Brussels Airlines : cabin crew strike looming

[b720]

I agree, lucky that SN is still flying in the first place,.
When one's employer is losing money, one leaves for
Another company for a more promising career, but if
One decides to stay - for whatever reason - one works their
Socks off to keep the company afloat..

[RoMax]

Indeed. If you are not happy, leave the company and search something else if you think you can find better work in this economical conditions. If not, don't start with things like striking...it will only help the airline to the ground (and you'll have to find other jobs anyway).
This is not a moment of big complaining, but being happy that you have a job after all and that you give the airline at least a chance to survive. Striking now, is like saying "we don't want SN to survive".

[dna]

VRT news desk - the Flemish state-television which is surely not an anti-union lobby (actually, the VRT newsdesk joins every national strike the unions organize).

Dear passenger, get your facts right. Your statement is not correct.

[B.Inventive]

I can't believe people... They keep on believing there was actually a 'pre agreement', believing only unilaterally supplied information from the management it self. Management telling the media, thus the world, they achieved an (pre-)agreement is a LIE in itself, and shows very much the way they operate. With absolutely NO respect towards it's employees. Unions NEVER accepted the proposal itself, they did however have the decent courtesy to allow the entire union body to either accept or refuse the proposal. Which they now announced as being rejected. UNIONS NEVER AGREED TO ANYTHING IN ANY PRE AGREEMENT! MEDIA IS NO LONGER WHAT IT USED TO BE! DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING THEY SAY!

There WAS a pre-agreement on 5th Sept and press reports that evening actually were based upon a press release from the unions, not on a press release from management.

The union leaders clearly have failed today. To cover them up, they today state that management cannot be trusted, that management is an unreliable partner who didn't respect previous agreements, etc. But then: why did they signed an pre-agreement with them on 5th September? Once again: every single news report on 6th September referred to a press statement from the unions, stating that they agreed with the compromise text. I agree that press reports about safety issues usually aren't covered well, but for social disputes the editors do know what they’re talking about.

Example 1 : De Morgen (a socialist newspaper):
“...Volgens de bonden bevat de tekst een tweetal elementen. 'Op korte termijn wordt de werkdruk aangepakt en worden er concrete afspraken gemaakt die de volgende maanden uitgevoerd gaan worden. Op langere termijn wordt een kader geschetst om het werk evenredig te verdelen', zo staat in hun persbericht. De bonden zullen de tekst in de loop van volgende week voorleggen aan de syndicale achterban..."
http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/996/Econom ... omis.dhtml

Example 2 : VRT news desk - the Flemish state-television which is surely not an anti-union lobby (actually, the VRT newsdesk joins every national strike the unions organize). They had a first report on 06h36, and then interviewed an union delegate after which they've updated their online info at 12h39:
"...De vakbonden en directie van Brussels Airlines hebben gisteravond onder bemiddeling van de voorzitter van het paritair comité van de luchtvaart een compromistekst bereikt in verband met de werkdruk van het cabinepersoneel. De bonden leggen het document volgende week donderdag voor aan hun achterban. De tekst bevat een tweetal elementen. Op korte termijn wordt de werkdruk aangepakt en worden er concrete afspraken gemaakt die de volgende maanden uitgevoerd gaan worden. Op langere termijn wordt een kader geschetst om het werk evenredig te verdelen. De vakbonden staan achter het compromis. "Het garandeert een verlaging van de werkdruk op korte termijn en een aanpak van de problematiek op langere termijn", luidt het. De bonden dienden vorige week vrijdag een stakingsaanzegging in, die vandaag afloopt. "We gaan morgen geen acties voeren, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat we de stakingsaanzegging afblazen", zei Pol Buekenhout van de christelijke vakbond LBC-NVK gisteravond. "We moeten de compromistekst eerst voorleggen aan de syndicale delegatie vooraleer we daarover beslissingen kunnen nemen..."http://m.deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws.mob ... /1.1722274

Now, back to the strike. Maybe the unions can organize a meeting "how to read a company balance sheet" for the striking cabin crew next week. I'm sure many of them will then understand that their employer really is in trouble and that the life line from Lufthansa is not endless.

Funny how according to the press the unions accepted the pre agreement, and from ALL MY COLLEAGUES IN THE UNION I never heard the same story... They NEVER agreed to anything in that pre agreement, they were only willing to allow ALL union members to either accept or refuse
Media is wrong, the statements are pulled out of context.
Very strange isn't it?
Do the quotes actually say anything about accepting ? no, they only say there is 'a plan' which does A and B, and that the union rep is willing to postpone action to hand the draft over to the union body.

[HQ_BRU_Lover]

You've got to be kidding, dna .

[StijnBRU]

My only answer to all unionactions: LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB!!

How to kill image, trust, confidence, possibility to survive --> these kind of actions

[Passenger]

VRT news desk - the Flemish state-television which is surely not an anti-union lobby (actually, the VRT newsdesk joins every national strike the unions organize).

Dear passenger, get your facts right. Your statement is not correct.

My facts are correct, for sure about the VRT and their coverage of strikes. Just read this blog about the influence of the unions and the sp.a (socialist party) on the VRT newsdek:
http://jurgenverstrepen.typepad.com/jur ... peech.html

End of "off topic".

[papysn]

Hi,

Everybody knows the economical situation is bad... it's very difficult to find anything els and it's too easy to say "not happy,go away..."
Remember a strike is always the result of a double failure,on the union side,but also on the management one!!!
The decision taken on the management side in Bruair history weren't always wise(korongo,VEX....all hughe cash eaters!!!)and all the frontliners knew it in advance ... after all,it's a bit easy to say there's no more money for staff requests if you burned it all in foolish adventures...
The problem at Bruair is,for wat i think,called "respect",if the pletorious numbers of managers go out of the Bhouse and listen to frontliners,maybe,they ll take better decision in the future...
just my 5 cents.
K.

[Inquirer]

I think I have a pragmatic view on most things in life and as such I do not subscribe to the almost hysterical remarks posted above by both sides.

The idea that one should never go on strike and simply accept any situation or alternatively move on, is a wrong one, since employers are always going to find someone who's willing to do your job for a little bit less. Mind you, the above is valid for everybody, btw, even for the CEO of b.Post, so when it comes to saying STOP to (pay)changes which simply come down to more profit, then I'd say a strike is one of the ways to put pressure on shareholders to review their plan.

However, I'd be extremely reluctant to go on strike over similar (pay)changes if not to increase the profits, but to reduce the losses. Think about it for a second: If there's no more money to pay for your demands prior to the strike, then I am afraid there isn't going to be any after either, quite on the contrary even.

To me, striking when you know your demands are just AND affordable is a valid option, but striking when you know your demands can't be afforded (even if they are just), although perfectly understandable as a human reaction, isn't making much sense to me and simply smells frustration: nice to ventilate, but not offering a solution.

Maybe someone of those pro strike can elaborate on where the extra money needed should come from and how they think shareholders can be persuaded to fork it out? Because as I have already said in another topic, it sounds pretty well to write about strategies, plans, ambitions etc, but in the end much in life and especially in business comes down to a simple thing called money, like it or not and if it isn't there, you have to make it appear somehow first: going on strike isn't a particularly yielding method however.

[Passenger]

...it's very difficult to find anything else and it's too easy to say "not happy,go away..."

No, it isn't. "...260 companies are currently based at Brussels Airport. Together they employ 20,000 people. At any given moment there are some 500 job vacancies at the airport. They can range from full-time and part-time to temporary work and concern working normal office hours, doing shift work or even night shifts. Source: http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/jobs/community_jobs/

Remember a strike is always the result of a double failure,on the union side,but also on the management one!!!

No, a strike is not the result of a "double failure from unions and management". A strike is a strategic tool from the unions.

The decision taken on the management side in Bruair history weren't always wise(korongo,VEX....all hughe cash eaters!!!)and all the frontliners knew it in advance ... after all,it's a bit easy to say there's no more money for staff requests if you burned it all in foolish adventures... The problem at Bruair is,for wat i think,called "respect",if the pletorious numbers of managers go out of the Bhouse and listen to frontliners,maybe,they ll take better decision in the future...

Respect has to be two-ways. "The above quote shows little or no respect from "the frontliners" towards management.

[papysn]

Hi,

Ok about most of what you said in your post...
One little remark,wrong decisions have been taken on shareholders side a long time ago...those decisions leads to present situation.
The shareholders always refused to decently capitalise the company,they just wanted (and still want)to get max returns asap... this company deserved a reasonnable funding and a long term perspective...
The management,pushed in the back by the shareholders, wants to go to breakeven at any cost,even at structural cost for the company...
To get money,you need to invest first,that never happened for BRUAIR.

I'm not in favor of any strike,but i'm in favor of a long term company for BRU...and to get that,you have to manage cost but also to implement mutual respect and team spirit at every level...

Regards.
K.

[papysn]

Hi again,

To passenger:

papysn wrote:
...it's very difficult to find anything else and it's too easy to say "not happy,go away..."
No, it isn't. "...260 companies are currently based at Brussels Airport. Together they employ 20,000 people. At any given moment there are some 500 job vacancies at the airport. They can range from full-time and part-time to temporary work and concern working normal office hours, doing shift work or even night shifts. Source: http://www.brusselsairport.be/en/jobs/community_jobs/

please,be realistic, check on the website you mention... majority of companies are not recruiting...

[teddybAIR]

The shareholders always refused to decently capitalise the company,they just wanted (and still want)to get max returns asap... this company deserved a reasonnable funding and a long term perspective...

You can't bite the hand that feeds you. Without them greedy shareholders (what return have they seen lately actually and would you accept such terms for any of your investments, by the way?!) SN Brussels Airlines in it's current form would not exist in the first place.

What worries me is that from an outsiders point of view, all I see is two stakeholders telling the other what they have to do while being very clear about what they don't want to give in. That's not a way to come to that long term strategy. So refrain from trying to put the historic blame with the other because although it might relieve you, it doesn't help one tiny bit. Nor wil a strike. The announced strike might relieve some to get over their - probably even justified - anger, yet if you have just a little bit of honesty, you have to admit that it does not get you any closer to a solution. Some will say 'sure it does, cause it gets everybody around the table again'...but the simple truth is that you cannot not sit together...so whether you strike or not, you'll have to come to a joint decision. In my view: all this should be possible without striking.

Nevertheless, they have all my sympathy, because I do recognise that BA employees - just like most other employees working for large corporations in Belgium or abroad - have already gone through a lot of concessions lately. But the simple truth is that you can't just go blame your managemen...it's the new reality: we've been living in too much luxury and 'boven onze stand' and now is the time to collectively give in...at least, that is what I think is going on the past 6 years...

[FlightMate]

When a manager wants to quantify his actions, it is always easier to demonstrate how much money he saved by cutting cost. Not demonstrate how much revenue his new idea brought.
I mean, management is so focused on getting cost down that they forget how to make money.

B.light / b.flex. sure it has cut cost. But how many passengers have been driven away? How many 'true' business passengers didn't get the option of paying more for a premium ticket?
Revenue/yield management in this airline is catastrophic.

Vex integration? A mistake that every employee recognized before it happened.

Korongo on the other hand, could have worked. I still believe it was the best idea in the past 10 years. Too bad the implementation didn't work as planned. Whose fault? Management? Maybe. But I don't have enough insight.

Managers, please. Stop fighting with your employees. They have given enough already.

[sn26567]

The management of Brussels Airlines "strongly" condemns the threat of a strike

The management of Brussels Airlines condemns "strongly" the strike threat hanging over the airline after the rejection of the draft agreement on the workload of 1,200 members of the cabin crew . A meeting between management and unions is scheduled for Friday (today) afternoon.

"We do not understand that a balanced social agreement signed last December, which allowed us to avoid redundancies and to ensure a sustainable future is questioned eight months after it was signed," laments the CEO of the airline, Bernard Gustin, in a statement.

The CEO says he believes "strongly" in social dialogue and emphasises that "it is in this spirit that the unions and management signed last week, under the supervision of a social conciliator, a compromise for addressing the problem of workload " . "This compromise was considered adequate and effective for all parties. We deplore that the union representatives reject it while it preserves the balance of the workload and maintains the employment level," says Bernard Gustin .

Last December, management and unions have agreed on the restructuring plan "Beyond 2012-2013 " to increase company productivity and reduce costs in the amount of 110 million euros (10%). This plan must also allow Brussels Airlines to return to profitability in 2014 and consider the prospects for growth. According to management, "the first results of the efforts delivered so far by all departments are positive both in terms of cost structure and profitability of the company. "

Management hopes that a spirit of trust will reign again quickly between the social partners and will receive the union delegation Friday afternoon.

Brussels Airlines employs approximately 3,500 people.

Source: Belga (in Dutch and French)

[Flanker2]

When a manager wants to quantify his actions, it is always easier to demonstrate how much money he saved by cutting cost. Not demonstrate how much revenue his new idea brought.
I mean, management is so focused on getting cost down that they forget how to make money.

B.light / b.flex. sure it has cut cost. But how many passengers have been driven away? How many 'true' business passengers didn't get the option of paying more for a premium ticket?
Revenue/yield management in this airline is catastrophic.

This is the big problem of the late and post-baby-boom generation management across all levels, SME, multi-nationals and government management. Cost cost cost but revenues?

The big problem is that this generation of managers and shareholders is too focused on bringing costs down, in the name of efficiency. No, efficiency is not achieved by bringing costs down at all cost or expecting your employees to give every bit of their energy for the least salary.
Efficiency is about extracting the most revenue out of existing resources and structure.
SN is the best example of misunderstanding efficiency. Sure their lean employment structure will save them a few millions a year, but much less than they anticipate. Overworked staff will tend to leave faster or develop diseases or physiological and psychic problems, and the company spends more money in recruiting and training new staff, as well as the time to bring them up to a level where they can get used to their new job and operate efficiently.
In the meanwhile the existing resources are wasted in the form of empty seats and airplanes sleeping on the tarmac at night whereas they could have done some extra Africa rotations and prevented TK from coming into that market, which is hurting their revenues...

Governments have the same problem. While they have the choice to reverse the trade imbalance by using technologies available today, such as electric cars and wind energy, they still opt to take the most tax revenue out of imported oil products. Sure oil products bring in short-term revenue, but if the money stayed in the country, it would be more likely to come back to the government under the form of corporate taxes and lower welfare program costs.

Do not expect any changes in the next 15 years, as long as the baby-boom generation is in place across political and management environments. This generation has been spoiled by easy money and continued economic growth during its entire lifetime, most are unlikely to be able to offer any solutions to current problems. Yes, consider this a lost generation. Only companies led by managers who recognize this will thrive.

[sn26567]

The cabin crew union delegation at Brussels Airlines yesterday received a proposal from management.

"Management has responded to only two of the fourteen issues raised in connection with the work pressure. This is not enough," said the joint trade union front (ACLVB LBC BBTK and CNE), in a joint press release.
The union delegation will informed its members next week.

Actions are not excluded.

Source: Belga

[Flanker2]

Happy cabin crew give customers a great experience.

At NH, CC's are paid an average salary of around 3.000 gross, taxed at around 20%. (average of international and domestic).
Cost of life around NRT/Chiba is comparable to Western Europe / Belgium.
This is a review that shows what service is really about, and what customers are willing to pay for in this day and age:

http://airchive.com/blog/2013/06/02/ana787-sjc-nrt/

This shows why some airlines do better than others: it's attitude, respect and teamwork.

[Air Key West]

Perhaps that as some of you have been writing, we have been spoiled too much. This does not mean that we just should accept to you back to labour situations of more than a century ago when employers could exploit their workforce as they wanted. I'm not taking sides for either employers or unions. Both have in the course of time, in most companies, resorted at one time or another to excesses.
Working as crew for an airline, one has to cope with unsocial working times and schedules, which deserve respect and decent compensation (i.a. salary). It's easy to say : if you don't like your job, leave and look for another one. Especially, if this is a result of uninterested shareholders and incomptent management, and

SN is the best example of misunderstanding efficiency. Sure their lean employment structure will save them a few millions a year, but much less than they anticipate. Overworked staff will tend to leave faster or develop diseases or physiological and psychic problems, and the company spends more money in recruiting and training new staff, as well as the time to bring them up to a level where they can get used to their new job and operate efficiently.

What about managerial staff giving up part of their salary ?

http://www.swiss.com/web/EN/about_swiss ... 30510.aspx

Well 5 % is peanuts when you earn a lot, but then LX is not in the difficult situation b.air is in.
It's at least a gesture.

Have b.air management agreed to any kind of salary "sacrifice" ? I don't know. Just asking a question.

Anyway, what about all those at b.air earning more than the best paid flight attendant, and who most of time work normal hours in a close to zero-stress office, to accept that specific salary until the airline makes again a profit for at least three years in a row ?

If they don't like it, they can go and look for another job, cannot they ?

(am really curious to read the reactions )

[Passenger]

Nice to read all those remarks about respect, but what about respect towards the passengers? Because after all, going on strike also means saying “go to hell” to the passengers who had bought a ticket for that flight. And please, don’t reply with “it’s the managers who caused this strike” and/or “they’ve forced us”. Only unions call the strike, only union members go on strike.

I don’t work for an airline and/or airport, so my dear crew members, believe me: you are just a play tool yourselves. Twice. On this forum, you are just a play tool for people working for a competitor airline and/or for a competitor airport, and they love to insist that your strike is justified. Because they will benefit from your strike. And at BRU, you are nothing more then a play tool in the power play between the three unions, all three wanting to profiling themselves. With your job at stake.