swiss air + CRX Air = (swiss-lx)=0 [Archive]

finalschecks

2nd Aug 2002, 10:36

Studi, I think we can at least all agree that a lot is rotten in the state of switzerland! (You can ask Ed Fagan ;) or otherwise look at the flower/butterfly-ties that they make pilots wear)
As " just a taxpayer" you seem well informed about the demise of the S-air group, but your information is very one-sided.
Probably you have more friends with the former SR than the former Crossair. (which is fine with me)

Let me try and fill everybody in on the Crossair-side of the story.

The whole deal is NOT primarily over money! It is about a fair distribution of gains and risks on ALL fronts.
The sentiment in Basel is that Crossair was used as a lifeboat and then hijacked by former SR-people.

Within the "single pilot corps" a lot of extreme differences emerged, which resulted in social unrest.
After countless unfruitfull talks, the Crossair pilots union decided to take the managment to court on account of being discriminated upon. Concerning seniority, vacation and yes, pay.

And guess what, they WON! The managment of -now- SWISS was forced to pay a quarter million SFR, and find a reasonable solution for this problem.

Up to now there have been no offers laid on the table by the managment which exceed the pre-court offers.

Time will tell how this tale ends...

P.S. To put your remark about greediness in context, a copilot with the former Crossair makes about Sfr4800, in a country where an average car mechanic makes the same!
Without paying for his Sfr 100000+ education.

middlepath

2nd Aug 2002, 13:58

studi

Is it so easy to produce captains at CRX so every tom,dick and harry with four stripes are allover the place(Bus stations, train stations). First I thought they were personnels from Swiss-Bahn.
Just to change the subject what are they doing in train stations?

gofer

2nd Aug 2002, 14:06

Robert, your comments with an asset stripping record like your name has - is just so sick. It makes me realise that the Swiss Mafia need to sort the country out because the democracy is creaking at the edges.

Not a pilot, but I've been in a company that folded - IOS to be exact, because of a certain Vesco. My next job was actually a better job, but I started at the bottom of the stack.

Zipper seniority is better than bottom of the stack, as it legally should be - that is where you will be in Air Switzerland - as and when Swiss go belly-up.

Anybody want to start the betting on when it will happen if the Swiss Management doesn't get its solutions right within the next 29 days.

My guess is March 29th 2003.:eek:

LeadingEdge

2nd Aug 2002, 16:55

piltos at train stations=repositioning?

Ex-crossair pilots will lose....sign the contract,next year the fleet will shrink,and lots of them will be out of the job-swissair pilots will always be the winners!

Robert Vesco

2nd Aug 2002, 17:09

Hi Gofer,

Sorry that you get offended by my username, but let's face it, it's just a bl**dy username dude ! :p

If I would have chosen "Mickey Mouse" as a username and you had nightmares about Mickey Mouse as a kid (say about 30-40 years ago ;) ) do you seriously imply that I should change my username ? Get real !

Finalschecks,

You are absolutely right ! :cool:

middlepath

2nd Aug 2002, 18:34

Apart from the fight between the ex-sr and ex-crx pilots, do you all agree that management is spreading rumours and uncertainties so as to make surplus pilots leave on their own and then problem soved automatically.

Fighting for right is good but also have a thought on divide and rule policy can be effective tools for managers as proved during colonial times.
I only wish much luck to fellow pilots, it is no longer a glamorous profession as used to be.

gofer

3rd Aug 2002, 02:06

No way RV that I'm implying that you should change your name... I was just wondering if you really knew who RV was in the long and distant past and what he did and how he did it.:confused:

This forum probably isn't the place to discuss the guy who was the probably one of the first seriously suspected criminal asset strippers, who stopped at little, who caused Billions of dollars of grief at a time when the dollar was really worth something, who ended up loosing his home but with 200+Mio US$ and who has quite a few suicides and broken homes that caused many kids to grow up into problem people as the direct result of his actions.:mad:

And all of that took place in Switzerland - so it may just be coincidence - I hope so for you - but that name on this thread is more than red flags and bulls.:(

Enjoy Dude, for what its worth.:cool:

Alpha Leader

3rd Aug 2002, 03:59

Air Bus Driver:

Your suggestion that "CRX was just as bankrupt as SR" is a strange statement.

First, there is no such thing as relative bankruptcy; like pregnancy: you're either pregnant or you're not. So, one is either bankrupt or not, and conversely, you can't be more bankrupt or less bankrupt than someone else.

Second, can you point to any bankruptcy filing by CRX (which would be the legal basis for your statement)?

The only reasonable statement would be to say that CRX was in a difficult financial situation - like many other airlines at the time, one might add.

Robert Vesco

3rd Aug 2002, 08:36

G´day Gofer,

The reason I chose RV as username is because of book written by RV´s pilot who flew him around the world in his private 707, named Silver Phyllis. The book is called The Flying Capetbagger and is great fun to read. It revolves around his wheelings and dealings, but also about a man flying around the world in his private 707 full of booze and beautifull women. A great deal of his scams were plotted here in Switzerland (IOS in Geneva) , but also involve Costa Rica´s ex-president Marti Figueres, the SEC and even have links to Richard ´tricky dicky´ Nixon.

It also illustrates the Banana Republic that Switzerland is..... :(

Grüetzi !

RV

Aslan

4th Aug 2002, 11:41

How does the present situation differ fundamentally from the situation with Sabena (gone backrupt) & DAT pilot corps?

At DAT, was not the seniority respected with ALL the Sabena pilots joining at the bottom? Somebody please correct if me I'm mistaken.

Why shouldn't the same principles, which is used by the majority of airlines around the world, not apply to ex-SR pilots?

I would be interested to hear the justification.

thanks
Aslan

Right is clear !

4th Aug 2002, 13:24

Quote Studi :

It was free choice of every Crossair pilot to make the 100’000 Swiss francs debts and to work for Crossair… I’d never do this even though I also like flying. But people are different.

How do you think the big majority does it's flight training and finds a job ? Clearly you're ambition to become a pro is not there.

This is just one of the things I read from you and a few others on this topic that imazes me. Guy's you do not know were you are talking about and you should not be on an airline forum.

773829

4th Aug 2002, 14:01

There are 2 different ways to become a pilot. Some start flying just after school or apprenticeship. And some are studying before they start their career.

Now there are airlines (mostly the big ones LH, AF, SAS, KLM and so on) which are looking for people who have good education and a good talent in flying. If you go the straight way without going to a university level and start flying in a flight school somewhere and make your hours somehow, there is a difference, which pays at the end.

That’s why SWISS is paying for the former Swssair pilots more money than for the former Crossair pilots. Most of the ex LX pilots didn’t go through a selection process, which all of the major airlines have. So if they want to be the same as the ex SR pilots (and of course the rest of pilots at main airlines!) they should proof it with the same test all of us had to do!

Aslan

4th Aug 2002, 15:53

Studi,
Thanks for your reply.

Your question assumes a fact that "it was stupidity". I wonder whether the pilots of the "majors of the world" (the big American carriers, CX, BA, QF etc) would consider such cases of seniority stupidity?

>>Swiss people tend to think on their own, not to copy something from abroad...

In this day and age where the use of the expert advice and experience of others opposed "to making one's own mistakes" is indicative of a proactive and professional institution, not to mention the notion of possible legal negligence for not using the most current procedures, advice, safety standards, your reply is maybe not so self flattering or valid?

Aslan

4th Aug 2002, 16:05

773829,

Two questions for your Sir,

>>should proof it with the same test all of us had to do.

Does all doing the same test, make the test anymore predicative of success? I far as I'm aware, the ex-SR selection system hasn't published validations of their selection procedures unlike, LH,SAS,BA,CX,QF to mention just a few. If the selection of SR pilots was so good, why did SR lie only in the middle of the safety statistics?

In my fairly brief but broad analysis of the media around the SWISS sagga, the criteria of SR selection/training/position was not discussed. At best, it seems that SR pilots managed to organise a back door deal to get their high salaries. Do you have material to suggest otherwise?

Right is clear !

4th Aug 2002, 16:07

Hi 773829,

Maybe an aptitude or other kind of extra test many years ago is not that relevant anymore. What weighs more is the behaviour and performance of the pilots at the moment (both sides).

Anyway I think it is stupid and not coreect in many cases to see yourself as "God's gift to aviation" when passing the tests for a big airline.
Reading you're text I assume youre one of them and I am happy for you. But don't think you are all good and they are all bad.

Cheers

finalschecks

4th Aug 2002, 17:03

Studi, I respect personal opinions and all but you are WRONG on almost all accounts!

I hate to get personal and prefer to stick to the facts but it will be hard.

1. Your remark on former-crossair's health: A few million loss, granted, almost all carriers had the same problem. Swissairs problem was in excess of a BILLION.

2. S-Air's debt is not 10 million, it runs in the BILLIONS.

3. Swiss winning 4 out of 5 points? NO, there was only ONE issue the court was qualified to judge upon, the discrimination-thing.
They lost, had to pay, and tried to convert their loss into an moral "win" by misinforming the press. This worked the first few hours after their press-release, but turned against them when all sides of the story were studied carefully.

4. As a non pilot, you don’t want to play the preacher here, so why do you do so anyway???

5. A Car-mechanic's salary is not a reasonable salary for commuter pilots working for a "proud national carrier". And just to inform you: the minimum amount of years with the company to become a captain is now (thank you swiss) 5 !

About the ethics of the way swissair wiggled itself out under the creditors claims we can all agree or disagree, I don't care. But please lets stick to some basic facts.
Your claims of the precision of crossair/swissair pilots are not only based on hearsay but sound very biased.

Aslan just covered some more subjects quite well in his reply above. Compliments.

If you are not well introduced in the business, STAY OUT OF IT, or inform yourself better.

Alpha Leader

5th Aug 2002, 05:42

Interesting to see how this thread has begun to tailspin into minor issues....the big picture is whether "Swiss Intl Air Lines" is going to survive another year - and how.

Fact 1 is that the "Swiss" fleet size is now around the same as it was when SR's problem really began in earnest. And again, it's all about alliances. "Swiss" is too big to join an established alliance and too small to start one of its own (as SR tried with the known fatal outcome with "Qualiflyer").

Fact 2 is that whilst financial problems persist (such as revenue per pax per mile), there are spinmasters (such as a former chief editor of a tabloid, plus - more sadly - a government minister) who are trying to move the issue from a revenue problem to a cost problem and in the process have identified the former Crossair pilots as the major threat to the survival of "Swiss Intl Air Lines". The former tabloid editor with a name more reminiscent of a Stalinist Politkommissar has actually criticized the former Crossair pilots for wanting to use a court ruling in their favour against the company. (Now we can't have courts overruling the politically expedient thinking of the day, can we, and certainly not interfering with companies funded by the taxpayer....).

Fact 3: there's no readily apparent board strategy other than survival, and internally the company that was supposed to have been built on Crossair foundations has been turned upside down into a Swissair clone, with the same misguided long-haul ambitions (we must have free overseas flights for the boys' network, of course, wouldn't do to spend your holidays in Europe...).

Fact 4: the "virtual" chairman (how many times has he been seen in Basle?) is a hands-off guy and has, to date, provided absolutely nothing in the way of an enlightened strategy, let alone a vision with which the company and its employees could identify.

Anyone taking bets on when the next grounding (as a result of industrial action or lack of operating funds) will happen?

:D

finalschecks

5th Aug 2002, 08:06

studi,

By the way: All Lufthansa and Swissair pilots (all ab-initios) I talked with have the same opinion as I have. They told me that they’d never tried to become a free market pilot. Seems to me that those airlines don’t seek candidates who would sell their grand ma to become a pilot rather than emotionless, brain guided characters who could also imagine doing another job.

HAHA Don't make me laugh! A very provocative stament indicative of YOUR brain-function. Get your licence, then a life.

And my brain tells me at the moment that Crossair pilots are wrong. I’m open for arguments though…

Arguments like a court-verdict? But who needs court for a state-run airline...

You insist on using rumours as your source. I hear opposite rumours, so what? You shouldn't make so many bold statements for someone who is obviously not well informed.

Alpha, your post really hit the spot.

THESE are the real problems swiss is facing.

I think a next grounding will take a while though. A lot of money has been sunk into this airline.

from A to Better

5th Aug 2002, 11:12

Studi:

What is your problem? What does prevent you from buying a newspaper and actually READ about the court's verdict? It was and still is all over the papers, so you should be able to find some decent info about it.

Furthermore, you really do not get what seniority is about. There is no re-training (whith your mentioned massive training-costs) whichever seniority is going to be applied. Everybody keeps his seat, but in case of retirements and expansion it determines who is going to fill the free seat. What is more important in the current situation it says who has to leave in case of downsizing.

And please answer this, in case of downsizing the long-haul-fleet who will have to go, ex-SR or ex-CRX pilots? The same for a possible re-sizing the short-haul fleet.

Frankly speaking, you are way in above your head for somebody with no expereince in the airline-industry, your remarks about crx/sr culture proof this.

take care

skypointer

5th Aug 2002, 15:23

Frankly speaking, you are way in above your head for somebody with no expereince in the airline-industry, your remarks about crx/sr culture proof this

Well, what do you know about crx/sr culture? IMHO studi has said it pretty well. In a decent airline seniority not only detremines who gets kicked out in case of donsizing, but also who drives the big planes and who gets upgraded. Why don't you know that? Perhaps because as an LX pilot you only had a seniority system that was a joke? Until recently MS decided who got to drive a bigger plane and who got upgraded. And if he didn't like your nose you were sure to be the first who got kicked out! Downsizing or not. It strikes me as strange that you screem seniority so loud now. Where have you been in the last 20 years or so?

As I said, seniority determines who gets to fly the more complicated planes and who gets upgraded. It makes pefect sense if the more experienced get promoted first. It enhances safety - another word LX didn't even know how to spell it until recently...

Now let me tell you a word about downsizing. I am well aware that the success of SWISS is unsure - to put it very kindly. But you seem to ignore that the taxpayers money was spoken to keep a longhaul network and not to safe a regional airline. So SWISS has to give it a try - and let's hope they succeed.

On the other side the size of LX was adapted to the planned megalomaniac size of SR. While SR got downsized LX never did. Futhermore LX employed many pilots to be able to cope with its planned expansion - which will never happen...

That's why they have a big problem now. Pilots who are - even under the old general work agreement - payed higher than the benchmark and who work considerably less (about 45 block hours a month). It's not their fault, but that doesn't make the problem any smaller. What CCP is trying to do now, is to pass the buck of the downsizing of the regional fleet to the former SR pilots by putting them on the bottom of the seniority list.

Furthermor they are crying for the same salaries as their SR "colleagues". While probably no professional pilot - except those of CCP and a swiss judge who has no clue about aviation - can make sense of how a Saab 2000 pilot can ask for the same salary as an MD11 Captain, it is clear that you can neither pay much more than the benchmark nor much less. In the first case you are no longer competitive and in the other case every experienced pilot will leave the company with all his knowledge asap - which is not only expensive, but also unsafe.

So it's quite clear that CCP's dreams are not only absolutely unrealistic, but are also endangering SWISS. A union chairman saying on TV that he thinks that his pilots can no longer guarantee a safe operation because they are only offered 16% more salary, not only badly underestimates the professionality of his pilots and makes them the laughingstock of the nation, he also scares of the customers - and that alone qualifies him to be fired immediately!

Robert Vesco

5th Aug 2002, 17:12

Hello skypointer,

You obviously like to mix facts with fiction in your above post.

Let me straighten you out a bit. :D

What CCP is trying to do now, is to pass the buck of the downsizing of the regional fleet to the former SR pilots by putting them on the bottom of the seniority list. Ofcourse ! Why should the regional pilots pay the price for an oversized long haul fleet which sole purpose is to satisfy the oversized ego of a small Alpine state ? So it's quite clear that CCP's dreams are not only absolutely unrealistic, but are also endangering SWISS. As a matter of fact, it´s the size of the long haul fleet that is endangering SWISS as it costs million per day to keep it flying and prevents SWISS from joining a serious partnership. As you might remember from the ´good old´ Swissair days, an airline can not survive without joining an alliance these days.

While SR got downsized LX never did. You call pooring 15 BILLION Swiss Franks into failing airlines in order to create an alliance (because Swissair didn´t want to join another alliance and play second fiddle) and buying fancy Airbusses "downsizing ?" :D :D You´ve got to be kidding ! Try a second carreer as a comedian !

Furthermor they are crying for the same salaries as their SR "colleagues". Another blatent Aeropers lie in order to manipulate the masses. By the way, if this logic of yours is true, then why does an (ex-SR !) A320 pilot make the same as an (ex-SR !) MD 11 pilot ? ;) Another perfect example of how Aeropers has hijacked SWISS for it´s own gains, with complete disregard for the cost structure and future of SWISS. :mad:

what_goes_up

5th Aug 2002, 18:42

R V

For gods sake it's very rare we have to read idiotic statemants as yours here in the forum. If there is anybody mixing up the facts with fiction its you!

Ex-SR pilots already payed the price for the missmanagement. Do you think it's easy having 30% less money and no more perspective for the future?

So, you don't want to pay the price for the long haul fleet but you insist on having their salaries. By the way long haul are flying with 80%+ SLF. What is short haul with ex LX doing? About 35%.

Leaving 30% of the long haul fleet on ground is downsizing, isn't it?
If not, there must be a new kind of math which I don't know by now. But maybe you could teach me, would you?

Yes it is logic that every ex SR pilot earns the same. Except of some young CMD every pilot is Mixed Fleet Flying qualified with A330, which is quite demanding being current on both.

aeropers did actually stick to the bussines plan with 35% less, while CCP (or swiss pilots as it's ironically called now) did not. They already got 16 % on top of the original BP which called for the old salary structure.

And just to top. If ex-LX crew were planned the way ex-SR crews are, you could easily fire 200 of your pilots. BTW this is a fact, not a rumour. Not yet calculated the necessary downsizing of the regional fleet. Keep on dreaming makeing money with this fleet.

I wouldn't recomend you to work as comediant, as you proposed to skypointer. You'd starve,. But neither could I recommend to work in a cockpit. With your lack of situational awareness and logical judgement it might be dangerous!

Robert Vesco

5th Aug 2002, 22:04

Hi what_goes_up,

aeropers did actually stick to the bussines plan with 35% less, while CCP (or swiss pilots as it's ironically called now) did not. They already got 16 % on top of the original BP which called for the old salary structure Uhhhh, well, let´s see, it looks nice on paper, AP hands in 35% with no risk, and the ex-LX guys get 16% extra but bear the complete risk seniority wise if Swiss does not fly as planned. These 16 % and the Russian Roulette risk, we never asked for. It was a nice try by managment in order to make us swallow the sour seniority/vacation/carreer model grape. Guess what, it didn´t work, so we´re back at square one ! :p

Hi Studi,

Hey you CRX guys, why not go back to separate lists? Then SR pilots get sacked for further longhaul reductions and CRX pilots for shorthaul reductions. That is one possibility. Fact is, with this arbitration court´s ruling, Aeropers will have to make compromises if they want to see this new airline take off. Whether they like it or not....

Time will tell. It will be a very interesting month !

skypointer

6th Aug 2002, 08:38

Again full marks studi. If CCP don't want anything to do with the longhaul network, then why give them a carreer chance on this fleet?

But there is another problem - even if you separate the seniority lists. The LX MD80 will be phased out and replaced with A320s starting in spring 2003. I can see no solution with a single A320 corps with separated seniority. So this would mean 2 corps - a absolute waste of money.

So even two seniority lists is no solution - just a postponement of the problem until 2005. And it's by no means costneutral. I wonder who pays the difference...

Fact is, with this arbitration court´s ruling, Aeropers will have to make compromises if they want to see this new airline take off.
Well, read the court verdict! The Aeropers general work agreement is legal! So why change it? To help CCP out of the mess they rode themselves into? After all CCP did for SR pilots? Get real! Aeropers gave already to much - 35% pay and 30% layoffs! And CCP? They were only offered 16% more salary. And now they want even more and guaranteed job security - again: get real!

It's not Aeropers who is thretening the take off of Swiss its CCP.

finalschecks

6th Aug 2002, 17:36

skypointer,

- I never, ever heard a S2000 pilot ask for an MD 11 salary.(and I talk to them every day)

- Downsizing the former swissair fleet by 30 or whatever percent was not enough (by far) to be justified economically. It was just done to save some precious jobs(which is nice) and to keep a longhaul operation from ZRH(which is just a swiss ego question and has nothing to do with common sense).Why should WE take the fall for an oversized longhaul fleet.

- Blatantly disregarding a court's verdict and saying they are stupid says more about you than about the court.

- Saying the AP contract is legal because the court said so is nonsense, READ the verdict as you said. The contract should not significantly differ from the CCP's, according verdict. Swiss lost the case! The court was, as said before, not even allowed to pass judgement upon anything else than the discimination-issue.

What_goes_up,

aeropers did actually stick to the bussines plan with 35% less, while CCP (or swiss pilots as it's ironically called now) did not. They already got 16 % on top of the original BP which called for the old salary structure.
Which business plan? where was it ever published? Easy to stick to any budget by the way, if you leave the other party with the leftovers.

The main misunderstanding here is that the whole stink is about money.

People should realize you can't just take over a company and tell the original employees go f**k themselves.
Managment made a big mistake here, I don't even blame aeropers here.

Although I am open for arguments from all sides, the notourious Swissair-arrogance is shining througout your posts, guys.

Try to keep it neutral, ok?

Robert Vesco

6th Aug 2002, 19:00

Hello skypointer,

Let me brush up your legal knowledge :

Well, read the court verdict! The Aeropers general work agreement is legal! So why change it? Sure it was legal for managment to sign a deal with Aeropers, BUT the contents can NOT discriminate one group of employees against the other in that contract. Now that leaves three choices for SWISS :

1) Either raise the ex-Crossair pilots to the same conditions as the ex-Swissair colleagues (too expensive) , or,

2) Sink the ex-Swissair pilits towards the same conditions as the ex-Crossair pilots (too cheap :D !) , or finally,

3) Make a contract that is a fair compromise for all parties involved. ;)

what_goes_up

6th Aug 2002, 19:04

Easy to stick to any budget by the way, if you leave the other party with the leftovers.

It's not bad if the "leftovers" is a 16% gain. And the other "arrogant" party looses 30%+!

What do you think the economically right amount of downsizing would be right for the regional fleet? I guess it would be more than 30%. First get rid of all your surplus pilots right now before pointing your fingers at other economical missjudges. As written above, there are about 200 pilots too many in your fleets right now before the necessary downsizing of regional fleet.

Blatantly disregarding a court's verdict and saying they are stupid says more about you than about the court.

Saying the AP contract is legal because the court said so is nonsense

The two quotes speak for themselfs, I think.

Think about it; every change in your contract is subject to a vote by Aeropers members. Because our contract IS legal.

You had the chance to participate in negotiations and ran away because you were not prepared. So have it and blame no one else than your CCP.

what_goes_up

6th Aug 2002, 19:22

Hi R V

Maybe you should brush up your legal knowledge!

A legal contract is a legal contract and can not be changed by one party only.

Do you really think Aeropers would agree to further deteriorations in their contract?

Why should swiss be the first airline in the world to treat regional the same as mainline? Being way above the benchmarket is one thing. Leaning to far out of the window to get even more might be dangerous!!

finalschecks

6th Aug 2002, 19:43

whatgoesup, you're quoting me out of context, and not complete.

RV said it clearer, I admit. What he said is true.

what_goes_up

6th Aug 2002, 20:03

What he said is true.
You forgot to add the amen.
Must be one of your own truthes.

BTW there is a fourth possibility for the management to solve the problem. Swiss light sounds good to me and you all could stick to your beloved old CLA without the 16 million benefits, have your own seniority list with the same risk for being sacked and you will not be forced to join the hated long range. Cause that was the only reason for you not to join a mainline, I guess.

tej

6th Aug 2002, 21:20

All your comments are interesting but already well known. Is this the only strategy you guys can come up with? What about trying to find a solution, working for both sides, together? This IMO would show real professionalism.;)

what_goes_up

6th Aug 2002, 22:11

tej

What do you expect us to do? To give voluntarily another 30% because we are all just nice guys. And with that being about 50% below benchmarked?
What would be your solution of the problem?
Of course there are a lot of emotions around. Everyone is scared of loosing any more.
As for professionalism. I am only trained to do a good job up front. And despite the fact that there is a lot of company stress around, I still do my very best to ensure safety. That is actually the only thing I can contribute to the present situation and for the sake of our company's health.
And sorry for mentioning the benchmarket again. But that is how it works all over the world.
I admit, you as a MD80 pilot (sorry for cheating, I was looking at your profile) should earn more. But the rest of your fleet is regional. According to benchmarket they earn too much already. Don't take it wrong. I do not begrudge anybody's salary or priviledge. But stop shooting at us. If you pay regional pilot the salary they are entiteled to get acc. benchmarket, there is more than enough for MD80 pilots to get the salary they should have. If CCP decides that the summ is devided equally, it's an internal problem. aeropers did the same thing. Decision was made that anybody gets the same acc. seniority. We could have done it otherwise and split middle and longhaul, but we didn't. Furthermore we are still paying a percentage of our salaries for not haveing to fire more fellow pilots. We took the chance to sign a contract which was painful enough, CCP decided to blow the whole thing.

As for senioritylist. According your productivity compared to ours you bring already some 200 pilots to many into the pot. Do you honestly think it's fairplay that we have to pay the dept again. IMO counting the years in service in either company is a fair solution. Some of you still keep the privilege being CMD after 3 years of service while ex-SR has F/O with 13 years. As for myself I won't be promoted for another decade. Nobody talks about takeing you this priviledge away.
So there will never be a win-win situation for anybody. But it must be fair for the major part of the employees.
I apologize for some harsh words in my previous posts, but when I am shot at, I shoot back.

Robert Vesco

7th Aug 2002, 02:34

A legal contract is a legal contract and can not be changed by one party only. I think the arbitration court has been very clear on that one. It has declared the contents of the B-GAV disciminating. Since a court´s rulling is (legally speaking) above a contract, something will have to change or Swiss could be sued for damages. About needing the support of all parties involved : be ready for a unilateral change in ´your´ contract, as managment has allready proven that it does not care much about little things like ´legalities´ when they paint themself into a corner. :D :eek:

Do you really think Aeropers would agree to further deteriorations in their contract? You´re right though, Aeropers will be needed to get a fair contract for all Swiss pilots and the ball is in their court now. In the short term AP has won the ´media war´ by making us seem greedy, however I´m absolutely convinced that this will change in the near future. :p

skypointer

7th Aug 2002, 08:30

be ready for a unilateral change in ´your´ contract, as managment has allready proven that it does not care much about little things like ´legalities´
Oh great, RV! If you profit, you don't care if it's legal or not. Now you show your true face...

The court verdict sais that in some points by signing the Aeropers GWA, Swiss broke the old CCP agreement. Nothing else. Now this does not mean that the Aeropers contract is illigal or not valid. And it certainly does not entitle Swiss to change its content unilaterally!

finalchecks: I never said the judge was stupid, I just said he has no clue about aviation. So please stick to the facts!

If, as you say, LX regional pilots do not ask for an MD11 salary, so why does CCP not accept the proposal of the management? MD80 salaries would be adapted, same vacation regulation and separated seniority. Everybody should be happy... :confused:

And because you wouldn't want to be privileged over your SR collegues, you would want to have a salary deduction for the 200 pilots that are too many and as well for the second Airbus corps you make necessary. Am I right? And because we are all the same - qualification and so - we delete the embarrassing exceptions in the standard of performance and kick out all those who are not speaking three languages according OM A 5 paragraph 2.2.2 and 2.4.1!;)

In a mreger as ours, there are always more loosers than winners. Sorry if CCP and the management made you believe something else, but it's not Aeropers' fault.

Now, instead of saying all the time how unfair you are treated, why don't you make any constructive proposals?

Robert Vesco

7th Aug 2002, 09:26

Oh great, RV! If you profit, you don't care if it's legal or not. Now you show your true face... Nope ! I did not say that ! What I said was that managment makes unilateral changes in contracts when it suits them, after they have manouvered themselfs into a nasty position. Managment does not care what is legal or not, look at what they did to the CCP and then look at the arbitration court´s verdict. Please read before you write !

Managment has placed itself into a difficult position, because on one hand they have a contract with Aeropers (the infamous B-GAV) which is hard to break/change, on the other hand they have a court verdict saying that the contents of this contract is discriminating and needs to be changed. I´m sure that the CCP does not want managment to make unilateral changes in ´your´ B-GAV, because this would open the way for Aeropers to go to an arbitration court. Then we get into a neverending cycle of courtcases without solving the problem.

The only way to break the deadlock is for Aeropers to dragged (kicking and screaming) to the negotiating table and make a fair contract for all parties involved.

Robert Vesco

7th Aug 2002, 09:34

Oh, one more thing, In a mreger as ours, there are always more loosers than winners. :eek: :eek: :eek:

It´s not a merger you dummy ! Sorry for my language here, but I assume that mreger = merger. If it is a merger then Crossair (now SWISS ;) ) would be liable to that nice dept the SAir Group has accumulated in the last couple of years ! Do you still believe this "virtual bankruptcy" stuff that Jöhl was saying few months ago. Please !

For those who like to quote the business plan : look it up, it´s an expansion of Crossair, not a merger. Hence our claims towards seniority. :p

rapide89

7th Aug 2002, 10:45

R.V.

and everybody else is led to believe it is a new airline, isn't it ?

Looks like an unfriendly take-over to me....

Emphasis on "unfriendly".
If you think along these lines, an awful lot of this nightmare, statements like some in this tread, actions and decisions become quite easy to explain.

In my book, both SR and LX were airlines belonging to a group (SAir group). The group went bankrupt. A new airline was formed, based on LX, with the emphasis on "based" !!!

The sky above Switzerland's not the same anymore, neither for former LX nor SR.

Welcome to reality !!!

skypointer

7th Aug 2002, 13:12

RV: When you run out of arguments, you start to insult people. You must be a very intelligent man. But then, perhaps we are both wrong...

An expansion of Crossair by taking over 52 - or actually 54 - aircraft inclusive crew, procedures, dispatch, plannaing and so on... Well, doesn't sound very convincing to me - and neither does it to rapide89 or the governments of Belgium and France, it seems. Eventually the courts will decide - and it won't be a court in MS-owned Bâle! Probably we all have to hope they think that you are right - but I don't believe so...

The only way to break the deadlock is for Aeropers to dragged (kicking and screaming) to the negotiating table and make a fair contract for all parties involved.
Of course you never thought about giving up some of your unreasonable requests. I just wonder what ideas you have for a common GWA that is "fair for all parties". I'm still waiting to hear some proposals from CCP that are practical. Or are you still as unprepared as you were in spring, dreaming of flying the big planes and getting the big salary? It almost seems so, as I just heared that CCP withdrew from the talks in order to ask its members what they really want. Welcome to reality!

Robert Vesco

7th Aug 2002, 16:22

Hi skypointer,

An expansion of Crossair by taking over 52 - or actually 54 - aircraft inclusive crew, procedures, dispatch, plannaing and so on... Well, doesn't sound very convincing to me - and neither does it to rapide89 or the governments of Belgium and France, it seems. Eventually the courts will decide - and it won't be a court in MS-owned Bâle!

Funny that you have so little faith in the structure of Swiss, especially because Aeropers has been such an important architect in designing the more controversial issues, like seniority. In the B-GAV seniority is distributed like it was in the bankrupt SAir Group because only this way Aeropers could ensure that the old statusquo, SR vs LX, would be maintained. Try and explain that to the Belgians and French ! Splitting up Swiss into a regional and long haul......again, it would look an awfull lot like the old SAir Group, wouldn´t it ? :rolleyes: The way Aeropers has been part of this "unfriendly take-over" (thank you for mentioning that rapide89) is indeed jeopardizing the whole future of Swiss and I´m happy that you are enlightened enough to realize that. ;)

I just wonder what ideas you have for a common GWA that is "fair for all parties". Fair for me would be zipping the seniority lists. Any airline in the world has the rule that the last person in the company joins at the bottom of the seniority list. The CCP has stated that this would be unfair towards our ex-SR colleagues and proposed zipping the seniority lists. Even that was not enough for the greedy SR pilots as they wanted to be on top of the seniority list while joining a new airline. Another major point for me would be a fair pay scale for long and short haul flying. Forget about the mixed flying of A320´s and A330´s because this will no longer be a valid argument after Swiss has taken delivery of the A340´s, starting next year. Then you will see people flying long haul A330´s and A340´s (MFF) and people flying the short haul A319/A320/A321´s. Looking into the future, it would be wise to split up the pay scales into long haul and short haul. An A320 is clearly a short haul aircraft and belongs in OC1, no matter what you might want people to believe.

I'm still waiting to hear some proposals from CCP that are practical. Or are you still as unprepared as you were in spring, dreaming of flying the big planes and getting the big salary? The CCP has proposed more practical solutions (like zipping the seniority lists) then you think, but maybe you should ask Jöhl about that ! It is obvious that you have received very poor and one sided information.

It almost seems so, as I just heared that CCP withdrew from the talks in order to ask its members what they really want. Welcome to reality! I´m sure that you will not like the outcome of this vote... :D Go ahead and fly your Airbus or MD11, thinking that all problems are over and Aeropers can afford not to renegotiate. Sweet dreams ! Remember, "keep the blue side up" (thanks for that free flying lesson BTW !) :cool:

from A to Better

7th Aug 2002, 18:18

Oh my god, a couple of days on the road and then having to read this.

Studi, thanks for answering one question, that is clear. But have you tried to read the courts-verdict? It is not illegal to make a seperate agreement with AP, but it has to be a 'parallel vertrag' which it is not. FACT.

Ex-SR guys in general: you are talking about 200 pilots to many at ex-crx, but you know as well as I do that is not a fact. It is a asumption made by the AP-board. It does not account for the amount of capacity needed when training starts for the EMB-170, for instance.
It does not take in account the fact that a lot of ex-CRX crew make a lot of duty-hours DeadHeading, which is just something hard to avoid with four crewbases. At the same time I do not exclude that it is possible to gain some efficiency.

Also, the mentioned 45 block-hours/month is not a fact. Sure, it looked like that during the winter with the 'intermediate schedule' of the joint Crossair/Swissair booklet, but today, that is over.

Please stick to facts, read some papers and try to actually think.

Please excuse my english spelling and grammar, too long being around Heidi, piercings & facial hair is not very healthy for one's English.

rapide89

7th Aug 2002, 18:30

From A to B,

welcome back to reality, then.
Are you suggesting in earnest that you are productive as a passenger ? (Dead heading, as you call it). May be this crew base thing makes you more productive ?
Me thinks that you need a good night's sleep and then start thinking !!!

And, by all means, stay away from Heidi !

R.V.

Yes, indeed, CCP's proposals have struck me as enormously practical, lately.
Brilliant moves, all of them. Gaining time is the order of the day, it seems. What for ?
Let us all wait for the outcome of that vote, shall we ?

Cheers

from A to Better

7th Aug 2002, 21:10

Please read carefully man,

BECAUSE of the complicated system with four crew-bases with the different needs during summer/winter schedule and the differences in production per crewbase makes it difficult to be very efficient. There are a lot of rotations ZRH-destination-BSL and vice versa, wich involve DH. DH is valuable duty time waisted while you could be flying. It is the company having this system, we would like it to be changed as well. But, again, with four bases to be served in your beautifull country that is not easy. Rösti-border, capacity of ZRH, overflying right Germany, makes it like this.

So, the 200-man too many myth is out the door, I presume.

Maybe it is usefull to read the Times Magazine, this week's issue. Then you might realise that management has made a lot of errors, not CCP or AP. It is time for economical thinking, not Swiss-ego thinking.

what_goes_up

7th Aug 2002, 22:25

So, the 200-man too many myth is out the door, I presume.
you are talking about 200 pilots to many at ex-crx, but you know as well as I do that is not a fact. It is a asumption made by the AP-board. It does not account for the amount of capacity needed when training starts for the EMB-170, for instance.

Sorry for disturbing your dreams mate. But the 200 too many is first of all underestimated. Secondly it does not come from AP board but from a swiss task force and took everything in account you stated above. Ask your CCP board. Maybe they are not lieing to you this time. Be prepared being planed by a computer which will rocket your productivity!

Then you might realise that management has made a lot of errors, not CCP or AP.

Thats one thing I agree on. It's a start, isn't it?

RV
Forget about the mixed flying of A320´s and A330´s because this will no longer be a valid argument after Swiss has taken delivery of the A340´s, starting next year. Then you will see people flying long haul A330´s and A340´s (MFF) and people flying the short haul A319/A320/A321´s.
How was that with the one sided information? So just be informed; MFF will be A320/A330 AND A330/A340. How do you like to split the fleet now. How would it fit you personally best, so maybe we could arrange it alike so you personally feel happy and confident.

Alpha Leader

8th Aug 2002, 01:48

As interesting as some of the contributions in this thread are, many seem to focus on whether or not to preserve the privileges of certain groups of employees, which is clearly an indication that "Swiss Intl Air Lines" is not a homogenous company but one that has been cobbled together to create another "Swissair" without the three last letters. No wonder then that cynics insist that "Swiss" stands for "So What - It's Still Swissair".

The big picture is that the company (Swiss Intl Air Lines) is facing problems that could be far greater than anything Swissair had to battle. "Swiss" cannot be a profitable concern because it's grossly oversized. It is the product of a political vision and not of a realistic business plan, and the result has been that whilst it was purported to be an integration of former "Swissair" into "Crossair", the fact is that the current behemoth is virtually a clone of former "Swissair", right down to the workplace agreements for ex-SR pilots (but not ex-Crossair pilots).

There is no denying that the current financial situation has been largely brought around by a blow-out in pilots' remuneration for ex-SR personnel, and there are only two ways to resolve any imbalance between expenditure and revenue:

- cut expenditure
or
- increase revenue.

As the latter is not an immediately available route, it's only the former that can work, and given that there is now a court ruling that essentially forces the company to largely treat ex-Crossair and ex-SR pilots as equals, the only way out is to reduce the packages for ex-SR pilots.

Instead of acknowledging this tough reality, the usual suspects within the Swiss establishment are now engaged in a massive publicity drive aimed at distracting from the fact that "Swiss Intl Air Lines" is fast becoming a major debacle of their very own making. It comes as no surprise that they have essentially identified the former Crossair pilots as scapegoats; after all, many of them are not Swiss nationals (as opposed to the situation among former SR pilots).

The fact that "Swiss" looks, smells and tastes like "Swissair" has also not escaped the attention of foreign courts, by the way. We might well see "Swiss" aircraft impounded in France soon.

Robert Vesco

8th Aug 2002, 10:04

Well said Alpha Leader ! Nothing to add.

aad

8th Aug 2002, 20:41

Well, in my book it says that credit suisse and UBS bought the CROSSAIR stake out of the bankrupt SairGroup. They did not buy out the Swissair part, which can thus be considered as bankrupt.

By the way who came up with this foolish idea to expand Crossair with 26/26 aircraft (actually 27/27) and crew ex swissair? As you can read above this will never mix. If we would have continued like DAT in Belgium (fly a few profitable longhaul flights via codeshare and some a330s flown bij ex sabena crew) all swissair flightcrew would be on the street but the cantons (read: the people living in Switserland) would have saved a LOT OF MONEY.

This is a waste of time and an even bigger waste of money.

Good luck with your civilised airline.

(do not forget to take your nightstopkit when you go out flying as they might try to confiscate your aircraft)

Alpha Leader

9th Aug 2002, 05:44

My apologies, I still owe you a reply to a posting you made a couple of days ago:

Yes, I'm Swiss, but have worked and subsequently lived in Asia for many years. I'm in the intertial navigation components and systems business,

Dr Know

10th Aug 2002, 02:49

Thought this would make for some interesting reading!

[QUOTE]Weltwoche 2002 08 08, English

In the mess

Author Sepp Moser
Kept alive with billions but hardly viable. The rescue exercise for Swiss
clearly demonstrates one thing: the failure of politics.

Swiss politicians take their time before they start moving. But once they
do, they tend to behave irrational. It is in those situations that one can
observe what Walter Borner, Professor of Economics, describes a
characteristic of Swiss politics: "The hectic stagnation".

As a case in point one can mention the happenings around Swiss
International Airlines. For months the Federation and the Cantons behaved as
quiet shareholders of the new aviation group, which came into being out of
the collapsed Swissair and its small daughter-company Crossair. Now, in the
face of the continued fight about pilot's salaries, they suddenly cry out
loud.

President Villiger swears in anger "not to pump one more franc" into the
airline and offhandedly assigns the blame for the strong turbulences to the
Crossair pilots. On the other hand, National Councilor (SP) Susanne
Leutenegger sees this as a matter of the national government: "The federal
government has to take action if there is no agreement within the next two
weeks."

But just how and why, please? If politicians care now so much about the
fate of the airline, why did they not take a stand much earlier? Why did
they, in October 2002, write a check over two billion francs for a rescue
exercise whose chances for success were disputed already at that time? Why
did nobody intervene when President Dosé allowed salaries for the Swissair
pilots that were beyond the business plan? Why is today nobody talking about
the option of lowering the salaries of the Swissair pilots to the level of
the Crossair colleagues? And why is nobody irritated about Dosé's plan to
change the compromise verdict of the mutually accepted court of arbitration
regarding salaries, to the detriment of the Crossair pilots?

The Crossair pilots are not at fault

In the meantime even the "NZZ am Sonntag" is convinced that for the
forceps delivery of the airline Swiss, "political wishful thinking" was
stronger than economical facts. The situation of the group is now "more
difficult than ever". After a series of incidents it is considered to be
just "short of negligent how long the board already watches the drain of
trust in the safety areas".

Please note: This board is constituted largely of followers of business
tycoon Rainer E. Gut and Federal Councilor Kaspar Villiger who are friends
and have together initiated this rescue exercise.

For the record: Swiss cannot be profitable because it is far too big. The
salaries granted to the pilots of the bankrupt Swissair have destabilized
the expense budget. What is simply not acknowledged: The Crossair pilots
have by no means demanded more salary, but simply oppose to be paid less
than their colleagues, who would, without this rescue exercise, all be
without jobs. Te responsibility for this development lies with Gut, Villiger
and all those who, last autumn, kept Swissair artificially alive and had it
transformed into the Zombie Swiss. It is common knowledge that government,
as a principle, should refrain from such actions.

Basically all is as it was
Politicians now stand knee-deep in a mess. It becomes more and more
apparent that Swiss is nothing else than Swissair minus three letters; in
the business "Swiss" is meanwhile known to stand for "So what, it is still
Swissair". After all, Swiss uses Swissair's aircraft, staff, routes and
landing rights, the organization charts and procedures, and even the
Collective Labor Agreement for part of their pilots has been adopted nearly
verbatim. From the old Crossair, hardly anything is left.

Even judges start to notice these facts. In France, Air Liberté who was
shortchanged by Swissair to the tune of 87 million francs won a court case
for damages against Swiss. Two levels of appeal will follow. The recent
change in Frances government will allow for a more Swiss critical climate,
not the least because now also Mr. Ernest-Antoine Seillière who lost 400
million francs, has again good friends among civil servants and judges.

If only one of the French creditors should succeed in holding Swiss liable
as Swissair's successor, all walls will break. In at least two European
countries (not counting Switzerland) SAir creditors are planning to indict
Swiss - a vital threat to the Swiss Airline Group.

Under this viewpoint, the sudden hectic of the politicians only looks
logic. Because they start to fathom the risk of failure of this rescue
exercise, they now try in preventive damage control for themselves. They
look for scapegoats and found them - the Crossair pilots, who come in handy
to divert from the failure of the polititians.[QUOTE]

773829

10th Aug 2002, 07:40

Ich schreibe auf deutsch, da nicht die ganze Welt lesen muss, was wir in der SWISS für eine Schlammschlacht führen!

Ich bin Pilot bei SWISS OC2.

Ich denke bei OC1 haben einige Piloten den ernst der Lage noch nicht erkannt. Auch wenn Swissair bachab ging, auch wenn Crossair ausgekauft wurde, auch wenn Crossair alleine überlebt hätte, hätte es sicher nicht einen besseren GAV für die LX Piloten gegeben. Da aber Geld vom Bund und Wirtschaft in die LX gepumpt wurde, damit die ehemalige SWISSAIR Operation reduziert weiterbestehen kann, haben nun die Piloten von OC1 plötzlich das Gefühl sie seien die grossen Gewinner und wollen dies auch vergolden. Die Gewinnner sind sie eh, da sie ohne etwas spezielles zu leisten, die Chnace bekommen auf die Flugzeuge der ex-Swissair zu wechseln. ebenfalls sehen ihre Anstellungsbedingungen bedeutend besser aus als vor einem Jahr. Aber es braucht halt Geduld...

Da nun ab nächstem Sommerflugplan die Piloten von OC1 ebenfalls mit PBS geplant werden, ist die Zahl der Piloten in OC1 sicher um 1/4 zu hoch. Diese Rechnung wurde von SWISS bereits in einem Parallelrun mit PBS gemacht. Also würde sich die CCP besser darum kümmern, was mit den überzähligen Piloten geschehen soll. Man könnte ja ein Modell analog dem der AEROPERS einführen, damit jeder Pilot von OC1 eine Solidaritätsbeitrag bezahlt, um auf diese weise möglichst wenige Kollegen au der Strasse zu sehen. Es gibt überhaupt keinen Grund warum bei OC2 noch mehr gut Qualifizierte Piloten entlassen werden sollten. Aber es gibt bei OC1 sicher Piloten, welche nicht zur SWISS gehören. Denkt mal nach.......

HotDog

10th Aug 2002, 13:11

three_degrees

10th Aug 2002, 14:32

To 773829:

Who are you pointing at? OC1 pilots wihtout the Swiss nationality perhaps? Please specify, in English please.

Come on guys, let’s face it:
Who is responsible for this whole mess?? AP? CCP? Or could it be that there are some top level managers who screwed up?
I do not blame AP for having granted their B-GAV. AP played a tough game and it seems to me they got what they wanted. But that at the same time does not justify the fact that different terms are being created for two pilot corps within the SAME company, just to make it fit into the business plan. I agree that we can argue about differences in salary OC1 vs. OC2, in the contrary there are no grounds whatsoever to grant one group of pilots more holidays, a bonus regulation, job protection/seniority usw. This has been acknowledged by a court of arbitration, a verdict which our beloved management cannot just simply put aside (though they are trying hard).
I think this whole comedy is a disgrace for a country which likes to rate itself at the top shelf of living standard and social peace and I hope our colleagues of OC2 can agree to that. Hence, you can’t blame CCP for the way they are proceeding, instead, blame management for this whole mess.

773829

10th Aug 2002, 15:17

Dear three_degrees

I do not point to non Swiss nationality. But I think there are some pilots flying in OC1, which should not. I talking of quality and age! You still have pilots, which got retired at Swissair regularly and now flying with SWISS instead of young once! As well there are pilots employed with former Crossair, only because they couldn't find good qualified pilots (Niederhalsli ...)

Everybody at Crossair knows what Swissair was asking for to become a pilot. (Ask Mr. Bieli!) So in this respect I do not think the sentence “same work – same salary”, which CCP is using all the time is the correct one, but one should say “same QUALIFICATION (I do not mean licence) – same salary”.

I agree with you, that vacation, travel expenses, social security and so on should be the same for everybody working with SWISS, but the salary depending still about your education, years in service and experience.

By the way you say that AEROPERS got what they asked for, is not correct at all. If you have a cut in Salary of about 35% plus a pension scheme, which is not half of what you expected, plus some important points in the CWA missing, plus …., you can not really say AEROPERS got all the wanted. Just one thing we got, and this is our Job, but not Crossair gave us this job. It was the government. (Swiss people – thank you!)

Best regards

Alpha Leader

11th Aug 2002, 04:02

HotDog:

Sepp Moser (who wrote the "Weltwoche" article), does not claim to have created the misnomer. It's been around for quite some time, first as a joke, now as the cynical truth. Maybe he got it from me?

finalschecks

12th Aug 2002, 08:34

Everybody at Crossair knows what Swissair was asking for to become a pilot.

Typical!

Get it in your head buddy! Swissair no longer exists! You are working for crossair now!

I agree with 3degrees... Managment screwed this one up, let THEM figure it out. It's looks like it's gonna cost them their jobs sometime soon.

christian_MD80

12th Aug 2002, 11:59

@finalschecks

You are confusing me. I understand, that Swissair was closed down. Part of their personnel and equipment was handed over to Swiss, payed by your taxpayers and companies who had not much of a choice. I also understand, that on the other hand, Crossair was not immediately in danger, just in the long time of a year or two, as your longhaul operator (SR) was closed and what for is a regional airline, than to bring passengers to a longhaul operator. Now somebody could explain, why your bosses ever planned to mix the pilot corps, which have a so much different history in pilots training and the handling of the human ressource.

Is 773829 employed by Crossair? I guess not, as are you all at swiss. Crossair did safe nobody, in the opposite, it would have been better to form a completely new company, from zero, with a regional carrier and the MR/LR national carrier as your politics decided you need to have one. The number of aircraft would have been right for the planned company and no much worry about mixing people who don`t like each other. Hmm, I didn`t see too many pro swissair postings beeing that low level some of the pro crossair postings are.

I guess you all have a long way to go, and you will go together or the group with the lesser power within itself will lose even more, Ok, disregard the "even more", because that group got some rises in salary and benefits as I understood.

Anyway, good luck to you all and I do wish ex-Crossair personnel to get the salary and benefits you demand, but do you deserve it?

chris

finalschecks

12th Aug 2002, 16:52

MD80,

Sorry for having confused you, let me explain what I meant.
7745647 DOES work for crossair. It was only renamed into SWISS.

Anyway, good luck to you all and I do wish ex-Crossair personnel to get the salary and benefits you demand, but do you deserve it?
You are trying to provoke me or what? It was explained before that this is not just about money and benefits, mainly about job-security and carreer, so seniority.

Finally a serious question:Now somebody could explain, why your bosses ever planned to mix the pilot corps, which have a so much different history in pilots training and the handling of the human ressource. To be honest : no clue. I think the best would have been to combine the best of both worlds. Probably to late now. Too bad.

rapide89

12th Aug 2002, 17:18

Finalchecks:

The winner - looser mentality you display (and of course, you are on the winners side !) is deeply irritating. You don't need to be provoked, you do it yourself, mate !
Talking about job security and careers, there is the little side-story of 360 Ex-Swissair guys having lost theirs. But I am wasting my time here, as Chris has rightly said.
Just to put it right: The company has been renamed "Swiss International". "Crossair" does not exist anymore.

773829

12th Aug 2002, 18:10

Dear Finalchecks you wrote:

"To be honest : no clue. I think the best would have been to combine the best of both worlds. Probably to late now. Too bad."

Can you tell me what you think what would be good from old Crossair ops? (Landing somewhere else than on an airport, having 3 total losses in 2 years.., sorry, but this are facts)

I think, if they would have taken the best of the two worlds, maybe you would do something else, than you do now...., because there where some very good pilots in one of this two worlds, which had a very good qualifikation and now working somewhere else, but because they had a good background, some 60 working soon with LH! What would you have done ....?

Best regards

Albatros6

12th Aug 2002, 18:40

Well, the mix of the companies was done after the original Plan did not work. Crossair is known to have had to stop pilots working in order not to exceed 1000 hrs/year. So why did they have a workforce too big last summer? They were preparing to overtake all the business in Switzerland, by grounding SWISSAIR with the help of UBS. (one of the both big banks in Switzerland) Only the reaction of the grounding was too big, so the government, which was offloaded some days before, walked in again, but somehow was still not knowing what Crossair really was. Instead of building a really new Company they build on the "smart and clever and running well and so profitable Crossair" (it could have been done also on on other companys).
Then would have been the time to take the best of both worlds...
The Crossair Managment took the opportunity and made a business-plan 3times as expensive, and asked the SWISSAIR-Pilots to reduce the Salary by 35%. Neither of it was expected to get trough, but both, the government and the pilots agreed. (well, had to...) So the company is now run by its former daughter, having the problem of a regional-pilot-corps which was promised the stars, but still sits in a cellar with a flashlight. One of the only things the managment now can do for them is to try to have one class of pilots only, but economically it does'nt make sense...

three_degrees

13th Aug 2002, 11:46

Dear 772839

Thank you for showing your ubermensch attitude towards your ex-crx colleagues. Very professional. If you'll continue to display such motivations during your career with Swiss (for as long it's gonna last...) we're going to have a niiiiiice time together.
Sure, you have a point there with the safety record of my former airline. I'm not going to defend that. But you know just like everyone else in here that it was not just ex-crx who experienced total-losses. That's all I got to say to that, the best pilots with the biggest mouths are always sitting on the ground you know...
Open your mind dude, there is not just that one 'right' way of doing things, though it seems like you are very much indoctrinated
by the 'quality' of your former boss's operating filosophy (if we'd measure that by the amount of earrings I see passing by there in ZRH-ops every day, I'm not so impressed.... ;) )
And for some 60 of your colleagues who did so well with LH, I'm truly happy for them! They're a hundred thousand times better off than they would be with Swiss!

Come on man, put those pre-assumptions aside, and maybe then we'll go somewhere from here.

773829

13th Aug 2002, 21:04

Dear Three Degrees

I not think that the ex SR Pilots are something like "Übermenschen". I am just talking of qualification. It is a difference if you do your training and your flight hours just somewhere and somehow to get a licence ore you do a 1 1/2 year training, where everything you are doing is a qualified item and at the end of this period they decide if the going to employ you or not. So I still think we talking "same qualification - same salary".

And by the way I am not looking forward to work with people thinking things about me, like written in the "Klagschrift"!!!!

Another word about safety. What about the statement from your union boss Mr. Bieli, that the regional pilots having a safety problem, because of the fight between CCP and SWISS. In this case it would be better not to fly….

Best regards

Alpha Leader

12th Sep 2002, 03:43

Interesting article written in today's "Weltwoche" by Swissair fan and aviation journalist Sepp Moser:

http://www.weltwoche.ch/ressort_bericht.asp?asset_id=3164&category_id=59

A hasty translation for non-German speakers:

****************************************************
Remuneration cuts of more than one third for previous SR pilots was one of the preconditions on which Swiss was founded. However, salaries have not actually dropped to that extent.

One of the most interesting myths surrounding Swiss International Air Lines is that of its pilots’ remuneration. When Swiss took over the pilots from collapsed Swissair, official word was that they would have to accept salary sacrifices amounting to 35%. This mythical figures has since been bandied around and reached near-universal acceptance as a fact, but it is indeed wrong, as shown by the following two examples:

Young F/O X has four years of service. His basic salary at former SR was just above CHF 100,000 p.a. At Swiss, he is now earning CHF108,700, an increase of 7%. Although he now has to contribute half of his contributions to the retirement fund himself (SR used to pay all contributions), his net payout is still somewhat higher than at former SR. So: no trace of any 35% salary sacrifice.

Experience Capt. Y has a record of thirty years and is thus at the top of the seniority scale. His basic salary went from formerly CHF300,000 to now CHF236,027, a decrease of 21%. Together with the change in contributions to the retirement fund (as F/O X, he now has to pay half of the contributions himself), his net salary is 30% below his former earnings. Internal documents reveal that in fact not one single former SR pilot’s remuneration has dropped by 35%. On average, the sacrifice is actually around 20%.

Given these figures, how did the myth of low salaries come to be? An analysis makes interesting reading.

Budget variance

First: Back in April 2001, when Mario Corti was undertaking his ill-fated attempts at rescuing SR, the company’s pilots agreed to a salary sacrifice of around 5%. The oft-mentioned reduction of 35% is, in fact, based on pilots’ salaries prior to that sacrifice, not on their level when SR went into liquidation.

Second: About 350 former SR pilots were terminated when the company collapsed. The accounting method applied then initially attributed the freed up salaries (amounting to around CHF12 million p.a.) to the pool of “survivors” but was then immediately cut back in what was declared a cost-reduction exercise.

Third: Even with some lawyers disputing this, the legal manoeuvre applied during the salvaging of former SR can be seen to be a merger or acquisition (Article 333 of Swiss Commercial Code). Accordingly, Swiss would be obliged to pay former SR employees their full entitlements as per their workplace agreement valid through 2005, and failing this, former SR pilots would have reasonably good chances if they were to file a lawsuit. They signed away their rights to do so by squeezing an extra CHF5 million p.a. for the remuneration pool from Swiss. All said, Swiss pays its total of 850 ex-SR pilots (of which 829 are full-time) an average of CHF203,530 p.a. This is a total remuneration budget of CHF173 million, which is CHF18 million more than in the forecast, even if Swiss boss André Dosé and his team do not advertise this. The 1,050 ex-Crossair pilots (970 of them full-time), however, are only paid an average of CHF95,240 p.a. for what is essentially the same work (except for some higher workload on long haul flights) but, interestingly, for achieving a significantly higher rate of productivity in terms of revenue per pilot per month.

Mishaps with SR-crews

At other airlines that have combined their long haul and regional services under one corporate roof (something that is comparatively rare on a global scale), all pilots are on the same remuneration scale. At SAS, for instance, a pilot taking his 50-seater to Sundsvall will have the same monthly salary as his colleague with the same seniority in terms of years of service who flies to Chicago with 260 passengers. Even at SBB (Swiss Railways) there is no difference in remuneration between engineers with short and long trains. There could, of course, be an argument that better paid pilots offer a higher level of safety than their “cheaper” colleagues. And indeed, there hardly seems to be a week without some mishap being reported with a Crossair flight. In contrast, hardly anything seems to go wrong with the long-haul fleet. Alas, upon closer inspection this does not reflect the facts.

Official statistics on irregularity reports show that in May and June 2002, the ex-SR fleet undertook some 12,141 commercial flights compared with 27,384 by the ex-Crossair fleet. Excluding near mid-air misses, 20 irregularity reports were filed for the ex-SR fleet against 39 for the ex-Crossair fleet. In other words, 1 in every 607 ex-SR flight was reported, but only 1 in every 702 ex-Crossair flights.

Very few mishaps that have occurred with former SR pilots have made it to the media. One such unreported incident is an A321 which went on a wrong heading after take-off from Zurich. Or the crew of an A330 which only at around 30,000 feet realized they had not retracted flaps to cruising configuration, much as a bus driver would become aware after having covered around 50km that his handbrake was still applied.
**************************************************

Alpha Leader

12th Sep 2002, 07:14

studi:

Productivity of pilots, as mentioned in the article, is defined as "revenue per pilot per month", meaning the revenue from all pax carried by a particular pilot.

If you look at the heavy discounting on long haul routes, it does not defy logic that a regional pilot can earn more revenue than his long haul counterpart.

Now if you were a "Swiss Intl Air Lines" accountant, your next step on the calculator would be to work out "profitability", i.e. the revenue per pilot per month minus his/her salary. Given the discrepancy between the salaries of former SR pilots and former Crossair pilots, you can well imagine how dramatic that yawning gap must be.
:eek:

Alpha Leader

12th Sep 2002, 08:33

studi:

The point is that pax on regional flights almost without exception pay much higher prices per mile than those on long-haul.

Second, regional pilots perform far more flights per month than long haul pilots.

Third, the ratio of business travellers vs. leisure travellers is in most cases much higher on regional and commuter flights than on long haul flights, which translates into higher average revenue per seat and mile on regional flights.

Fourth, the current Swiss long haul network is particularly tourist-friendly. There was criticism at the time that they were not picking up some high-revenue destinations in Africa (which AF have a virtual monopoly on) and some suspicion that Swiss were providing long haul routes to "nice places" out of less-than-commercial considerations.

773829

12th Sep 2002, 20:23

This statement about incidents on big aircraft at Swiss is a typical one from Sepp Moser - only telling half of the story.

In all big aircraft we have a data unit which is evaluated after each flight by computers. On the small once some have, but the data’s are not used yet.

So if we talk about incidents in Swiss, we have to look at the numbers in this respect!

For the part about productivity, Mr. Moser is just writing something without knowledge! It is quit simple to calculate how many pilots an aircraft needs to be operated. If you make this calculation there are at least 200 pilots to many on the small aircrafts.

Last a word about our salaries. If you take the money Swissair had to pay for a pilot and the money Swiss is now paying, you just getting the famous 35% difference (Salary, pension scheme, travel expenses, insurance…). But as usual the brilliant writer of this article in the “Weltwoche” is writing again something he likes to believe and not the facts.

Alpha Leader

13th Sep 2002, 00:48

773829:

How would you calculate pilot productivity? There is little to argue about when it comes to straightforward mathematics.

But more interestingly, you mention that Sepp Moser (in respect of productivity) is writing "without knowledge". Do you have other figures to demonstrate your point?

773829

13th Sep 2002, 11:44

Yes it is quit simple. Just take a figure, lets say about 8 to 10 pilots for one shorthaul aircraft. That gives you at the end more or less the numbers of pilots you need to operate one aircraft. This figure again times the numbers of aircraft in an airline like the former crossair part with about 80 airplanes equals to about 640 to 800 pilots.

skypointer

13th Sep 2002, 13:42

Are you guys serious? Are you really discussing a Depp Moser article in a professional pilot forum? How deep have you sunken?:(

Our dear friend Depp Moser, after crashlanding his Cessana due to an omitted the fuel/water check, wrote that it were Swissair pilots who put the water in his tanks. Nice try! Unfortunately for him accident investigation proved him wrong: he just didn't do a fuel/water check after leaving his toyplane in the rain for 3 month. So much for his credibility...:o

Even the media seem to have ralized that only bull**** comes from Depp - except for the Weltwoche of course. But then, Weltwoche seems to publish just about every crap lately. I heard they are soon going to call themseves Swiss National Enquirer - or have I just dreamt that?:D

Repeating lies doesn't make them any more true and our dear Depp is a severe case for the shrinks. That's just about all that is to say here!

what_goes_up

13th Sep 2002, 15:53

Hoi studi
first of all, congratulation for LH. Hope you enjoy it there. When do you start?
To come back to your question from above: No it is not possible to climb to FL330 with flaps extended with a A330. Besides the warnings the bus would start to retract the flaps itself in an overspeed situation. I recall that even an older craft like MD11 would do so in some way. I think it was called Flap relief ( isn't it 773829 ;) )

Alpha Leader

14th Sep 2002, 01:41

Skypointer:

We all know what an avid Swissair fan Sepp Moser is, and his mishap with the water/fuel mixture in his tank is also well known.

The above notwithstanding, he has in his article come up with figures, and there is little point in accusing him of ignorance or even malice, unless someone can put forward other (and possibly more correct) figures.

733829:

I'm not sure how your calculation of the total number of pilots has any bearing on their productivity, as Sepp Moser's definition of "productivity" is the revenue earned per pilot per month.

However, the issue becomes more interesting if we look at "pilot profitability", by dividing the total revenue on regional routes with the aggregate remuneration of regional pilots, and compare that figure with the total revenue on long haul routes divided by the aggregate remuneration of long haul pilots.

We already know that the total remuneration bill for the long haul pilots (i.e. ex-SR pilots) amounts to around CHF173 million. The equivalent figure for the 1,050 ex-Crossair pilots is around CHF100 million.

Even Arthur Andersen could (if they were still around) and Sepp Moser can figure out that if revenue from long haul and regional operations is the same, pilot profitability of the regional operations would be 1.7 times higher. Conversely, in order to be as profitable as the regional routes, the revenue from the long haul network has to be 70% higher than that of the regional operations.

Right is clear !

15th Sep 2002, 08:45

Simple :

Swissair had a debt of more than 30 billion !! Simple maths will show you the revenue.

what_goes_up

15th Sep 2002, 09:42

R I C
You still don't get it, he? It was the SAir Group, of which LX was part of, that made this debit. Also former LX helped quite a bit to grow this figures. So for the next time you spread your wisdom, switch on your brain first!:mad:

Right is clear !

15th Sep 2002, 13:14

At least I have a brain.

Crossair has been a succesfull rapidly growing company. It was a flexible airline with good service standard . It has been a profitable company in the past.

This is exactly why the new airline is build upon the old Crossair philosofy. It was a succesfull formula.

I also think that the ex-Swissair pilots have nothing to do with the Swissair fiasco. They are very professional and hard working pilots but their mentality towards ex-Crossair staff stinks.
I can not understand their arguments and the way they issue their views.

what_goes_up

15th Sep 2002, 13:51

RIC
On whose cost Crossair was rapidly growing? Maybe you still remember on how many times you called clearance delivery with the callsign Swissair?? I admit, it was a clever move from MS to increase LX's fleet size and let SR paying for. But more it was very stupid from SR management to let that happen. But be honest, where would LX be without SR. It would still be a healthy niche-carrier. But most of you guys wouldn'have a job there. Cause there would not be a need for that many pilots.

And for the second point; I don't care if you get more money even if it is above worlds average. But don't take it from my salary (because mine is about 40% below). I have already payed my due.

BTW I still say hello to anybody in the Ops-Center. I can not understand why most of the time I don't get an answer from ex LX staff. Do you think this doesn't stink. Or is this our future attitude.

Don't make us responsible for your unions childish attitude. They had the chance to participate and ran away although the negotiations were legal (even recognized by the court, as you know).

Right is clear !

15th Sep 2002, 16:34

WGU : I appreciate your comments. Your arguments are reasonable however, outsourcing production in the past was due to the fact that Crossair product was cheaper and specially used on low demand routing were Airbus was simply to big or expensive. True that a lot of Crossair production was Swissair flight. This is also what is happening in Lufthansa(cityline) and KLM(cityhopper) and BA (Cityexpress)etc...
As for Swissair current salary; I know it is below average.
I also don't mind Airbus earns more than Saab.

Studi : Your figures might be correct but your reasoning with it doesn't make any sense. You get a better picture if you take revenue minus costs times amount of pilots. With other words profit/pilot. Whole other outcome.

But all this figure bla bla, I do not care. I would prefer to see Swiss figures to be good and interesting conditions for both OC1 and OC2.

I am having a beer now; Cheers !

Alpha Leader

16th Sep 2002, 02:29

studi:

The figures for Swissair revenue in 2000 are at most of historical interest and have little or no bearing on today's situation. I tried to open the pdf file but was unsuccessful so far. In the meantime the following questions/issues that would spring to mind are:

a) is the revenue of CHF 5.8 billion that of SAir Group or that of the airline operations only?

b) the long haul fleet size and the number of long haul destinations have been cut back since

c) SR's network formerly included short and medium haul destinations that today are essentially "Crossair" destinations

d) "Swiss" have just reported revenue of CHF 1.75 billion for the first six months of 2002, which would suggest annual revenue of around CHF 4 billion

Alpha Leader

16th Sep 2002, 07:43

studi:

I am not sure how you come to your conclusion about productivity. We're not talking of past productivity and profitability, but of present conditions, where it is possible to compare ex-SR and ex-Crossair pilots side-by-side in real time.

Again, unless anyone can come up with current figures to contradict those splashed around by Sepp Moser, there is no point in debating the issue.

Just because the message is unpalatable, we shouldn't be shooting the messenger.......

middlepath

16th Sep 2002, 12:30

Just a question, can anyone guess how long will swiss remain in th business? or how long does it take before spliting into 2(Regional and long haul). Above two point will solve all our discussion.

skypointer

16th Sep 2002, 13:56

we shouldn't be shooting the messenger
No danger. Nobody is gonna waste a bullet for such an idiot...

He cannot operate a small plane decently, he has no idea how an Airbus works, he dreams up his figures and doesn't know his mats. Who did make him an aviation expert? Alpha Leader, don't you have any better sources? This is embarassing!

Alpha Leader

17th Sep 2002, 06:20

skypointer:

I find it embarrassing that you continue to rail against the author of an article instead of coming up with factual arguments.

As for the A330 matter: you will note from other threads, such as the one which covered the GF072 crash (A320), that even A3X0 pilots are sometimes at odds over the exact capabilities of the on-board computer systems to override pilot error.

studi:

We are in 2002, not 2000. Let's agree on that, and that the projected total revenue of long haul and regional operations for Swiss will be around CHF 4 billion for 2002.

Once we know separate revenue figures for long haul and regional operations respectively, we can work out

a) revenue per pilot
b) profitability per pilot (revenue minus average salary).

Until then, let's sit back an forget 2000.

what_goes_up

17th Sep 2002, 10:54

@ AL

So you want a proof that Sepp Moser is working with wrong figures, you shall have it:

The topic of an A330 with flaps out at FL 330 was discussed already. I just don't agree with you, that a misprint like this can happen. This is basic aerodynamics and if one just switches on his brain, he must be aware that there someting can not be right. For an aviation expert, as SM calls himself, it's basic knowledge. But I agree that the problems of highlevel and highspeed aerodynamics have not to be known to a C152 pilot. I doubt if he has ever flown something larger and faster than this.

Second proof:
Young F/O X has four years of service. His basic salary at former SR was just above CHF 100,000 p.a. At Swiss, he is now earning CHF108,700, an increase of 7%. Although he now has to contribute half of his contributions to the retirement fund himself (SR used to pay all contributions), his net payout is still somewhat higher than at former SR. So: no trace of any 35% salary sacrifice.

The right figures are:
F/O 4th year of service:
Swissar: 104'817 Swiss: 95'900
Where is this 7% increase? For me it is a decrease of roughly 8.5%. Deduct the retirement fund and you get 15%. to that my personal final target in my pension fund decreased by 2 third (yes you read that right 2/3. I will only get one third of that planned.). How should the net payout with swiss be higher than thatone from Swissair?

Even worse for CMD: I don't give you the exact figures, because I am F/O and don't spread around with others salaries. But I figured out that a CMD after 30 years of service looses about 32% of his net income. Not yet taken in account the decrease in paid expenses of 25% (same for F/O).

All said, Swiss pays its total of 850 ex-SR pilots (of which 829 are full-time) an average of CHF203,530 p.a.

I just calculated the average salary of a ex SR pilot with 30 years of service, upgrading after 12 years (very optimistic, I know). It's SFR 175'500. It's only about 14% wrong. Are your inertial system working with the same error and everybody is happy with this minor negligible fault?

BTW:
If the ex LX figure of average salary is correct,with the new contract they would reach this as F/O after 11 years and as CMD (what most of them are already) after 3 years of service.

Ex SR reaches their average as F/O after 20 years and as CMD after 14 years.

There are several other things that were simply a lie in Sepp Mosers articles over the past years. But I hope you do not urge to post all of them.
I find it embarrassing that you continue to rail against the author of an article instead of coming up with factual arguments.

I find it even more embarrassing that the public is fed with proofably wrong information by a lunatic like Sepp Moser who still fight with the non-acceptance as pilot with Swissair and ATC controller at skyguide (former Radio Schweiz/ Swisscontrol).

These are the things that really poison the present situation.:mad:

Alpha Leader

18th Sep 2002, 01:35

what_goes_up:

Appreciate your posting of figures in contrast with those in Sepp Moser's article. As both you and he are obviously using examples which can be documented, neither you nor he can be accused of being totally wrong or commended for being singularly right.

At the core of the issue is, really, what has happened to the statistical average of ex-SR pilots' salaries.

Given the huge infusion of public money into Swiss Intl Air Lines it is astonishing that the otherwise rather aggressive corporate PR machine has not been turned on to officially correct any wrong figures that Sepp Moser's article might have communicated to the public, or indeed to refute his allegations of inflight mishaps.

Indeed, I'm surprised that - given that his tenure as "Swiss" PR expert is fast running out - Thomas Borer has not been asked to step in and spread the official gospel.

what_goes_up

18th Sep 2002, 05:26

Alpha Leader
I used exactly the exampels he was using and I took this figures from our old and new CLA. So Sepp Mosers figures can't be right. If we would turn on that PR machine, as you suggested, it would just be another "arrogant" act from ex SR. Don't you agree?

For me this figures are proof enough (with other examples). Now it's your choice whome you are believing. I do have it black and white on my papers. I doubt if Mister Mosers figures are more than hot air!

Alpha Leader

18th Sep 2002, 09:30

what goes up:

Well..... very simple indeed: you and Sepp Moser can't both be right then, although the examples he mentioned do hold water mathematically. But he's gone public with his figures and has, so far apparently, not been publicly challenged about them, particularly not with regard to his sweeping statement that not one single ex-SR pilot has had to forego 35% in salary reductions (using his basis for calculation).

Alpha Leader

19th Sep 2002, 02:42

studi:

In this ratio lies the truth why regional pilots will never be paid the same money like wide-body-pilots

...except for airlines where this is apparently not so, such as SK.

But nevertheless, let's wait for the annual figures and the breakdown into regional and long haul revenue and personnel costs

Alpha Leader

19th Sep 2002, 07:21

studi:

You're probably being a bit presumptuous (I would hate to resort to your right/wrong stereotyping) here - a commuter airline is not a regional airline, although conversely a regional airline might offer what could be termed commuter flights.

What about all the B737's, for instance? Ryanair, a regional carrier, is all-737 with up to 189 pax. Plus there are various MD's in the list, none of which - one would assume, at least - venture beyond regional destinations. These a/c would add another cool 122 planes to your 28 ballshakers.

However, to revert to the matter at hand: you can bet your bottom dollar on the breakdown of figures into regional and long haul operations at "Swiss" making it into the public domain.

Alpha Leader

19th Sep 2002, 09:27

studi:

Let's leave all judgments on productivity and profitability for after the "Swiss" 2002 annual report (assuming they will remain in business under the current structure for the full fiscal year).

Your "common sense" figures are, as you after all state yourself, assumptions.

By the way: you will note that on the "Swiss" web site, only 27 a/c are denoted as "long haul". Let's hope their financial reports offer better separation between figures pertaining to ex-Crossair and ex-SR operations.

What's with the 156'535?

773829

19th Sep 2002, 11:28

F/O 4th year Swissair salary and pension pay: sFr. 147'267.00.

F/O 4th year Swiss salary and pension pay: sFr. 102'613.00.

Difference minus 30.3% plus travelexpenses minus 75% equals to about 2-5%. Here we have the 35%.

This figures I have black on white on original documents!!!!!

I understand the difference between main airline and regional (commuter) airline not in aircraft size but on network where they operate. If you have a network with marginal traffic or marginal prices you have to have a less expensive operation. That’s all!

middlepath

19th Sep 2002, 21:23

Studi

Alpha Leader has clever answer because he might be british, can`t be from china.

finalschecks

19th Sep 2002, 21:51

Smaller aircrafts generate smaller revenue, and therefore pilots on smaller aircraft have smaller salaries. Interesting point studi,

here some facts .

- In former crossair a MD-80 pilot earned the same as a ERJ-pilot.
- In former swissair a A319 pilot earned the same as a MD11-hero.

here some mysteries :

- MD80 is bigger than A319 but their captains earn less than A319 copilots.
- ERJ and MD80 fly a bigger network than the A320 but their captains earn less than A320 copilots.

Still a lot of ex-swissair people can't stand the fact that ex-crossair people want the same philosophy, so the same conditions in the same company for what is basically the same work.

779896,
If you have a network with marginal traffic or marginal prices you have to have a less expensive operation. If you are a longhaul pilot, you must have been shocked that A.Dose revealed that most of the money was made on the european network, NOT on the longhaul-part with its huge costs and its small profit margin.

Be assured my fight is not with ex-SR people (unless if they are arrogant and patronizing) but with our managment.

Peace man. :cool:

flysr4ever

20th Sep 2002, 19:29

Not sure what the consequences of this will be for the pilots but I am sure it is of interest:

***quote from ATI***

Swiss to replace A319 with ERJ195

Swiss International Airlines has confirmed that it will almost
certainly be phasing the Airbus A319 out of its fleet in favour of
the Embraer ERJ-195. CEO Andre Dose has previously made clear that he has grave doubts about the economics of the A319 compared to the new Brazilian regional jet.

And today the airline says its order for 70-seat ERJ-170s and 108-
seat ERJ-195s is intended to replace all the current short-haul fleet comprising: 19 BAE Systems Avro RJs, 28 Saab 2000s, and seven A319s.

It says: "These aircraft types are to be replaced by a uniform, newly developed aircraft family for short-haul and regional flights - ERJ-170s and ERJ-195s." The programme begins next year and should be completed in mid-2007.

Seven Boeing MD-80s remaining in the charter fleet will be replaced by A320s as planned, and the 13 Boeing MD-11s will make way for A340-300s now on order.

Dose says Swiss secured lease terms ensuring that it can hand back the A319s and MD-11s as required, but he concedes that offloading the Saab 2000s and Avro RJs in the current market will be challenging.

"We have agreed the MD-11 leases to take into account the A340s, and with the A319s we have the capability to reduce that fleet if we need to and some will be replaced by the ERJ-195s in 2006.

"We have exposure to the Saab 2000s and a limited exposure on the RJs," he says. The remaining few Saab 340s have virtually all been leased out.

***(unquote)***