Airbuzzer dont think so, if its not broke dont fix it? It is SAIL and the wet leased aircraft that have kept part of SAS operative well 30%. to the contrary it has probably shown SAS Management what parts are working. Also a little unfair of you to post that there are some decent guys out there with SAIL.

Nepotism or not, I don't know... can't comment.

They claim SAIL has a fixed route network and 5/4 suits that, SAS is more variable and they need flexible pilots. What SAS calls flexibility, the pilots call intervention in personal life.

I understand that, hence I added they're contractually obliged to keep working. It's mildly offensive however when ZAV seem to think SAIL is the saviour that keeps this airline in business.

Simply to crew all the flights having crew on fixed roster you need to increase crew headcount.

I was reading from the agreement, that regarding the roster, now it will change from 40% to 60% that will get roster stability.

How is it determined who are those 40% and in the future the additional 20%?
Unless it's based on seniority, what would the criteria be?

By seniority.

Ah that part, yes... it's seniority based.

So until now 40 % of the crew have had a "fixed" roster pattern?
Based on being the company for X amount of years?

And how many years will it take to get a fixed pattern, to become one of those 40 - 60 %.

Also is it based on the seniority in the base or seniority in the company?

3 years


Base seniority

If you're not based where there are vacancies for a fixed pattern you are not getting it.

From what I understand last CLA was agreed that SAS can put 9 ac to SAIL.

Anybody has any idea what the new CLA says about that topic?

No guarantees at all.

Each base has a certain number of vacancies for each seat (due to increase now). You bid for it. If you've got seniority above the others applying then you'll get it. Otherwise you're stuck. And could be for a long time.

It all depends on how exactly the flexi roster in SAS looks like and also the part time options...

I don't think it sounds very attractive.
Are people in SAS happy with the deal, from what I understand they got 3.5% pay increase compared to their requested 13.5%, and increase from 40 - 60 % for fixed roster.
It's simple, everyone should have the chance to get fixed roster within a period of 3 - 4 years, if you need more crew to make this happen, then that's what has to happen. This should have been part of the negotiations too, a long term strategy to implement a fixed roster pattern available for all.
Many ways this can be solved, more crews, more people allowed part time, but it requires active effort by the company.

I find it strange that other bigger companies then SAS, can offer their crews fixed roster pattern, at least in all their big bases, but SAS can't do it.

So did they put a final nail in the coffin of SAIL or not? If they did then the strike was worth every minute. If they didn't they will have to fight SAIL again in the next contract and it will be much harder...It's easier to get rid of cancer if you catch it early..

The irony in the hatred of SAIL by some, which is understandable to a certain degree, that SAIL's operations probably gives the flexibility so they can increase the fixed roster pattern from 40 to 60% in SAS mainland, as the operations are intertwined.

However of course the solution should have been pushing for more people being employed by SAS mainland, guaranteeing more people a fixed roster pattern, but the way it is stuck now it's impossible, as nobody in their right mind with experience would apply to SAS with their current seniority system.

So by protecting the few, before 40%, now increased to 60%, it does in my opinion not solve SAS issues long term. As explained unless before you may risk being on Flexible roster for many years to come, and that in my opinion is unsustainable for lifestyle.

SAIL covers a market/network that SAS would have been operating on anyway, it means they needed to recruit many more crews, why did SAS decide it was not operational feasible to do this trough SAS main company?
You can't expand your route network by only recruiting First Officers that are friends or family of current SAS Captains, and who are willing to accept low start pay, flexible work pattern which may or may not change in 3 - 4 or more year, depending on how many people in base will be moving on.

So all in all SAS are their own enemy in this, truth is that from what I understand lots of SAIL crew have been getting improved conditions and perks since they originally started SAIL.
Questions should be asked when it works with SAIL but not with SAS. It works with Ryanair and easyJet the same, all have larger fleets then SAS. And from what I understand also offering better TC's then SAS, that's what surprised me the most.

What do you mean it works in Ryanair and easyJet? They're operating completely different business models primarily characterised by rapid growth. SAS, like all other eu legacy carriers are seniority based as they have been around for ever and don't expand like crazy. Once the market is saturated (so like, yesterday) ryr and ezy will stop their explosive expansion which will lead to no more DEC. Furthermore, seniority systems will be demanded by the pilots in order to protect their careers.

So why did SAS create SAIL?

SAS as a legacy career have worse conditions then LCC. When I heard only 40% had fixed roster pattern I was very surprised. Also regarding pay if the figures I have read SAS have fallen way behind, so the fact they are hiding behind calling themselves a legacy career, means very little if your TC's are worse then companies like EJ / RYR.

SAIL must be seen as an expansion of SAS. SAIL avoided any issues and discussions of changing the structure within SAS.
Seniority based aspects can act as an hindrance in this case. The attrition rate at SAS has at times been extremely low, so you end up with a situation where people get stuck at wrong end for a very long time.

In what way does seniority make your job safer?

"why did SAS create SAIL?"

Why would a holding company competing in the single market, with its core business in countries with some of the most rigid workers' protection laws in the world, want to open a subsidiary in a country with some of the most relaxed dito?

It for sure wasn't to increaee their labour costs

I listened to the press conference with the SAS CEO speaking after they had reached a settlement. Amongst a lot of things he said that without SAIL, SAS would no longer be able to serve London. What? Granted, I am but a humble bus driver and the intricacies of European airline economics is certainly no expertise of mine, but ALL major European carriers serve LHR. BA flies LHR to ARN as does Finnair with their own crews. Presumably also to Oslo and CPH. Norwegian only serves Gatwick. Am I really supposed to believe that SAS cannot do so using their own people? Is the SAS cost structure so fantastically bloated? Or is it merely and old and tried trick to weaken established unions?

I have flown on SAS. They are quite frankly a pretty horrible airline. And thats coming from a guy that flies for AA!! Not exactly a beacon of airline excellence! No disrespect to any SAS employee on the forum but if SAS wants to compete long term they really need to focus on their inflight product, not establishing secondary subsidiaries using flags of convenience.

Is no longer insinuations, when it's based on factual information and proof that I obtained several years ago. But never mind, who cares.

SAS starting SAIL for me seems to indicate some sort of expansion. And beware if NAS fails, which it most likely will do in the near future, with all their debts, SAILS position might become stronger.

I would have rather wanted to see SAIL never happen, and rather SAS would have made this expansion within SAS.

As for getting better TC's with regards to roster stability, if it's needed more crew to be able to provide this, then that would mean more recruitment, not necessary with further expansion.

Don't worry, I am not interested in moving back to Scandinavia myself, but SAS shafted many guys few years ago during training, which maybe would have liked to return, but because of the way employment is dictated from the top and down, they are locked out of SAS, as only a fool will go from + 130.000 Euros + Bonuses + fixed roster to starting as FO with SAS, just be back home in Scandi land.

It's not just about DECs, its also about FO's getting credit for their experience if they join.

I dont't really get it. Can we expect expansion of Sail after the new agreement? Is there any recruitment for the summer?

No. SAS can't increase wet-lease more with the "new" agreement. The quotas are already full with the 9 aircraft in SAIL and the ~25 CRJs that are wet leased.

What could be done in accordance with the agreement is to launch SAIL as an own brand, selling their own tickets, having their own marketing etc. but be restricted to only operate routes that are not profitable. That's how the agreements between the unions and SAS look like and has looked like for many years. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

Today the "second-in-command" in SAS, and most likely the main architect behind SAIL, Lars Sandahl Sorensen, left the company. One can always speculate if that was a volunteer exit or not. The latter pilot strike, and LSSs failure to achieve a successful SAIL, suggests that he was sacked.

So will this be the "start of the end" of SAIL? CAE/Parc is by the way not advertising positions at SAIL anymore. I foresee the closure of the MLG base, as a first possible step.

Apparently SAIL has sufficient crew numbers for the summer, that is the reason why cae is not recruiting at the moment...

Lets see what future brings, but my personal prediction is that SAIL is not going to disappear so fast like snowflake...

So far this summer season no cancellations in SAIL. Maybe the crewing levels are better than last year?

For me looks like all those hypothesis about closing SAIL after the mainland strike were unreal...