Troubles at Brussels Airlines ? Part II

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 24 Apr 2007, 17:00

Are you sure? I read on the same forum, that a strike caused by the airline's staff is not called "force majeure"

stefanel · Post by **stefanel** » 24 Apr 2007, 17:09

FlightMate wrote:in case of problems this day, you would probably be rebooked on another flight (other carrier or not) and entitled to a money compensation, as a strike in not a case of force majeur.

thanks for your answer but if it is the day after, will they give me a hotel ?

stefanel · Post by **stefanel** » 24 Apr 2007, 17:13

FlightMate wrote:Are you sure? I read on the same forum, that a strike caused by the airline's staff is not called "force majeure"

Legally, a case of force majeure is an unforseeable and irremediable event so when there is a "préavis" it cannot be considered as unforseeable however it is not remediable by the company. So, I guess that is why carriers still consider the strikes as forces majeures.

Post by **sn26567** » 24 Apr 2007, 17:13

Recital 14 of the EU regulation:

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Apr 2007, 18:07

sn26567 wrote:Recital 14 of the EU regulation:

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

1. a strike that is announced is NOT a force majeure / overmacht.

2. only a wildcat strike is force majeure / overmacht / hand of God.

3. a strike is always evitable: if the airline's employees who have decided to go on strike call the strike off, there is no strike.

4. a strike is only force majeure in case it's a strike by an external and official service (thus not a private supplier, like Flightcare or Sabena Technics or Securair).

5. however, Denied Boarding (EU 261/2004) indeed limits or excludes the obligations from the airline. But NOT because it's force majeure / overmacht (Hand of God): because Montreal makes exception for a strike, and EU-Regulation 261/2004 is based on that.

6. More important then the word "strike" in that Remark 14 is "should be limited or excluded". It is generally accepted after quite some legal cases that an airline takes financial responsability for all costs the strike of it's own employees causes: rebookings (IR / "involuntary reroutings"), hotels, meals, telephone calls. Usually refused costs and thus to be discussed in a court case: indirect damage, due to the delay (f.e. a doctor or hairdresser who only returns to his practice / workplace after two days, and misses two days of appointments).

Indeed: the strike that we're about to see will cost Brussels Airlines a lot.

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 24 Apr 2007, 19:55

honnestly, I hope there won't be any strike... It can be easily avoided by Br.Air top Management

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Apr 2007, 20:42

FlightMate wrote:honnestly, I hope there won't be any strike... It can be easily avoided by Br.Air top Management

union hardliners here keep on telling us it's the Management who has to avoid the strike by giving in to their demands. Even if they say it 100 times more, it still will be blackmailing and intellectual terrorism. Managament has not called to go on strike: the unions have. So it's up to them to call off the strike.

if you really hope that there won't be a strike, then call it off. Otherwise, just be fair to your collegues and passengers, and admit it's all about power, and admit you just don't care about Brussels Airlines ("Passionate aout us").

Unions: "if you don't dismiss OPS, we're sorry but we have to damage you by taking your passengers in hostage as we will not tell you when exactly we will hit you." Terrorists: "If you don't pay the ransom, you are forcing us to kill a hostage every hour."

- -

Or perhaps you were a candidate for your union at the previous social elections? Then congrats, you are a "protected employee", which means it's pay time for you if Brussels Airlines goes bankrupt. Tell me, is it 2 years or 4 years salary you will get on top of the company closure bonus the liquidator will pay?

janhuub · Post by **janhuub** » 24 Apr 2007, 21:54

LX-LGX,

First of all let me say I don't work for Bru Air, or am a member of a union and thus haven't got a clue wether the strike people are talking about is justified, but I find the remarks you make rather annoying.

It is a basic right to go on strike, I agree it can be misused, but I prefer being the victim of such a strike, then not having the ability to go on strike at all.

There have been talks about problems with the management since the start (SN), and there has never been a strike. if the unions and the personnel of Bru Air feel that this the only option they have left, they have every right to exercise that option.

Your comparison between terrorist and union members is simply disgusting.

Strange as it may seem to you, it's not only up the unions to call of the strike. The management of every company is also responsible, and negotiations between the two should eventually lead to a solution.
Striking is indeed all about power, there you are right. But that's exactly why you have the right to do so.

I also hope it will not come to a strike, I am flying Bru Air 15/05.

regards,

Jan

Post by **ElcoB** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:12

janhuub wrote:...
It is a basic right to go on strike, I agree it can be misused, but I prefer being the victim of such a strike, then not having the ability to go on strike at all.
...
regards,
Jan

Well, I was writing a reply when your comment was showing up.

You did it better than I could.
So, thanks for posting it, fully agree.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:23

Actually, my dear Jan, it should be on 15th May, the strike. Because it seems you don't care that the holiday from others is spoiled: as long as you're not a victim of the strike, it's OK. Imagine you go to the airport on 15th May, and there are no SN-flights. Tell me, what will you do?

The unions have the legal right to go on strike. I don't like it, but it's the law. But then, I also want you (and others) to respect my opinion that it's disgusted the unions use passengers in their fight against Management. Because actuallt, if you like it or not, that is terrorism: using people who have nothing to do with a dispute as hostage. We saw it few weeks ago, when 40 firemen have spoiled the holiday from 26.000 passengers because they wanted a salary increase (their Maaltijdcheques / Cheques Repas).

Charlie Roy · Post by **Charlie Roy** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:25

LX-LGX wrote: 1. a strike that is announced is NOT a force majeure / overmacht.

Brussels Airlines have given no specific dates or times, just saying a strike at any time from May 1st. I'm not sure whether this fits the Belgian definition of an "announced strike". (Alas, it probably does!)

Strikers here in Belgium should be forced to announce precise details of a strike including planned dates and times of stopages.

euroflyer · Post by **euroflyer** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:28

tolipanebas wrote: Dude, there is a press release out from the unions today that as from May 1st, strikes are a real possibility at Brussels Airlines, so please don't come to act as if you aren't warned well before and were taken hostage on the spot.

Oh, I have not been around in this forum for a week and I thought this sh*t had long been solved. What are you up to?? (Before anyone misunderstands me: I am talking to union and management!). Get you all sitting around a damn round table and do not leave before you have a decent solution!!

It is not that difficult, eh

Any way, congratulations to harming your 'nice' new business model straight away. I have just decided I will change my bookings for all my planned flights in May away from bru.air (all b-flex

). I cannot risk being caught by a strike. So another airline will earn some money...

janhuub · Post by **janhuub** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:47

it's disgusted the unions use passengers in their fight against Management. Because actuallt, if you like it or not, that is terrorism: using people who have nothing to do with a dispute as hostage. We saw it few weeks ago, when 40 firemen have spoiled the holiday from 26.000 passengers because they wanted a salary increase

I haven't said I enjoy being the vitcim of a strike, I said I rather be victim of a strike, then live in a society were striking is not allowed.
Unfortunately Bru Airs' bussines is transporting people, if they go on strike a lot of people won't be able to make their trip. I still wouldn't call that that terrorism or taking people hostage. It seems me and you don't share the same opinion on the meaning of those words.

If there are no flights on the 15th, so be it.
The strike might even make Bru Air a better company, I, and certainly you also, don't have enough information to really judge that.

Jan

JOVAN · Post by **JOVAN** » 24 Apr 2007, 22:50

LX-LGX wrote:Actually, my dear Jan, it should be on 15th May, the strike. Because it seems you don't care that the holiday from others is spoiled: as long as you're not a victim of the strike, it's OK. Imagine you go to the airport on 15th May, and there are no SN-flights. Tell me, what will you do?

The unions have the legal right to go on strike. I don't like it, but it's the law. But then, I also want you (and others) to respect my opinion that it's disgusted the unions use passengers in their fight against Management. Because actuallt, if you like it or not, that is terrorism: using people who have nothing to do with a dispute as hostage. We saw it few weeks ago, when 40 firemen have spoiled the holiday from 26.000 passengers because they wanted a salary increase (their Maaltijdcheques / Cheques Repas).

Yes indeed, the legal right to strike has gone out of proportion here.
This was and is keeping people from their freedom and comes very close to hostage taking. And terrorism.

757Mech · Post by **757Mech** » 24 Apr 2007, 23:39

Maybe it is interesting to explain the meaning of terrorism to some people

Terrorism: The use of violence for political or other aims or to force a entity to act, especially because of the fear it causes among the people of that entity.
In comparisan with a,
Strike: to refuse to work as a protest.

Before anyone uses certain expressions, it is maybe interesting to know what they mean!

About a possible strike, if there is a good reason to do, don't wait, I saw what's happend when you don't, with the DHL story, and what does the people on the floor there get... nothing...peanuts...

And by the way it isn't a wild unanounced strike, people know about the possibility already and yes for a traveler it isn't pleasant but it is and it stays a firm right of everybody...

Grts

R

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 24 Apr 2007, 23:40

JOVAN wrote:
LX-LGX wrote:Actually, my dear Jan, it should be on 15th May, the strike. Because it seems you don't care that the holiday from others is spoiled: as long as you're not a victim of the strike, it's OK. Imagine you go to the airport on 15th May, and there are no SN-flights. Tell me, what will you do?

The unions have the legal right to go on strike. I don't like it, but it's the law. But then, I also want you (and others) to respect my opinion that it's disgusted the unions use passengers in their fight against Management. Because actuallt, if you like it or not, that is terrorism: using people who have nothing to do with a dispute as hostage. We saw it few weeks ago, when 40 firemen have spoiled the holiday from 26.000 passengers because they wanted a salary increase (their Maaltijdcheques / Cheques Repas).
Yes indeed, the legal right to strike has gone out of proportion here.
This was and is keeping people from their freedom and comes very close to hostage taking. And terrorism.

What do you propose Jovan and LX? Back to slavery?
It takes two to tango! The responsability of a strike is always shared between management and unions.
BruAir has the best and cheapest pilots in western europe. But that clearly isn't enough for the managers. They want the last drop. This is what you call management by conflict. Which almost always ends in a loose-loose situation.

Charlie Roy · Post by **Charlie Roy** » 25 Apr 2007, 00:12

757Mech wrote:And by the way it isn't a wild unanounced strike, people know about the possibility already

I have a dozen Brussels Airline's flights booked after May the 1st. And what? I learn one is cancelled the day of the strike itself?! That's as good as unannounced.

"Hi boss, I won't be at work tomorrow because of the strike" - same result of an unannonced strike!

They should come out and say "We're striking on these specific dates: ...". That way I know which of my dozen flights to rebook.

757Mech · Post by **757Mech** » 25 Apr 2007, 00:47

Charlie Roy wrote: They should come out and say "We're striking on these specific dates: ...".

That's true for sure.
Not only for you and many other possible affected pax but also for the company itself.
It is more than time that BruAir takes important decisions about there future and the implication of that future...

R

JOVAN · Post by **JOVAN** » 25 Apr 2007, 08:12

fcw wrote:
JOVAN wrote:
LX-LGX wrote:Actually, my dear Jan, it should be on 15th May, the strike. Because it seems you don't care that the holiday from others is spoiled: as long as you're not a victim of the strike, it's OK. Imagine you go to the airport on 15th May, and there are no SN-flights. Tell me, what will you do?

The unions have the legal right to go on strike. I don't like it, but it's the law. But then, I also want you (and others) to respect my opinion that it's disgusted the unions use passengers in their fight against Management. Because actuallt, if you like it or not, that is terrorism: using people who have nothing to do with a dispute as hostage. We saw it few weeks ago, when 40 firemen have spoiled the holiday from 26.000 passengers because they wanted a salary increase (their Maaltijdcheques / Cheques Repas).
Yes indeed, the legal right to strike has gone out of proportion here.
This was and is keeping people from their freedom and comes very close to hostage taking. And terrorism.
What do you propose Jovan and LX? Back to slavery?
It takes two to tango! The responsability of a strike is always shared between management and unions.
BruAir has the best and cheapest pilots in western europe. But that clearly isn't enough for the managers. They want the last drop. This is what you call management by conflict. Which almost always ends in a loose-loose situation.

The wild strike of the firemen and security people appeared to be "un justfied", as Luc VdBossche declared afterwards. The damage was done.
26.000 passengers had been deprived of their freedom and liberty
for many hours.

Slavery: also a strong word to justfy a semi-wild action by spoiled pilots who cannot accept that the times have changed.
Everybody works more for less.

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 25 Apr 2007, 14:33

Everybody?

I'd like to have a few example, please

That's quite a strong affirmation to question the legitimity of a strike.