700 jobs threatened at Brussels Airlines?

[sn26567]

Brussels Airlines: no layoffs, but part-time work

The management of Brussels Airlines presented on Monday during a staff council meeting its "strategic plan" focusing particularly on "long-haul" flights. Management did not announce layoffs but proposed part-time work for pilots, according to union sources.

In addition, additional flexibility is requested for other categories of staff, said the joint trade union front in a statement.

"The proposal put on the table by management goes towards maintaining maximum employment" still indicate the unions. While acknowledging that the situation is difficult, the common front announces that it will work "constructively to a solution for the airline."

After Trends

[papysn]

Hi,

The board is present since the start of the cy (led by mr Davignon),they decided the fusion with VEX,the new CEO and the developpements of the cy...
They're responsible for this "no future" for brussels airlines...
Now their only goal is to sell Bru air asap...before it crashes...
tik;tok;tik;tok.......Booommmm.

Regards.
K.

[cnc]

no layoffs? tell that to the people who had fixed contracts

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

News from de VRT :

LH wants to invest 100 million and a go for two new planes long-haul,..
that means more AFI and USA ..
A 'small' light in the dark ? A candlelight for the dark night ..

CX-B

[RoMax]

no layoffs? tell that to the people who had fixed contracts

Those people with fixed contracts knew their contract would end at the end of the summer. They knew they had to leave because of the smaller network in the winter. All the things the media made a big fuss about the latest weeks were known for them for months...
The media (fed by rumours) seems to re-invent the same news every few months. Not so much changed since a few months ago, except for a more aggressive plan which needs even more flexibility from the personnel, no new lay-offs at all.

LH wants to invest 100 million and a go for two new planes long-haul,..
that means more AFI and USA ..
A 'small' light in the dark ? A candlelight for the dark night ..

Indeed, as I said in one of my posts in another topic. LH confirmed they are willing to invest in SN to secure their future, but only if SN can show them a workable and efficient plan to save money.

[sn26567]

LH wants to invest 100 million and a go for two new planes long-haul,..
that means more AFI and USA

Two new long-haul planes, that is one in 2013 and one in 2014. Not a very fast rate, if you ask me. More USA in 2013 and more AFI in 2014?

[RoMax]

The board is present since the start of the cy (led by mr Davignon),they decided the fusion with VEX,the new CEO and the developpements of the cy...
They're responsible for this "no future" for brussels airlines...
Now their only goal is to sell Bru air asap...before it crashes...
tik;tok;tik;tok.......Booommmm.

Ok that's partly true. Tough several board members were replaced since LH entered as largest stakeholder and a part of the management changed. Bernard Gustin is not a bad CEO, he made some bad decisions, but it was mainly his co-CEO that made HUGE mistakes (Gustin wanted to invest in long haul, while his co-CEO didn't and focused on prestige projects like AirDC). LH placed one "of their men" in SN's executive management together with some shifts.
Btw, I didn't say a thing about the board, I only said something about the management, but OK, that was maybe not the best thing to say either. But for sure, the current problems are not the fault of the current strategy worked out by the current management, the biggest faults have been made in the past (even before 2007).

[airazurxtror]

http://www.lesoir.be/95525/article/econ ... ns-d-euros

Management did not announce layoffs but proposed systems of part-time work for pilots, it was learned from union sources.

Socially, the greatest effort is required from pilots.
The "58 + years" are encouraged to reduce their working time. They would not work more than 40% of the time in winter and 85% in summer.
A similar request was made to the the "55-58 years", who are invited to work at 85% of their present working time. They can also take their pension under the old system.

[RoMax]

Two new long-haul planes, that is one in 2013 and one in 2014. Not a very fast rate, if you ask me. More USA in 2013 and more AFI in 2014?

I agree, tough I believe SN is not in a financial position to add two A330's in 2013... For a company like SN it's still a huge investment, especially when you are in such a difficult financial situation.

And also note the extra A330 and the investement of LH will only come if SN can achieve an agreement with the unions.

[Bralo20]

LH wants to invest 100 million and a go for two new planes long-haul,..
that means more AFI and USA

Two new long-haul planes, that is one in 2013 and one in 2014. Not a very fast rate, if you ask me. More USA in 2013 and more AFI in 2014?

Aren't the 2 extra long haul planes both for 2013? AFAIK this used to be the plan... (1 in 2012: (the second) A332 from LX, 2 in 2013 and 2 in 2014).

Oh well, we'll see what the future brings


Edit: De Tijd states indeed one A330 in 2013 and one in 2014. Mea Culpa!

[RoMax]

[

Aren't the 2 extra long haul planes both for 2013? AFAIK this used to be the plan... (1 in 2012: (the second) A332 from LX, 2 in 2013 and 2 in 2014).

I believe that WAS the plan indeed, until SN's financials got even more in problems. SN (and LH) knows they have to invest in long haul to secure the future. But due to the lack of support from the shareholders (except LH) they don't have a lot of financial room anymore to invest.

I believe 2013 will bring us Boston, but nothing else... (maybe some shifts in the African network, to optimise the capacity, but that's about it).

I would really want to see two extra A330's in 2013, but that's not feasible anymore it seems...

[Flanker]

Well so LH want to inject 100 mill.
Not bad at all. That should give them an extra year indeed.

The savings plan is not bad at all for the staff, some pilots will have to readjust their budgets but it's not that bad.
I have to underline that the plan is not bad at all for the staff ... but I don't see what it achieves for the company.
More productivity is a great initiative, but I don't think that the staff are the problem, they tend to be quite productive. To ask more from the staff is fine, but you have to give them the means to do more.
I think that the processes are outdated and that the people who are supposed to update those processes to achieve the best productivity aren''t doing their job or aren't capable enough.
To increase productivity, processes are one thing, but you also need the tools and materials.

They like to hire external consultants who bring no results whatsoever, they give them the money that could have better been invested in installing faster computers or even better, to hire a student to compensate for shortcoming in processes and computers.

If you have a factory of 100 workers operating 5 machines to produce 5.000 buckets per day at full capacity with 1000kg of raw materials, is it viable for them to start producing 10.000 buckets per day with the same quantity of raw materials, the same machines and the same amount of people?

So if you want to increase productivity per staff,
A. You need to give them better machines (better processes and tools)
B. You have to buy more raw materials.

One last thing: if you need that increased productivity to result in additional profit, you need to sell the extra 5000 buckets/day.
SN definitely needs to improve their commercial side, because right now, their running an entire European network at full power to carry around an empty seat every 2 seats...

When business gets big, sometimes it's better to have people replace computers or automated processes, especially in the sales and price management area's.
If you look at the yield management for instance in airlines, it's totally absurd but not rare to have 1 person who costs 40.000 euro's to the employer, manage 50 million euro's worth of revenue. To manage that kind of portfolio, it's more justified to hire 50 people and spend 2 million euro's more, to increase the revenue by 5 million euro's to 55 millions, as more people can better fine-tune the yields and also better match price to demand and competition, to achieve extra sales. If 1 person has to do all that, there is no way to fine-tune, you just preset in the computer using statistical data and hope that the people bite.
No time to compare to the competitors, etc...
The best yield management saying is : 1 yield manager = 1 flight

Such examples also apply in other area's such as logistics.

[Inquirer]

Well, 100M most certainly is an important commitment from Lufthansa, especially because other shareholders aren't going to move it seems: it comes down to a conditional but factual take over IMHO.
So much for the tens of pages of balance sheet analysis to calculate the exact moment of bankruptcy of Brussels to the day almost, posted for the past year.

On the website of the VRT they say this years loss will be 'just' 50M, btw???
If confirmed, that seems to be a significant improvement and it might explain further why there is this conditional but very significant commitment from Lufthansa.

As to the above comparison with plants, machinery and tools: we don't know what's in the plan, other than what's published in the press and they obviously tend to focus on the social aspects alone.
It's a bit naive to think the Germans are going to simply waste 100M if the only idea is to have staff increase productivity somewhat: lufthansa aren't completely stupid either, so there's likely more flesh to the bone than just the skin the press has been reporting on so far, I should guess?

[Air Key West]

I believe 2013 will bring us Boston, but nothing else...

I often agree with what you write, but I hope you're wrong that you believe 2013 will bring us Boston.
I'm personally convinced that the only priority now is an evening flight to NYC because :
- business travelers are asking for it ;
- the return flight would offer shorter connections to the flights leaving for Africa in the afternoon (you cannot be competitive with inter alia AF, if you force your pax wait about eight hours between the arrival in BRU of the JFK flight and the departure times of afternoon flights to Africa)
So, forget BOS. No need to fly there imho.

[airazurxtror]

I wonder if the personnel will agree to that plan, with their pay cut or at least freezed.
What about the pilots who will be requested to work at 85% (a pay cut of 15%) or even at 40% in winter (a pay cut of 60% : try it for size !).
On the legal side : can the employer change at will the contracts from full time to part time ? I doubt it. Will the unions agree ? Another question mark.

[HighInTheSky]

I believe 2013 will bring us Boston, but nothing else...

So, forget BOS. No need to fly there imho.

I'm sorry to tell you, but it will be BOS...

[jan_olieslagers]

Mods,
Allow me to insist this thread should NOT degrade into one more fruitless discussion of possible future routes? There have been more than enough of those. This thread is about SN's staffing, and possible redundancies, and it was a good one; may it stay like that.

[sn26567]

On the legal side : can the employer change at will the contracts from full time to part time ? I doubt it. Will the unions agree ? Another question mark.

Isn't that what flexibility is about? I'm sure they will find a way. And the unions have promised to work in a constructive way.

Mods,
Allow me to insist this thread should NOT degrade into one more fruitless discussion of possible future routes? There have been more than enough of those. This thread is about SN's staffing, and possible redundancies, and it was a good one; may it stay like that.

I guess this problem is solved if it will be Boston in Summer 2013.

[RoMax]

On the legal side : can the employer change at will the contracts from full time to part time ? I doubt it. Will the unions agree ? Another question mark.

Isn't that what flexibility is about? I'm sure they will find a way. And the unions have promised to work in a constructive way.

They have to agree, there is not other option. Or they fire 80 pilots or all the pilots have to be more flexible. And the first option isn't a real solution either because they'll have to hire these (or other) people again after 2014.

[FlightMate]

And that's why the union shouldn't give in.

The company cannot afford to lay off people, only to take them back after the winter season.
If they want to lay off people, offer them a good redundancy package. Many will take the offer.

If there are less flights during winter, it means we will fly less.
So it will effectively be part time, but on full pay, except for the per diems which account for a third of the salary. Already a pay cut, then.