Swiss downsize definite
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: hearth EU
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a level around here!
What you criticise on the others is your short coming...
To sumarize a bit:
If Swiss is sinking now, this is mainly due to faulty management which said that 26/26 was a correct size...and taking over the jobless Swissair pilots with their Busses and their own-made contract under the pressure of politics.
The new Swiss should have been based under Crossair cost structure, it was one of the prerogative from the politics...
Promesses from the management to have only one pilot corps...
Fair conditions for everybody...
Where are we now:
Size too big for any alliance, size too big for the Swiss market, Zurich overcrowded, luxurious service! for luxurious people! during recession time!!! and with destination excellence!!!
Two pilot corps, on one camp they should be happy, they where jobless, went reemployed and for some of them they even had a payrise, on the other camp, they where doing not so bad, expending, improving contract condition and now are fooled with their own management, by the others, and still work under the same conditions as before. Less salary for same sector flown, less vacation, no bonus, no correct seniority list!!!
Result: two corps of pilots fighting against each others.
( Skypointer, CCP tried several times to approach AP when we where two different company with no answer!) remember...
And "some stupid court ruling" which are part of the legal affair for business are also there because AP did not wanted to talk about this...
Very poor judgement of the situation from the management...
If you start a new brand, would start big and then reduce? NO!
First you start small and then when things look well you expend maybe!
Why did they started so big and full of arrogance?
Because we are facing a Clone of Swissair, it is very trendy nowadays...
Keep it small, friendly and reliable.
What you criticise on the others is your short coming...
To sumarize a bit:
If Swiss is sinking now, this is mainly due to faulty management which said that 26/26 was a correct size...and taking over the jobless Swissair pilots with their Busses and their own-made contract under the pressure of politics.
The new Swiss should have been based under Crossair cost structure, it was one of the prerogative from the politics...
Promesses from the management to have only one pilot corps...
Fair conditions for everybody...
Where are we now:
Size too big for any alliance, size too big for the Swiss market, Zurich overcrowded, luxurious service! for luxurious people! during recession time!!! and with destination excellence!!!
Two pilot corps, on one camp they should be happy, they where jobless, went reemployed and for some of them they even had a payrise, on the other camp, they where doing not so bad, expending, improving contract condition and now are fooled with their own management, by the others, and still work under the same conditions as before. Less salary for same sector flown, less vacation, no bonus, no correct seniority list!!!
Result: two corps of pilots fighting against each others.
( Skypointer, CCP tried several times to approach AP when we where two different company with no answer!) remember...
And "some stupid court ruling" which are part of the legal affair for business are also there because AP did not wanted to talk about this...
Very poor judgement of the situation from the management...
If you start a new brand, would start big and then reduce? NO!
First you start small and then when things look well you expend maybe!
Why did they started so big and full of arrogance?
Because we are facing a Clone of Swissair, it is very trendy nowadays...
Keep it small, friendly and reliable.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SkyPointer :
I agree our unions should talk about our problem, but the dialog is not possible anymore.
You Said : we were too big, we had to resize.
Now, CRX regional is too big ???? maybe it meens that we took too many A319/320 on board ????? if the regional sector is too big, this is due to the fact that we have too many REGIONAL A320/A321 !!
Phoenix plus stated 3 options.. Remenber ??
0/0/82 (82 regionals)
10/10/82 (10 LH and 92 Regionals)
26/26/82 (10 LH and 108 Regionals !)
Where is the mistake if we have too many regional aircrafts ??? we took too many A320, a 26/5/82 was maybe the best solution...
Do you really think the A320 is a medium or long haul compared to Jumbolino, Saab and MD80 ???
The zipper is quite fair as you will keep your position within Swiss, for example, a SF/O will still be a SF/O, same thing for a CMD... Fair for everyone.
If aeropers want to wait for a court result where the issue is already well known, this is not my problem, if I would fly for OC2, I would stress my union to accept a compromise (Zipper) before the Cathedrale fall down on your head...
Even on OC2 ID badge, the entry date is March 31st 2002, don't you think there is a legal reason behind it???
I agree our unions should talk about our problem, but the dialog is not possible anymore.
You Said : we were too big, we had to resize.
Now, CRX regional is too big ???? maybe it meens that we took too many A319/320 on board ????? if the regional sector is too big, this is due to the fact that we have too many REGIONAL A320/A321 !!
Phoenix plus stated 3 options.. Remenber ??
0/0/82 (82 regionals)
10/10/82 (10 LH and 92 Regionals)
26/26/82 (10 LH and 108 Regionals !)
Where is the mistake if we have too many regional aircrafts ??? we took too many A320, a 26/5/82 was maybe the best solution...
Do you really think the A320 is a medium or long haul compared to Jumbolino, Saab and MD80 ???
The zipper is quite fair as you will keep your position within Swiss, for example, a SF/O will still be a SF/O, same thing for a CMD... Fair for everyone.
If aeropers want to wait for a court result where the issue is already well known, this is not my problem, if I would fly for OC2, I would stress my union to accept a compromise (Zipper) before the Cathedrale fall down on your head...
Even on OC2 ID badge, the entry date is March 31st 2002, don't you think there is a legal reason behind it???
Guest
Posts: n/a
History is always written by the winners. But is it history or hysterics and revisionism that Skypointer and Aeropers are indulging in?
Skypointer's arguments in relation to seniority are interesting to say the least. SWISS management have only ever stated that they agreed with a seniority system based both on SWR start date and CRX start date which discriminated against CRX pilots because "we think its a good idea" and the zipper system or modified zipper is "not feasible". It is no wonder SWISS is in such trouble with management capable of such powers of reason and thorough analysis and interpretation.
No attempt by management was or has been made to look seriously at and analyse other models and options. In fact management have provided no justification or reason to the ex-CRX pilot corps for the new seniority system they tried to introduce 31 March 2002 and which is now disputed in the courts.
In the aftermath of the SWR collapse and bankruptcy, the government funded the continuation of SWR(in liquidation) flights and Crossair wet leased the rest. The Airbuses and MD 11s were leased directly by, and the pilots were newly employed by Crossair effective 31/03/2002. Skypointer continues the lie that these experienced Airbus and MD 11 drivers suffered a pay and conditions cut. What absolute nonsense. They did not have a job. They had a choice, to look for work elsewhere or join the social welfare queue. They accepted a new job with a different company called Crossair. They were new employees of the existing and non-bankrupted Crossair. These ex-SWR drivers accepted a contract and job with CRX that essentially allowed those remaining SWR pilots after the cull to keep driving their same aircraft and to keep their seats.
But no, this was not enough. At SWR these flying gods had a world's best practise seniority system based on start date within Swissair. However these new kids on the block, once they were joining their new company called Crossair, said that such a seniority system based on company start date was "no fair solution" and not good enough for them. These Chuck Yeagers of European Aviation were prepared to "live and die" under a seniority system at Swissair but found this same world's best practise system at their new company Crossair unacceptable. Please spare us from such cant, hypocrisy and double standards.
One must applaud Aeropers' efforts at self-interest and destruction of Crossair and SWISS. Their destructive and arrogant attitude that destroyed and bankrupted Swissair must of course also be brought across to destroy and bankrupt Crossair and SWISS. At least in this respect they are very caring and sharing and consistent.
Moreover the most pitiful and destructive outcome of this astonishing back-flip by Aeropers, is that Crossair/SWISS management got sucked into accepting their demands. Management chose to ignore and abuse the existing Crossair pilot contract and to attempt to provide a new seniority system that put most of the existing Crossair pilots on the bottom.
As has been pointed out correctly, the ex-Crossair pilots association (CCP, now called SWISS Pilots) suggested and offerred options at the negotiations late 2001/early 2002. Yes, it was CRX management, with probably unprecedented Board of Directors input, that came with the "Diktat" and "non negotiable" new seniority system that abused and discriminated against the existing CRX pilots.
Of course to Aeropers and SWISS management the end always justifies the means. It is quite OK to ignore the law, to disregard existing contracts, and to discriminate. It may come as a surprise to some ex-Swissair pilots that it is possible to run a safe and successful airline whilst complying with the law. Sadly it is this Swissair and ENRONesque attitude to corporate ethics demonstrated and executed brilliantly by Aeropers and SWISS management that will destroy SWISS as well. MIGHT is not always RIGHT. Skypointer at least honestly points out the megalomania that existed at Swissair. Why did they have to bring this attitude to Crossair and SWISS?
Ah Phoenix, what will the new Swissair/SWISS Version III look like that flies out from the ashes of the already moribund and corrupted Version II?
Skypointer's arguments in relation to seniority are interesting to say the least. SWISS management have only ever stated that they agreed with a seniority system based both on SWR start date and CRX start date which discriminated against CRX pilots because "we think its a good idea" and the zipper system or modified zipper is "not feasible". It is no wonder SWISS is in such trouble with management capable of such powers of reason and thorough analysis and interpretation.
No attempt by management was or has been made to look seriously at and analyse other models and options. In fact management have provided no justification or reason to the ex-CRX pilot corps for the new seniority system they tried to introduce 31 March 2002 and which is now disputed in the courts.
In the aftermath of the SWR collapse and bankruptcy, the government funded the continuation of SWR(in liquidation) flights and Crossair wet leased the rest. The Airbuses and MD 11s were leased directly by, and the pilots were newly employed by Crossair effective 31/03/2002. Skypointer continues the lie that these experienced Airbus and MD 11 drivers suffered a pay and conditions cut. What absolute nonsense. They did not have a job. They had a choice, to look for work elsewhere or join the social welfare queue. They accepted a new job with a different company called Crossair. They were new employees of the existing and non-bankrupted Crossair. These ex-SWR drivers accepted a contract and job with CRX that essentially allowed those remaining SWR pilots after the cull to keep driving their same aircraft and to keep their seats.
But no, this was not enough. At SWR these flying gods had a world's best practise seniority system based on start date within Swissair. However these new kids on the block, once they were joining their new company called Crossair, said that such a seniority system based on company start date was "no fair solution" and not good enough for them. These Chuck Yeagers of European Aviation were prepared to "live and die" under a seniority system at Swissair but found this same world's best practise system at their new company Crossair unacceptable. Please spare us from such cant, hypocrisy and double standards.
One must applaud Aeropers' efforts at self-interest and destruction of Crossair and SWISS. Their destructive and arrogant attitude that destroyed and bankrupted Swissair must of course also be brought across to destroy and bankrupt Crossair and SWISS. At least in this respect they are very caring and sharing and consistent.
Moreover the most pitiful and destructive outcome of this astonishing back-flip by Aeropers, is that Crossair/SWISS management got sucked into accepting their demands. Management chose to ignore and abuse the existing Crossair pilot contract and to attempt to provide a new seniority system that put most of the existing Crossair pilots on the bottom.
As has been pointed out correctly, the ex-Crossair pilots association (CCP, now called SWISS Pilots) suggested and offerred options at the negotiations late 2001/early 2002. Yes, it was CRX management, with probably unprecedented Board of Directors input, that came with the "Diktat" and "non negotiable" new seniority system that abused and discriminated against the existing CRX pilots.
Of course to Aeropers and SWISS management the end always justifies the means. It is quite OK to ignore the law, to disregard existing contracts, and to discriminate. It may come as a surprise to some ex-Swissair pilots that it is possible to run a safe and successful airline whilst complying with the law. Sadly it is this Swissair and ENRONesque attitude to corporate ethics demonstrated and executed brilliantly by Aeropers and SWISS management that will destroy SWISS as well. MIGHT is not always RIGHT. Skypointer at least honestly points out the megalomania that existed at Swissair. Why did they have to bring this attitude to Crossair and SWISS?
Ah Phoenix, what will the new Swissair/SWISS Version III look like that flies out from the ashes of the already moribund and corrupted Version II?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh what great piece of reasoning. Poor law observing, highly profitable and safe CRX was hijacked be some selfimoprtant, arrogant, extortionate and unsafe SR pilots who destroyed poor CRX and its Saint Moritz, who would otherwise have porspered with 82 (soon about than 200) regional aircraft operating out of small Switzerland with no longhaul network. Well, if you really believe this crap, then there's really no common ground for further discussion!
Fact is that the final decision whether SWISS is an organic expasion of CRX (from some 3'000 to above 10'000 employees within a few weeks) or a merger of CRX and part-SR will not be decided by a BSL-biased amateur court but a some foreign courts. And pilot seniority will surely play no role there...
Fact is that (not so) Saint Moritz has been demasked as a law bending, unscrupulous megalomaniac, who has perhaps killed SWISS before it started by ordering almost 200!!! aircraft and who is trying to save his skin now by delaying the CRX accident reports forever.
Fact is that CCP walked out of the GAV negotiations and didn't show up at managements union talks.
Fact is that the investors gave their money to keep a longhaul network out of Switzerland and not to save CRX.
Fact is that the famous low CRX cost structure never existed. The best payed regional pilots in Europe flying about 35 block hours a month tell a totally different story. With SR gone, CRX had to pay for the first time for its sales organisation and was left without the profitable wet lease contracts. In other words they had to pay for their overhaed for the first time. All this ended in a loss of 300 million SFr. in only 3 month!!! That's EBIT loss, meaning without paying for aircraft lease and before paying taxes.
Fact is that our competitors are flying A320's and B737's and our passengers (they pay our salaries, as RV said correctly) demand similar comfort on our aircraft. Neither our Antonovinos or Embrios nor the old MD80s and certainly not our Saab can mesure up here. Perhaps the new Embraer will be better, I don't know.
Fact is that the german maket - once one of the most profitable for SR - was totally destroyed by CRX in less than 2 years. Whether this has anything to do with your safe, law observing CRX producing 4 accidents - only in this market - in the same time, I leave up to you to decide...
If you really wan't to have your famous low cost structure, I'd suggest you look what the low cost carriers are doing. How do you like this: Ground duty or unpayed leave for unlimited time for first officers, without the company being obliged to give any reason or to observe seniority! What do you think what the average blockhours per month in OC1 would be in such a company? And how many CCP members would get nothing on their paychecks by the end of the month? That's what low cost structure looks like! Luckily CRX never had this and hopfully we all will never have to work for such a company...
Fact is that the final decision whether SWISS is an organic expasion of CRX (from some 3'000 to above 10'000 employees within a few weeks) or a merger of CRX and part-SR will not be decided by a BSL-biased amateur court but a some foreign courts. And pilot seniority will surely play no role there...
Fact is that (not so) Saint Moritz has been demasked as a law bending, unscrupulous megalomaniac, who has perhaps killed SWISS before it started by ordering almost 200!!! aircraft and who is trying to save his skin now by delaying the CRX accident reports forever.
Fact is that CCP walked out of the GAV negotiations and didn't show up at managements union talks.
Fact is that the investors gave their money to keep a longhaul network out of Switzerland and not to save CRX.
Fact is that the famous low CRX cost structure never existed. The best payed regional pilots in Europe flying about 35 block hours a month tell a totally different story. With SR gone, CRX had to pay for the first time for its sales organisation and was left without the profitable wet lease contracts. In other words they had to pay for their overhaed for the first time. All this ended in a loss of 300 million SFr. in only 3 month!!! That's EBIT loss, meaning without paying for aircraft lease and before paying taxes.
Fact is that our competitors are flying A320's and B737's and our passengers (they pay our salaries, as RV said correctly) demand similar comfort on our aircraft. Neither our Antonovinos or Embrios nor the old MD80s and certainly not our Saab can mesure up here. Perhaps the new Embraer will be better, I don't know.
Fact is that the german maket - once one of the most profitable for SR - was totally destroyed by CRX in less than 2 years. Whether this has anything to do with your safe, law observing CRX producing 4 accidents - only in this market - in the same time, I leave up to you to decide...
If you really wan't to have your famous low cost structure, I'd suggest you look what the low cost carriers are doing. How do you like this: Ground duty or unpayed leave for unlimited time for first officers, without the company being obliged to give any reason or to observe seniority! What do you think what the average blockhours per month in OC1 would be in such a company? And how many CCP members would get nothing on their paychecks by the end of the month? That's what low cost structure looks like! Luckily CRX never had this and hopfully we all will never have to work for such a company...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see, there is no chance for negociations anymore, we can't find an agreement, even here on the forum...
The only valid FACT without hidden number, seat load factor(what a joke) is that SWISS is CROSSAIR.
Crossair A.G became Swiss. So it looks like the CCP contract is still valid for all pilots enterning Crossair...
I still believe that the zipper will be the best option for everybody, nobody really loose, look at your collegue from Sabena, they didn't have the same chance as you!!! and DAT pilots are on top of the seniority today... This will happend at swiss when the court will decide so.
For info, we don't fly 35 hrs per month, this is a strategy from management, have a look at the master crew plan..
I gave you an example:
SB20
GVA - THF 1094
THF - GVA 1095
GVA - THF 1096
THF - GVA 1097
Duty time calculated 11h45
Block time 7.8
looks similar to a GVA - JFK....
The only valid FACT without hidden number, seat load factor(what a joke) is that SWISS is CROSSAIR.
Crossair A.G became Swiss. So it looks like the CCP contract is still valid for all pilots enterning Crossair...
I still believe that the zipper will be the best option for everybody, nobody really loose, look at your collegue from Sabena, they didn't have the same chance as you!!! and DAT pilots are on top of the seniority today... This will happend at swiss when the court will decide so.
For info, we don't fly 35 hrs per month, this is a strategy from management, have a look at the master crew plan..
I gave you an example:
SB20
GVA - THF 1094
THF - GVA 1095
GVA - THF 1096
THF - GVA 1097
Duty time calculated 11h45
Block time 7.8
looks similar to a GVA - JFK....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't wanna enter a pissing contest! You obviously have no idea of longhaul flights, jet lag and what a few sleepless nights in a cockpit do to you. But look at the MD80 rosters. And how many such days you have per month? Or calculate the number of pilots per aircraft in OC1 and compare it with the A320s... Still think you are so productive? No? I didn't say it was your fault. Management chooses to solve the problems it is able to - not many these days I fear.
The only thing I hear from you is court, court, court. One of the first things they tell you in lawscool is, that the law has nothing to do with right or wrong or common sense. Its just a set of rules and there are many ways to interprete them. If our dear amateur court publishes its decision we will see what happens. Last time everybody thought he was the winner. Nothing happened. This time we will see how many interpretations will be possible and how many ways to implement, or bypass, those rulings will be left open.
Your problem is that you still think in terms of winners and loosers (and of course you assume you deserve to be the winners), while there obviously are no winners in this ****ty game. Everybody has to give or there won't be a future for swiss aviation. There will be no further chance. Face it.
The only thing I hear from you is court, court, court. One of the first things they tell you in lawscool is, that the law has nothing to do with right or wrong or common sense. Its just a set of rules and there are many ways to interprete them. If our dear amateur court publishes its decision we will see what happens. Last time everybody thought he was the winner. Nothing happened. This time we will see how many interpretations will be possible and how many ways to implement, or bypass, those rulings will be left open.
Your problem is that you still think in terms of winners and loosers (and of course you assume you deserve to be the winners), while there obviously are no winners in this ****ty game. Everybody has to give or there won't be a future for swiss aviation. There will be no further chance. Face it.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Embedded in a pocket of resistance
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You obviously have no idea of longhaul flights, jet lag and what a few sleepless nights in a cockpit do to you.
One of the first things they tell you in lawschool is, that the law has nothing to do with right or wrong or common sense. Its just a set of rules and there are many ways to interprete them. If our dear amateur court publishes its decision we will see what happens.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: europe
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to disappoint you RV - I don't fly the MD11. I have flown my share of shorthaul in my career and still do. Does that make me an expert? I don't care as long as we have experts like Sepp Moser... But it certainly qualifies me for this board. My record planned blockhours was 115 in one month - all shorthaul. Although I had to opt out of this one as it was illegal, I guess I know what a tough shorthaul month means.
I don't have respect for my collegues? I don't know what makes you think that, but it was you who wrote about
It is your right to think I'm an asshole, but please be careful to extend that to all OC2 pilots...
No respect for the company? What makes our company? The people who try every day to give their best to serve our passengers? They sure have my respect. The management? Sorry, there I have a little problem, as a have been diappointed once to much from our dear managers. They still have to work a little to earn my respect.
The court? Has no clue about aviation. Rules against all economic logic and is obviously BSL-biased. Not much respect here from my side, you're right. I have learnd the hard way that, opposite to the constitution, the law in Switzerland is only valid as long as it serves the mighty and rich. Little man has no chance against a coalition of money and politics. And in the end our federal counsil can just rule that "the OR is not applicable in this case". Does that make Switzerland a Banana Republic? Maybe so. Judge yourself!
I don't have respect for my collegues? I don't know what makes you think that, but it was you who wrote about
the selfinflated ego of the average Swissair pilot.
No respect for the company? What makes our company? The people who try every day to give their best to serve our passengers? They sure have my respect. The management? Sorry, there I have a little problem, as a have been diappointed once to much from our dear managers. They still have to work a little to earn my respect.
The court? Has no clue about aviation. Rules against all economic logic and is obviously BSL-biased. Not much respect here from my side, you're right. I have learnd the hard way that, opposite to the constitution, the law in Switzerland is only valid as long as it serves the mighty and rich. Little man has no chance against a coalition of money and politics. And in the end our federal counsil can just rule that "the OR is not applicable in this case". Does that make Switzerland a Banana Republic? Maybe so. Judge yourself!
Last edited by skypointer; 7th Mar 2003 at 13:52.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa
Carefully following the situation from a distance, I cannot seem to shake the impression that people like Skypointer (I really do hope his attitude doesn't represent all OC2 pilots) don't realize their luck.
Whatever happened to the roughly 30% of the ex-Swissair pilots who were not invited back into the new Swiss? I bet many of them are reading Skypointers shamefully arrogant posts and think, Man, do you have any idea what a fool you are making of yourself? You should be glad to have a job at this miserable time in the aviation industry, earning a good wage, flying a nice aircraft.
In ANY seniority-based system, the ones at the bottom have to go, if there are job cuts. If BA, LH or KLM were to suddenly ground all 747s, would the reasonable thing be to fire all 747 pilots? Even though they're more senior than most? Of course not, that is completely ridiculous, in a seniority-based system. So even if regional planes are grounded, the company must make this decision considering type conversions for their pilots and the financial consequences. The last ones on the list should be the first ones to go.
If that means that the majority or even all of the pilots that are let go are from OC2, so be it. I don't wish a job cut even on my worst enemy, but this is how it works.
The whole situation has become a farce. Every job dispute in the rest of the world has people saying "Watch out, you don't want them to pull a Swissair on ya!" Skypointers argument that Crossair wouldn't last as a purely regional carrier is of course complete nonsense. I see the folks of our flag carrier marching into our office building the day after their bankruptcy, claiming that our leisure company wouldn't survive without them long haul aces. Whatever.
All the best to you all, I hope for a fair deal.
Whatever happened to the roughly 30% of the ex-Swissair pilots who were not invited back into the new Swiss? I bet many of them are reading Skypointers shamefully arrogant posts and think, Man, do you have any idea what a fool you are making of yourself? You should be glad to have a job at this miserable time in the aviation industry, earning a good wage, flying a nice aircraft.
In ANY seniority-based system, the ones at the bottom have to go, if there are job cuts. If BA, LH or KLM were to suddenly ground all 747s, would the reasonable thing be to fire all 747 pilots? Even though they're more senior than most? Of course not, that is completely ridiculous, in a seniority-based system. So even if regional planes are grounded, the company must make this decision considering type conversions for their pilots and the financial consequences. The last ones on the list should be the first ones to go.
If that means that the majority or even all of the pilots that are let go are from OC2, so be it. I don't wish a job cut even on my worst enemy, but this is how it works.
The whole situation has become a farce. Every job dispute in the rest of the world has people saying "Watch out, you don't want them to pull a Swissair on ya!" Skypointers argument that Crossair wouldn't last as a purely regional carrier is of course complete nonsense. I see the folks of our flag carrier marching into our office building the day after their bankruptcy, claiming that our leisure company wouldn't survive without them long haul aces. Whatever.
All the best to you all, I hope for a fair deal.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody has to give or there won't be a future for swiss aviation. There will be no further chance. Face it.
Surely not Salary, or a few. This magic 35% is Bull**** as you know, we have both salary list, before and after Swissair... How can you explain that some SR F/O even get an increase of salary ??
Vacations?? No, just the same as before
Aircraft type ??? Doesn't look liike it.
Seniority ?? Well for the time being you're alone in the BGAV
I'm happy to see that in this forum there is some people (aviation specialists) that know the goal and the meaning of a seniority system...
When a Crossair Captain with 15 years of experience on MD80 (old SR aircraft) wanted to join Swissair, guess what, he had to start as copilot on the A320 with the lowest seniority! Can you please explain me why SkyPointer. Do you think he is less safe than a 4 years Swissair F/O ?????
Why don't you just drop your seniority number if it has no importance for you??
I still believe that the Zipper would solve the problem if aeropers is willing to approve it... And by the way, Swiss has to comply with the court verdict... They already gave us the same vacations as SR retroactive to April 1st 2002, Bonus , same salary as MD11 for MD80 pilots and now they request per mail everyday our union to withdrawn the complaint about Seniority!!! Because they know they will have to comply like for the other topics.
I don't see politics telling us that we have to forget about the law, it's not that easy, otherwise why should I pay my tax??
I have nothing against SR pilots, I'm sure there is plenty of you that are willing to solve the problem without any court rulling!
We're ready to give you half of OUR seniority by accepting a zipper, why don't you take the chance??
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IZ,
You mention the 30% now unemployed pilots in your posting. Are you sure all of these came from the bottom of the Swissair seniority list i.e. - the last in, first out principle? Well, they did not! Half of them were amongst the most senior captains in Swissair. This was wanted by management and agreed to by Aeropers because it would save a lot of money by reducing the amount of training required. I think a similar mindset is likely regarding this latest downsizing at SWISS. The Regional aircraft are the ones being downsized, but if you get your way regarding seniority, then only ex- Swissair pilots will be cut, meaning a lot of expensive training to take place. You are placing all your hopes on the Courts deciding in your favour, but I think it will all come to nothing if the politicians and financial institutions decide otherwise. At the end of the day money will be the only consideration and as it looks now, you had better start preparing for bad news if you are a low seniority Regional pilot in SWISS.
You mention the 30% now unemployed pilots in your posting. Are you sure all of these came from the bottom of the Swissair seniority list i.e. - the last in, first out principle? Well, they did not! Half of them were amongst the most senior captains in Swissair. This was wanted by management and agreed to by Aeropers because it would save a lot of money by reducing the amount of training required. I think a similar mindset is likely regarding this latest downsizing at SWISS. The Regional aircraft are the ones being downsized, but if you get your way regarding seniority, then only ex- Swissair pilots will be cut, meaning a lot of expensive training to take place. You are placing all your hopes on the Courts deciding in your favour, but I think it will all come to nothing if the politicians and financial institutions decide otherwise. At the end of the day money will be the only consideration and as it looks now, you had better start preparing for bad news if you are a low seniority Regional pilot in SWISS.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP
You suggest that LX can run to the end of the year - September is probably as far as they will get.
I caught sight of a comment paper discussing why Dose is a "HERO" and that the staff who survive will be also.
Its the PAX (SLF or whatever you want to call them) who are the HERO's, and unfortunately for Andre, I'm only amongst them when I can't avoid it... The food and service was going to get better - but the buns on EAP-LHR are now 1 per pax not 2 or 3 and forget the salmon, and the other day the brie tasted French not Swiss.....
No Andre, running the airline like you do I'll only fly LX when forced to (like the lowest dumping prices on D class HKG-ZRH return, but AF & LH will match whatever offer you make and even BA is getting close (and they have beds not flying deck-chairs).
The Eurocross idea in BSL brought over 15% more trade and you cancel the flights instead of encouraging the pax to come back - and flying empty A320's costs more than 1/2 full S2000's that are already breaking even at that kind of load... Don't understand the economics of the management who seem, more than ever determined to screw the Swiss Tax Payer. Remember please that there is something called a Directors personal liability in cases of crass incompetence.... (and that looks more than a given from this bystanders view).
Sorry guys, but you need to start bailing out - if you have a job to go to, take it... the end is near, and with the current madness, probably not near enough for the tax payers. Would have loved to help you, but this time management has gone way too far and my miles (between 300 & 500K of them per year and most in Business - which does pay...) are for the most going to the competition, and yes I'm burning my QG miles every chance I get, because I don't want to lose them all.
I caught sight of a comment paper discussing why Dose is a "HERO" and that the staff who survive will be also.
Its the PAX (SLF or whatever you want to call them) who are the HERO's, and unfortunately for Andre, I'm only amongst them when I can't avoid it... The food and service was going to get better - but the buns on EAP-LHR are now 1 per pax not 2 or 3 and forget the salmon, and the other day the brie tasted French not Swiss.....
No Andre, running the airline like you do I'll only fly LX when forced to (like the lowest dumping prices on D class HKG-ZRH return, but AF & LH will match whatever offer you make and even BA is getting close (and they have beds not flying deck-chairs).
The Eurocross idea in BSL brought over 15% more trade and you cancel the flights instead of encouraging the pax to come back - and flying empty A320's costs more than 1/2 full S2000's that are already breaking even at that kind of load... Don't understand the economics of the management who seem, more than ever determined to screw the Swiss Tax Payer. Remember please that there is something called a Directors personal liability in cases of crass incompetence.... (and that looks more than a given from this bystanders view).
Sorry guys, but you need to start bailing out - if you have a job to go to, take it... the end is near, and with the current madness, probably not near enough for the tax payers. Would have loved to help you, but this time management has gone way too far and my miles (between 300 & 500K of them per year and most in Business - which does pay...) are for the most going to the competition, and yes I'm burning my QG miles every chance I get, because I don't want to lose them all.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: europe
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gofer and other colleagues
I am out of there and have safe job but still keeping interest in this forum since been there and have colleagues there. ex-lx pilots ! have a thought will you accept the terms if you were in their (ex-sr)position and similarly wouldnt ex-sr pilot put the same argument if they were in position of ex-lx pilots. pilots job is to fly and managers are to manage not other ways around. CEO of the company is pilot in command of the company and he is responsible for evrything and every one in the company. My quetion is what is the background of the ceo? has he got, MBA in airline business, good accounting knowledge,previous reputation of runing a major airline big as Swiss or is he just a Saab 2000 pilot(smooth talker). What is important is result, and only the end result counts rest are immeterial. The board can always find most qualified for the job in free market before the share holders take matters in their own hand. I am just a aeroplane driver but ceo must know more than me.
I am out of there and have safe job but still keeping interest in this forum since been there and have colleagues there. ex-lx pilots ! have a thought will you accept the terms if you were in their (ex-sr)position and similarly wouldnt ex-sr pilot put the same argument if they were in position of ex-lx pilots. pilots job is to fly and managers are to manage not other ways around. CEO of the company is pilot in command of the company and he is responsible for evrything and every one in the company. My quetion is what is the background of the ceo? has he got, MBA in airline business, good accounting knowledge,previous reputation of runing a major airline big as Swiss or is he just a Saab 2000 pilot(smooth talker). What is important is result, and only the end result counts rest are immeterial. The board can always find most qualified for the job in free market before the share holders take matters in their own hand. I am just a aeroplane driver but ceo must know more than me.
Guest
Posts: n/a
SAFETY – WHOOP WHOOP PULL UP
Congratulations Skypointer, you just had to mention Safety.
Hull losses/Significant Accidents:
SWISS: 2002 – Saab 2000
Crossair: 2000 – Saab340, 2001- AvroRJ100,
Swissair: 1998 – MD11, 1979 – DC8, 1970 – Convair, 1967 – Convair, 1963 - Caraville
I won’t bother going into the detail of the relative pax and crew body count.
Please try not to paint the Swissair experience as somehow perfect. Certainly no “professional” airline pilot I have met at Crossair/SWISS has denied that Crossair had problems. Has SWISS learnt anything from this period? Should the current SWISS CEO and EVP Flight Ops as well as other management promoted within SWISS from the former Crossair, have survived this long given their management and oversight of recruiting, selection, training, recurrent training, safety management etc. over this extremely sad period of Swiss and European Aviation History? Just what was the Swiss aviation regulator FOCA/BAZL doing during this time of rapid expansion? Please also remember that it was this same management that allowed over 850 pilots to enter Crossair 31 March 2002 without any selection or screening whatsoever. Oh, it just happens to be same management which gave you seniority and discriminated against its own ex-Crossair drivers. Methinks there might just be the whiff of hypocrisy and double standards at play.
Even post November 2001, safety management at SWISS, even with oversight from ex-Swissair colleagues in Flight Ops and Flight Safety, allowed a totally discredited, illegal and unsafe Screening Version I to develop which greatly set back a necessary Safety Culture within SWISS. This initial Screening process was so unprofessional, biased, ridden with conflict of interest, was against SWISS’s own stated Safety Management System, secretive, and illegal due to abuses of private confidentiality and information disclosure, that it had to be dropped for fear of criminal and legal action, let alone actually reducing safety.
Screening Version II started late 2002 is off to a better start with an openness, transparency, and pilot association input, however suffers again the accusation of a real conflict of interest. Management had the chance to install independent and neutral program leaders but did not do so. So yes, you are right there were and are problems and some of them still remain. Because you simply get the seniority and job security you want, is no justification to provide succour and support for a regime whose safety management record continues to have more than just growing pains or teething problems. But then, as we have established firmly on this topic, self-interest and self- preservation are prime motivational factors of which ex-Swissair drivers do not totally monopolise.
Thanks to Skypointer with some help from Stumpie we at least have your reasons for the current disputed seniority system that is not based on start date within Crossair (now called SWISS):
1. Safety – So its now confirmed and obviously self-apprarent that an Airbus and MD 11 driver is by definition safer than a Saab 2000 or an Avro RJ pilot.
2. One-sided and deserted negotiations – Complete with a management Diktat, my dear fellow, a party cannot negotiate if nothing is offered to negotiate upon. Maybe it might be useful if you re-did your Matura or went through your SLS notes. If you keep repeating the old canard so many times, you obviously think that people might start to believe your fabrication.
3. Investor requirement – try to find where it was written in the Business Plan and this demand has to date never been publicly stated by any government politician or business investor. But give it time, it will.
4. “Its no solution” – Congratulations on the excellent, thorough and detailed analysis and argument having considered all available models and options.
5. Cockpit Gradient Concerns – You have created a very interesting, new and unique world standard. The commander at SWISS shall always be older, wiser, have greater total time and on larger types, than the First Officer. Pity those other International Carriers flying in our same airspace with such dangerous non- conforming cockpits. The commander of an Airbus must be a graduate of the SLS, must be Swiss (minimum C Permit might be considered) and of course has the freedom of association to join only Aeropers.
In the face of such Swissair inspired superior logic, wisdom and argument the ex-Crossair pilots should bow down before you, seek your grace and forgiveness, and offer themselves first for Reduction/Layoffs/Sackings.
Skypointer and Stumpie have pointed out the influence of politics and money. Yes, it is simply a power game, with a fair amount of public emotion, which bears no reflection to running a safe, financially successful and law abiding international airline. Certainly don’t confuse politics and money, with economy or financial competence. By all means keep playing the blame game, and claiming victim status from the Swissair collapse. Yes we are all genuinely sorry for you and especially for your other colleagues early retired at the top and the juniors chopped at the bottom of the SENIORITY LIST. It is perfectly understandable, but never excusable, that you don’t wish to live and die again by the same SENIORITY system, but at least spare us from the sheer cant and hypocrisy.
Congratulations Skypointer, you just had to mention Safety.
Hull losses/Significant Accidents:
SWISS: 2002 – Saab 2000
Crossair: 2000 – Saab340, 2001- AvroRJ100,
Swissair: 1998 – MD11, 1979 – DC8, 1970 – Convair, 1967 – Convair, 1963 - Caraville
I won’t bother going into the detail of the relative pax and crew body count.
Please try not to paint the Swissair experience as somehow perfect. Certainly no “professional” airline pilot I have met at Crossair/SWISS has denied that Crossair had problems. Has SWISS learnt anything from this period? Should the current SWISS CEO and EVP Flight Ops as well as other management promoted within SWISS from the former Crossair, have survived this long given their management and oversight of recruiting, selection, training, recurrent training, safety management etc. over this extremely sad period of Swiss and European Aviation History? Just what was the Swiss aviation regulator FOCA/BAZL doing during this time of rapid expansion? Please also remember that it was this same management that allowed over 850 pilots to enter Crossair 31 March 2002 without any selection or screening whatsoever. Oh, it just happens to be same management which gave you seniority and discriminated against its own ex-Crossair drivers. Methinks there might just be the whiff of hypocrisy and double standards at play.
Even post November 2001, safety management at SWISS, even with oversight from ex-Swissair colleagues in Flight Ops and Flight Safety, allowed a totally discredited, illegal and unsafe Screening Version I to develop which greatly set back a necessary Safety Culture within SWISS. This initial Screening process was so unprofessional, biased, ridden with conflict of interest, was against SWISS’s own stated Safety Management System, secretive, and illegal due to abuses of private confidentiality and information disclosure, that it had to be dropped for fear of criminal and legal action, let alone actually reducing safety.
Screening Version II started late 2002 is off to a better start with an openness, transparency, and pilot association input, however suffers again the accusation of a real conflict of interest. Management had the chance to install independent and neutral program leaders but did not do so. So yes, you are right there were and are problems and some of them still remain. Because you simply get the seniority and job security you want, is no justification to provide succour and support for a regime whose safety management record continues to have more than just growing pains or teething problems. But then, as we have established firmly on this topic, self-interest and self- preservation are prime motivational factors of which ex-Swissair drivers do not totally monopolise.
Thanks to Skypointer with some help from Stumpie we at least have your reasons for the current disputed seniority system that is not based on start date within Crossair (now called SWISS):
1. Safety – So its now confirmed and obviously self-apprarent that an Airbus and MD 11 driver is by definition safer than a Saab 2000 or an Avro RJ pilot.
2. One-sided and deserted negotiations – Complete with a management Diktat, my dear fellow, a party cannot negotiate if nothing is offered to negotiate upon. Maybe it might be useful if you re-did your Matura or went through your SLS notes. If you keep repeating the old canard so many times, you obviously think that people might start to believe your fabrication.
3. Investor requirement – try to find where it was written in the Business Plan and this demand has to date never been publicly stated by any government politician or business investor. But give it time, it will.
4. “Its no solution” – Congratulations on the excellent, thorough and detailed analysis and argument having considered all available models and options.
5. Cockpit Gradient Concerns – You have created a very interesting, new and unique world standard. The commander at SWISS shall always be older, wiser, have greater total time and on larger types, than the First Officer. Pity those other International Carriers flying in our same airspace with such dangerous non- conforming cockpits. The commander of an Airbus must be a graduate of the SLS, must be Swiss (minimum C Permit might be considered) and of course has the freedom of association to join only Aeropers.
In the face of such Swissair inspired superior logic, wisdom and argument the ex-Crossair pilots should bow down before you, seek your grace and forgiveness, and offer themselves first for Reduction/Layoffs/Sackings.
Skypointer and Stumpie have pointed out the influence of politics and money. Yes, it is simply a power game, with a fair amount of public emotion, which bears no reflection to running a safe, financially successful and law abiding international airline. Certainly don’t confuse politics and money, with economy or financial competence. By all means keep playing the blame game, and claiming victim status from the Swissair collapse. Yes we are all genuinely sorry for you and especially for your other colleagues early retired at the top and the juniors chopped at the bottom of the SENIORITY LIST. It is perfectly understandable, but never excusable, that you don’t wish to live and die again by the same SENIORITY system, but at least spare us from the sheer cant and hypocrisy.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pecs,
I am not a pilot with SWISS so have no fear of losing my job. Skypointers tasteless harping on the poor safety record of Crossair is outdone only by your pathetic tit for tat answer comparing Swissair safety over a period of 40 years, with the last 2 of Crossair. If you consider terrorist bombings and uncontrolled fires in flight to equate to controlled flight into gound as one and the same thing, you are showing even less taste than Skypointer. When it comes to "sheer cant and hypocrisy" you certainly take the cake!
I am not a pilot with SWISS so have no fear of losing my job. Skypointers tasteless harping on the poor safety record of Crossair is outdone only by your pathetic tit for tat answer comparing Swissair safety over a period of 40 years, with the last 2 of Crossair. If you consider terrorist bombings and uncontrolled fires in flight to equate to controlled flight into gound as one and the same thing, you are showing even less taste than Skypointer. When it comes to "sheer cant and hypocrisy" you certainly take the cake!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Embedded in a pocket of resistance
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stumpie
You have to be fair and admit that he was talking about the Crossair safety record of the last 25 years. Nevertheless you are right, every crash is one crash too many. 
For as far as safety and mistakes are concerned within both OC 1 (ex-Crossair) and OC2 (ex-Swissair), we only have to read the SWISS Montly Safety Update that is delived to our mailbox to know that NOBODY is perfect.
As I´ve said before, the effects of the additional Swissair ´knowhow´brought into Crossair after 31-03-2002 are minimal. Little to nothing has changed.
Skypointers tasteless harping on the poor safety record of Crossair is outdone only by your pathetic tit for tat answer comparing Swissair safety over a period of 40 years, with the last 2 of Crossair.
For as far as safety and mistakes are concerned within both OC 1 (ex-Crossair) and OC2 (ex-Swissair), we only have to read the SWISS Montly Safety Update that is delived to our mailbox to know that NOBODY is perfect.
As I´ve said before, the effects of the additional Swissair ´knowhow´brought into Crossair after 31-03-2002 are minimal. Little to nothing has changed.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stumpie,
I did not mention, nor did I know that the 30% ex-Swissair pilots who weren't re-hired by Swiss, were not 'selected' regarding seniority. It amazes me that they were not. If they fired the guys with the biggest salaries to save money, why did they not simply apply the Crossair salary principles to the newly hired ex-Swissair pilots? This whole story just baffles me.
I don't see the point that some ex-Swissair people want to make, justifying their high salaries and benefits and seniority demands upon the fact that they fly the old (big) Swissair planes.
If our 737-charter company had bought a bunch of ex-Sabena A330's and hired a bunch of ex-Sabena A330 pilots, they'd go right to the bottom of the seniority list. Even if we'd fly them out of Brussels on ex-SN routes.
It's like getting thrown out of your house because you stock plan went bust, a neighbor taking you into his own house and then complaining that your guest bed doesn't have a massage setting and there's no jacuzzi.
Can somebody explain to me the justification of this behavior?
I did not mention, nor did I know that the 30% ex-Swissair pilots who weren't re-hired by Swiss, were not 'selected' regarding seniority. It amazes me that they were not. If they fired the guys with the biggest salaries to save money, why did they not simply apply the Crossair salary principles to the newly hired ex-Swissair pilots? This whole story just baffles me.
I don't see the point that some ex-Swissair people want to make, justifying their high salaries and benefits and seniority demands upon the fact that they fly the old (big) Swissair planes.
If our 737-charter company had bought a bunch of ex-Sabena A330's and hired a bunch of ex-Sabena A330 pilots, they'd go right to the bottom of the seniority list. Even if we'd fly them out of Brussels on ex-SN routes.
It's like getting thrown out of your house because you stock plan went bust, a neighbor taking you into his own house and then complaining that your guest bed doesn't have a massage setting and there's no jacuzzi.
Can somebody explain to me the justification of this behavior?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iz,
You say "...if my company had bought a A330.." Herein lies the problem I think. The ex-Swissair guys refuse to accept that Crossair have taken them over because Crossair did not pay a brass bean for the Swissair equipment. It was given to them. They look upon the whole SWISS exercise as a merging of Swissair and Crossair and hence their contention that seniority should be based on entry date into either Crossair or Swissair. Nothing like a merger/takeover or whatever to muddy the seniority issue as I am sure we have all seen in the past elsewhere. Regarding the disparity in salaries - I have no idea. Perhaps a moderate contributor like Rob. V. can answer that one. Both unions are fighting hard for their members - some might say TOO hard. It is a great pity the 2 sides cannot come together, but reading the comments posted here that would be wishful thinking.
You say "...if my company had bought a A330.." Herein lies the problem I think. The ex-Swissair guys refuse to accept that Crossair have taken them over because Crossair did not pay a brass bean for the Swissair equipment. It was given to them. They look upon the whole SWISS exercise as a merging of Swissair and Crossair and hence their contention that seniority should be based on entry date into either Crossair or Swissair. Nothing like a merger/takeover or whatever to muddy the seniority issue as I am sure we have all seen in the past elsewhere. Regarding the disparity in salaries - I have no idea. Perhaps a moderate contributor like Rob. V. can answer that one. Both unions are fighting hard for their members - some might say TOO hard. It is a great pity the 2 sides cannot come together, but reading the comments posted here that would be wishful thinking.