots at the Airforce. The new management then analysed the salaries from various airlines around the world, along with living conditions and imparticular the cost of living of those countries. They then brought SAA pilot salaries inline with what they would and should be as compared to other airlines around the world! So in laymens terms most if not all large airlines in the world, their pilots earn the same amount no matter what country they are in. This is all relative to infaltion, cost of living etc etc etc...

So get off SAA's back and look at the other airlines who are now stepping up to the table with their pay scale. Hell a co-pilot at Nationwide used to earn R11000pm! Would that be ok with you?

ps. You never had to speak Afrikaans, that was only in the airforce to fly jets so the fighter pilots could communicate in a dog fight without the "others" listening or understanding... Same as rugby and cricket etc etc etc bla bla bla.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Have you been eating your crayons again?

[Shrike200]

just because you didnt get into SAA doesnt mean you have the right to slag them off every 5min... cry me a river and move on! Its our national carrier, so love it, and ask any pilot who they would want to fly for, and they will say... SAA! And then ask any pilot at SAA if they are happy, and the answer will always be YES, its the best airline in the world!

Amazingly, you are indisputably wrong at least once, and sometimes more than once in each and every sentence you typed there! Good going! I would say 'troll', but it has the ring of an authentically intended post, so I have to subtract 500 internets from your pprune score, and...oh wait, I see that was your 4th post here. I'll attempt peer correction then - people critical of SAA are not by definition 'wannabee SAA pilots'. In the same way that people critical of the SA government are not necessarily 'wannabee politicians'.

Why would somebody be critical of a company they had applied to just because they didn't get in? Maybe critical of the selection process, the method's of testing etc....anyway. Not everybody is the sour grape type, in fact most aren't. If you had thought about it, you would have realised how self-evident this fact is. But you didn't. So you didn't. :)

Also, this isn't (to me at least) really about SAA pilot salaries, although I still maintain that the company could tell them '10-15% pay cut, take it or leave it' and not sit with a single crewing issue at all. And certainly if it was a profitable company, paid back its debt, they could be earning a million a month and I could be as green as I liked, I wouldn't have a leg to stand if I was to be a critic. For the same reason, if SA was a galactic superpower and had cash to spare then state sponsorship, while 'unfair', would not be too much of a sore point. BUT it's not. Look around. SA has far, far more pressing issues than propping up an airline that can't fend for itself. Again, there is nothing that SAA does that cannot be done by somebody else IMHO - somebody that does NOT cost the SA government (ie SA taxpayer) anything.

[cavortingcheetah]

Contrary to what many provincial pilots or aspirant flyers might think, South African Airways is not now nor ever has been the ne plus ultra of airlines. That is most unfortunate for certain human elements of the company ego structure.
In aviation career application, there are many who have taken other very successful and rewarding paths in aviation, who have never even considered applying to Spoories and who are now far too experienced to reduce themselves to the ranks of an African airline F/O, no matter how worthy those flying individuals might be.
Virgin Atlantic, as one good example for instance, is a serious piece of flying kit with beautifully talented hostesses to match the accomplishments of management. That seems, on at least one aspect, to be something that might be in less than vast supply at SAA; one speaks here of course only, and with great diffidence of management. There are many professional pilots out there who simply don't want to work for what they might perceive to be a badly run outfit, no matter what the short term wonga might be.
The back to be got off (sic), which is not very good English I admit, is of course that of the SA government which persists in subsidizing a company which might perhaps, in the climate of the private sector, sink with a rate of acceleration greater than that of the Titanic hurtling towards its watery doom. Salaries are a matter of significant importance relevant to the extent to which they are subsidized by the tax payer. That would include the consideration of any public funded pension schemes which might or might not apply. The SAA pilot's collective did indeed do very well for themselves at the time of the great negotiation and they are to be commended for having done so. Corporate financial history however is littered with the desiccated skeletons of companies who thought they were above the exigencies of financial restructuring necessitated by a changing economic situation whether global, domestic, parastatal, parasitic or private.

Now for a quick venture into a teeny digression in the face of some slightly hysterical personal criticism. Everyone interested in South African aviation was aware of the SA pilots salary structure campaign some years ago. It would not however be politic to reproduce certain letters which appeared in Flight International at that time. Flight International is a pretty decent sort of aviation magazine but it is an unhappy truth that many pilots do not more than read the back six pages or so at a news stand and so many would have missed the fun and games in the letters pages.
A Partaga Lusitania or a Cohiba Espendido is an indulgence. Tonight my total extent of self flattery would be that I can tell the difference between the two on aroma alone.
As for psychometrics, I can fiddle a Rorschach test blindfolded, having had the benefit of a virtual degree in practical clinical psychology from the Tavistock Clinic, Portman Square, London which used to process, among other oddities, those who would be pilots when their fathers wanted them to become bankers and their mothers wanted them to wear uniforms.
Totsiens.

[michaelbarns]

My God you have a big head, seriously... love the virtual degree though! I have lit a fire for you on this cold night ino order to help blow smoke up your ass. Please there is one golden rule in life, and thats not to blow your own trumpet and tell people how good you are, yet you never made it. And you made that mistake twice. Can we move on from your God persona? We understand that you are Neil Armstrongs brother with Chuck Yeagers DNA who has a degress from Harvard and is an MIT boffin. Woman must love you! "Chicks dig me cause im a rocket scientist!" Please dont ever make the mistake that you are now too good to ever be a F/O

Moving along, to ask SAA pilots for a 10-15% pay cut? And what is the reason for that? You say that it has nothing to do with SAA pilots but then quickly think they are overpayed...again, please. Why not ask your company for a 10-15% pay rise! And I would say by my assumption (we know how that goes) that no both of you did not get into SAA if infact you are a pilot at all. They have the largest and most modern fleet, so why wouldnt they pay the most. Management is one thing, but to go off at the people who work there, "pilots, cabin crew, ground crew etc" then you are seriosuly dilusional. And again, would you want to earn R30k pm at airline A or R50k pm at airline B.... Do you honestly want me to draw you a picture? Which idiot would turn that down? If you think for one second that I dont believe that you didnt get in and are now sour, well... please.... There are thousands of pilots who didnt make it into SAA, they packed up and moved on and found other great places to live and work, they dont hold a grudge....but then there are a few that hold a grudge...there are only a certain number of seats at the table so to speak. And now with BEE / AA etc etc etc. its even harder for "some" people to get in no matter what they have to offer. But thats the country we live in, the only one in the world where the majority has AA against the minority. We all know that there are far too many chiefs and not enough indians at SAA.

Just keep applying, if you give up then of course you wont get in.

[Shrike200]

Dude, seriously. You're just not seeing what I'm saying. Your salary is irrelevant. The fact that your company cannot actually afford (in the world of actual financial reality, as opposed to SAA make believe fairyland) to pay you (any of you, not only pilots) what you earn is relevant. I don't have a CV at SAA. I don't want to work for what they are now. Sorry. Deal with it. I'm not jealous of you anymore than I'm jealous of anybody else who earns more than me. More money is always nice, but I earn what I consider is a reasonable salary. It's sustainable, it's based on reality. I like that. I don't expect you to understand, just accept it. And when I said 'pay cut' I was talking about financial reality - the fact of the matter is, in the world of supply and demand, you could take a pay cut, the company would save money, and still have enough crew to do the job. That's all I was saying. Relax.

[skyvan]

michaelbarns, you are an embarrassment to your fellow SAA pilots.

You are on a good package to fly planes, that is all. You don't have to defend SAA at every turn, there is a PR department to do that.

The high salaries paid to SAA pilots is a symptom of the lack of appropriate management within the company. It happens to be one of the most obvious examples of inept business practise that we are all privy to. We don't know the extent of gross over-employment of incompetent people within the company, or the wastage due to inefficient ordering practises (amongst the many unnecessary costs associated with SAA), so many people will deal with what they do know. So yes, everyone will moan about the salaries paid to SAA pilots, especially when being squeezed with high taxes, new tolls etc.

Please do not for one moment think that there is no better outfit than SAA. It is a good company to work for as a pilot, thanks to SAAPA. But SAA is not for everyone, and if you slide your seat back for a moment, you will realise that SAA is a small player in the world, and (sadly) getting smaller as a result of bad management and international competition.

If you are under the age of 50, I'll hazard a prediction that you not retire from SAA unless there are some very wide changes made at SAA, and quite frankly, if those changes are made, a 10-15% paycut will be the least of your worries.

Anyway, to return to my first statement, you are wasting your time and breath, you are in an undefendable position. Most SAA guys know this, so they don't engage in these discussions, especially not in the juvenile manner in which you have conducted yourself. I am sure the guys who do keep an eye on these pages are cringing at your emotive responses. That someone of your disposition is within the ranks of the "elite" shows that the selection process is not as effective as it once was.

[michaelbarns]

yet you fly a Skyvan and moan because I support SAA? You are an embarresment to our country because at every turn you are happy to slate our national carrier. You need to read the previous posts to see what we are discussing instead of throwing your two cents worth by reading the last post and then making a comment. I dont think anyone particularly likes management, but what has management got to do with the SAA pilots and what they earn? Are you telling me for one second that you would turn down a pay increase at your company? Please this argument is getting pathetic. If you were a pilot you would know who you would most likely want to work for in South Africa, and that would be 95% of pilots. The rest enjoy coporate jet work. If a boypilot at SAA makes almost what a captain at Comair makes, its a no brainer. Ontop of that it is by far the most professional and enjoyable company to work for with the most modern fleet and a great bunch of crew, both front and back. You guys need to come to the realisation that SAA will never be closed down because it holds the countries name, everything goes through ups and downs. If they need to purchase 2 or 3 new aircraft for R6 billion rand, then yes it will reflect as a negative on their balance sheet for a year or two, then back to profit making. There is nothing that can be done about that. Aircraft are incredibly expensive, maybe we should go after Airbus or Boeing and ask them to lower their costs? Have some pride in your country, apart from what is going on behind closed doors, and please leave the pilots / crew out of this.

[kykweer]

MB - Do you have family running SAA? From your posts I find it difficult to derive that you arrived there on merit. Speaking of elite, does SAA employ pilots on merit and qualification alone? If the answer is No - then stop bragging about the elite, since that boat has left the harbour. Other airlines pay their pilots what they deem affordable whilst also bearing in mind skills retention. Their respective unions and management negotiate these structures, taking into account financial results. If SAA take financial results into consideration, you'd pobably have to pay to work at SAA. Don't insult us. There are many pilots in South Africa that are just as capable and professional as SAA's crew. SAA also has quite a few candidates that barely makes the grade, every airline has them, so get of your high horse, like SV said, you are embarrasing your collegues!

[FuelFlow]

My guess that he has just got to SAA and is still bewildered by his new seat in the back of the cockpit!!

Enjoy it while you can!::ok:

[skyvan]

Barns, I'll hazard a guess, you joined in the last couple of years, you were told repeatedly during the first week about how good you are, because SAA only takes the cream of the crop, and since you have "done your time" doing contract/smaller carrier, you believe what you have been told by the MMWC!

You are also very proud to work for SAA, and can't understand that anyone would prefer to work anywhere else.

So when someone shows the slightest negative sentiment towards SAA, you feel it is your duty to defend the "good name" of your employer.

This is quite honourable, if mis-guided. Demanding that people be proud of SAA just because they are South African is juvenile at best, and arrogant at worst.

I used to feel the same way, until over a coffee a a fellow captain (him on 320, me on 738), we discussed what there is to be proud of at SAA. The conclusion was very simple, there is little to be proud of at SAA, but there is huge potential within the company. If that could be harnessed and brought to fruition, then SAA would be an all-round awesome company to work for.

Don't make the mistake of projecting your feelings for Flight Ops (which is generally worthy) onto the rest of the company (which certainly isn't).

Can I recommend that you learn to exercise some discretion? You are obviously still young enough not to have your emotions fully in-check, which is leading you to expose yourself as a complete and utter tosser.

And do be careful who you insult and take-on while spending time on the forum, you never know when you'll be sitting beside them at work, or even sitting across the desk from them for whatever reason.

[cavortingcheetah]

After a certain amount of time spent under the tutelage of the man in the left hand seat, the buckaroo first officer will, if he has any grip on that over bloated concept known as CRM coupled with an intelligence quota of an even dinosauric level, realise that the words experience and good can mean two entirely different things in a cockpit. It is for this reason, among others, is it not, that a monitored approach at SAA is always flown by the first officer while the judgement calls are left to the man with the greater experience?
It's no disgrace for a tax payer, who is after all a partial shareholder, to criticise the national carrier of his country. Indeed, some might say it was his duty to do so. But for a mere worker within that company to expect financial compliance and emotional obedience from both the public and the tax payer, cloaked in the guise of rabid patriotic fervour reminds one of that fat little deranged fellow from Uganda, Idi Amin. He ended up in Saudi Arabia, perhaps as an air vice marshall?
Arrogance and inability to comprehend the viewpoints of others are ill bed fellows in the cockpit. The vainglorious assumption that because someone does not fly for the treasured transport company means that an application was both made and was then rejected reflects an attitude more usually found in the dunces' corner of the kindergarten.
But then perhaps there is lurking here a degree of drift down from that well known flying ace, Wing Commander Roald Dahl for did he also, in his later years, write of trolls and suchlike airborne peculiarities?

[DRPAM007]

Amazing how quickly a sensible thread is high-jacked and condescended into personal bickering and childish tirades by people who have too much time on their hands. It is imperative that SAA is not only kept solvent but competitive. Those with real solutions to the problems that have bedeviled the organisation should make presentations to the appropriate quarters or start their own airlines. Every airline has its flaws and those who have nothing but criticism towards SAA should look for somewhere else to vent their frustrations or take up a healthy sport like fly fishing or golfing.

[cavortingcheetah]

But SAA is not solvent is it and so there can be no imperative to keep it so.
No company is solvent when its financial base is funded from public funds at tax payers' expense. Pubic money is being used to bail out an organization that would be bankrupt in the private sector. If SAA could be privatised and turned into a competitive and profitable organization such as were Air France and British Airways then that might be a matter of commercial common sense. Unfortunately it would appear that this is not likely to happen so the argument continues, why should public money in a country poor in social services, be thrown at what has been called a corrupt, badly managed, uncompetitive and overpaid government department. Where is the imperative in that?
Two fun but true examples might serve. The other day in March I wished to plan to trips from Johannesburg. One was to Sydney and the other to Buenos Aires. On that day and at that particular internet time, in each case it was cheaper, although more time consuming, to fly from JNB on KLM to AMS and then on to EZE or SYD than to fly to either EZE or SYD on SAA. So long as SAA continues to provide dreadful cabin services and to blatantly price gouge, it will never be competitive with first world carriers. Those who pay their taxes in South Africa are entirely entitled to eschew fly fishing or golf and to complain bitterly. Something needs to be done quite quickly as well because once the new, British copied, national health system arrives in South Africa, the tax payer base will not be sufficiently large to support two black holes.

[millertime]

Jeez, get a life all of you. You must seriously have no interests if you get pulled into this thread that seems to involve a pretentious prat and a couple of nut jobs. I'm off

[cavortingcheetah]

Time indeed to fly away on a higher quality lower cost carrier.

[Trossie]

There are some fundamental problems with some people's thinking here.

To quote from earlier:

"Who will pay for Air France's massive loss this year?

Who will pay for KLM's massive loss this year?

Who will pay for Luftansa's massive loss this year?

The closure of SpanAir? Malev Airlines? Who do you think will pay for that?"

Air France, KLM and Lufthansa pay for those losses out of their bank balances. If they can't cough up the cash and can't get any more from any banks they go bust. When they go bust no-one 'pays for' it, all their assests get sold off to pay as much of the debt as possible and then they just don't exist any more!! Nobody 'paid' for the closure of SpanAir and Malev, they just ceased to exist.

An airline is a business. It sells travel seats to passengers and cargo space to freight operators. It then has to balance the money that it costs to run that business (i.e. fly the aeroplanes, pay for the business infrastructure, etc.) with the money that it brings in from sales. There may be some years where there are losses (money 'in' is less than money 'out') but the cash available and the willingness of banks to lend to a sensible business plan should cover that. The good years of profit (ooh, that term that the lefties hate!!) must be there to cover any years of loss and keep the business afloat. Money is like fuel to a business. Keep it topped up and it doesn't crash! Run out and it crashes!

But then there are some places where airlines are considered to be 'government departments' rather than businesses. The Soviet Union was a good example of that. But then the Soviet Union itself no longer exists, does it?

If SAA cannot make a profit without being propped up by that over-strained taxpayer, then it should no longer exist... just like SpanAir and Malev and countless others, no matter how 'good' anyone might think it is.

Apologies for stating the 'bleeding obvious' here, but it is quite apparent from some of the posts on this that there are several who just can't (or won't?) see that which is 'bleeding obvious'!

[Warlock2000]

SAA needs to be privatised and all the FAT leaned off. Planes, in order to make money, need to fly, not spend hours and hours parked on the ground in LHR etc, etc.

At the moment SAA is nothing more than a state "gas guzzler" stuck with a 1970's "flying club" mentality and run by a bunch of morons who couldn't get p!ssed in a brewery, let alone turn over a profit.

[Gyro Nut]

MB, I used to feel like you, but then after a while soon realised that it was useless trying to defend the issue. BTW, Skyvan might have flown Skyvans 20yrs ago, but was a well respected training captain at SAA and has moved onto other greener pastures so he knows what he's talking about.

What I'd like to ask the taxpaying Ppruners out there is if SAA cannot compete with A380's of EK, Singapore and AF, and is shut down, would it be in SA's interests to allow airlines like EK to completely take over? At the rate of expansion of EK, maybe they are going to be the dominant world airline one day.

[square leg]

Eks'kuse my behd englisch, but...

what you all say, (and I mean those for SAA and those against SAA), is true, but it's not the entire truth...

Now... to a true story which is the entire truth... EK will become the dominant airline of the world. That's a fact which is not based on emotion. Why? Simply because that is their goal. They are slowly but surely working towards that goal. Is it achievable? Yes! Is it measurable? Of course it is. Will they achieve it? Absolutely, they say they will and everybody employed by EK is willingly or unwillingly working towards that goal.

Do you want to work for such a company?

Why not work for LH(group) or BA or any other company that has other goals apart from being the biggest?

Is being the biggest the best?

Why not work for an airline that offers top notch training and pride to its pilots and cabin crew?

There are many airlines to choose from. Some offer all of the above, some offer great salaries, but mediocre training, or vice versa. Some are based in beautiful countries with sound politics, some in less favourable and less stable countries.

The choices are many. What do you identify with?

And finally, apart from feeling strongly (passionate) for an airline, at the end of the day one has to jump through the hoops (selection) and then only will one know if it was worth it or not.

Truth be told, no place is perfect, but some places come close. (I am not thinking of any airline in specific as it's relative to you individually).

But EK will dominate, be that a good thing or not. It's a fact. The domination will be in the numbers of routes, aircraft etc. ... But take LH, BA for example, they dominate in their training...

Edit: spelling/grammar

[Tableview]

Just heard that SAA are pulling out of the CPT LON route from mid August. Bizarre decision. But loads have been poor compared to BA's on the same route so they've done something wrong.

[Loerie]

Slight drift of thread here but I see in the online edition of the JNB Guardian today that the Gautrain appears to be embroiled in a number of scams and sideways payments totalling over ZAR 25 Billion......six to SAA is chump-change.Privatize SAA and give the SA taxpayer a break...fortunate that the SA economy is relatively strong and can absorb such punishment.Imagine how well it would do without all the baggage its carrying now.

[Tableview]

Imagine how well it would do without all the baggage its carrying now.

It's carrying baggage both on the ground, political appointees (prev-i-usly dis-udvantaged) and in the air (friends and family of the former on freebies and rebate tickets filling seats in the front end. That's why BA can make a profit on the route and SAA can't. SAA's aircraft are less economical but not to such an extent.

[Shrike200]

http://www.frogforum.net/attachments/tree-frogs/28446d1334387873-white-tree-frog-call-tallahasse_zombie_thread.jpg

:E :E

[average-punter]

Tableview: I've heard that SAA are blaming it on poor star alliance connectivity in London reducing loads, I read that the only way they can get traffic is by consistently undercutting BA on price making their profit margin low.

[cavortingcheetah]

I don't know about BA/SAA but the other day it was cheaper to route JNB/AMS/SYD on KLM than it was to go direct JNB/SYD on SAA.
In November it is very considerably cheaper to route SYD/SIN/JNB on Singapore than direct on SAA.
In those cases of course the flights are longer. But there is an upside to not flying SAA especially when you consider that you might end up on a Qantas flight, two of the world's truly appalling customer service airlines.

[Trossie]

"I've heard that SAA are blaming it on poor star alliance connectivity in London reducing loads" That'll be the demise of bmi's LHR operation then. But the only useful connections that they've lost from this would be MAN, EDI, ABZ, BHD and DUB (I can't see why one would want to route via LHR for any other Star Alliance connections).

Funny old thing, but Virgin manage without any alliance connections. What are they doing right that SAA aren't?? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way!)

[Tableview]

They'd have to blame someone! I';m surprised they have'nt played the 'race' or 'previously disdvantaged' card, although Theunis Potgieter would hardly fit into that category!

"A thorough analysis of the route made it clear that we could use our aircraft more profitably elsewhere while continuing to ensure excellent business and tourism links between the Western Cape and the UK with our significant capacity via Johannesburg," said Theunis Potgieter, SAA"s general manager commercial.

[Trossie]

"... continuing to ensure excellent business and tourism links between the Western Cape and the UK with our significant capacity via Johannesburg," UK tourists don't want to go via somewhere to get to Cape Town, and if they did they would use the very good links from LHR, GLA, NCL and MAN via the Middle East!! (SA tourists going northbound would most likely use those Middle East routes because they are cheaper!)

"A thorough analysis of the route made it clear that we could use our aircraft more profitably elsewhere..." Better links to the future colonial masters in the East?

Or is this all a smoke-screen for a revenue-raising plan to sell that valuable slot at LHR?

CPT-LHR has been an SAA route for a long, long time. 35yrs+?

[Loerie]

I have no idea how long they have been doing that route,but I understand from fellow-travellers (I have been flying between the US East Coast and SA for over 20 years) that a very large percentage of potential customers would actually prefer NOT to fly to Johannesburg and then connect to Cape Town------they would much prefer to fly to the Mother City direct from the US,or at least have the option.I think SAA used to do that from Miami long ago and I enquired recently whether Delta were considering the route,but nothing seems to be happening.A friend so dislikes deplaning in Johannesburg that he flew from JFK to Dubai with Emirates and then with Emirates straight to CPT.He says that it was an excellent experience.
SAA would benefit from some cabin-crew training,in my opinion.The crew are really charming & pleasant,but the chattering and laughing all night in the galley is not on.

[JG1]

No foreign tourist in their right minds (ie. the second time they came to South Africa) would want to go anywhere near the stinking crime-ridden overcrowded cesspit that is Johannesburg.

Durban would make a far better hub for the tourists who wanted to go to the game farms.

Cape Town is far better for the Garden Route, and for everything Cape Town and the Western Cape have to offer.

But the hub thing makes a bit of sense.

What doesn't is how SAA can't make the route pay in a brand new 330 when BA make good money using a 747 and Virgin do the same in an old, and according to SAA, gas-guzzling, 340.

If they can't make that route pay then they should just pay their 8000 employees R750k a year each to sit at home and do nothing (yes folks, that R6billion right there) and save the country the carbon footprint, and at the same time save the rest of us from having to put up with them.

In fact if they packed up, they would give the other honest airlines like 1Time and Comair the chance to do business on a level playing field, take over the SAA market share which would increase tax revenues for the government immediately.

Yes, amazingly enough.... it would pay to pack up the whole of SAA and Mango, pay the ex-employees R60k a month for ever and you still end up with a nett GAIN! Shows how dire and farcical the situation actually is.

[Tableview]

near the stinking crime-ridden overcrowded cesspit that is Johannesburg.

It's not as bad as you make out. CPT has more crime per capita than JNB but it's less violent crime. Parts of JNB are safer than parts of many UK cities (and those in other countries), and some of JNB's suburbs are glorious. The city has a great climate, a good infrastructure, friendly people, lots of interesting places, culture, and some world class restaurants. And I'm not even from Joeys!

As for the rest of your comments, I'm 100% in agreement.

And to answer your question :

It's carrying baggage both on the ground, political appointees (prev-i-usly dis-udvantaged) and in the air (friends and family of the former on freebies and rebate tickets filling seats in the front end. That's why BA can make a profit on the route and SAA can't. SAA's aircraft are less economical but not to such an extent.

[Trossie]

"Parts of JNB are safer than parts of many UK cities"...?????!!!!

Which parts? The parts that are behind barbed wire with 'armed-response' alarms?? No barbed wire with 'armed-response' alarms in UK cities!!!

You comparison with Cape Town is fairly accurate: It came above Jo'burg in a recent "world's most dangerous cities" report. (NO UK cities were listed in that report!)

Is SAA scaling down their LHR operations because their crew get arrested more often there than elsewhere?

[Shrike200]

Is SAA scaling down their LHR operations because their crew get arrested more often there than elsewhere?

http://www.mike2.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ROFLMAO.jpg