Pilot shortage at Brussels Airlines ?

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 19 Oct 2007, 11:39

Yeah, right...

I guess what Mr. Vandeputten wants the government to do, is to start taxing Ryanair's belgian pilots.

Look in UK or in Germany, and how Easyjet's or CX pilots will be affected in the coming years.

airazurxtror · Post by **airazurxtror** » 19 Oct 2007, 13:24

Mr Vanderputten says (in "Le Soir" to-day p. 23) that his pilots leave Brussels Airlines because they are much more taxed than if they worked for a foreign company.
A few lines above, he says that ten of his pilots have left to work at CargoB.
CargoB being a Belgian company, the taxes on salaries are the same as at Brussels Airlines.
It seems there are thus other reasons for the pilots to flee SN.

Memmed · Post by **Memmed** » 19 Oct 2007, 14:01

CargoB pilots signed a luxemburg contract. They pay their taxes in Luxemburg, not in Belgium! Yeah they could solve the problem in a few months time, while it takes years for SN to do it. CargoB piltos pay now 15 to 20 % taxes or even less if they have children.

When you see that, you see that quick solutions exist!

Stij · Post by **Stij** » 19 Oct 2007, 14:25

To be honest I think it's pretty selfish of our pilots.

Why are taxes and social contributions so high? Because we have a good (maybe to good) social welfare system. A lot of pilots used this welfare system when Sabena, Citybird etc. collapsed.

But now that every pilot is flying and they're in demand and they should contribute to the system, some prefer to sign contracts in Luxemburg or Ireland.

But guess what will happen when the sector ends up in trouble again and certain companies go bankrupt or start laying off? (I hope not, but we all know there's always a crisis ahead in aviation) A lot of these pilots will be fired again and then they will want the money again from the social welfare system.

I'm probably not making myself popular with this statement, but so be it.

Kind regards,

Stij

P.S. Don't get me wrong, taxes and social contributions ARE to high, but I think it's not correct to just lower them for 1 or 2 categories. They should be lowered for everybody.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 19 Oct 2007, 14:40

airazurxtror wrote:Mr Vanderputten says (in "Le Soir" to-day p. 23) that his pilots leave Brussels Airlines because they are much more taxed than if they worked for a foreign company. A few lines above, he says that ten of his pilots have left to work at CargoB.

What did you expect? That Cargo B was going to use pilots from Papoua New Guinea, from Malawî or from Kazachstan? Off course Cargo B engaged (Belgian) SN-pilots: Rob Kuijpers was CEO from SN Brussels Airlines till he has started up Cargo B, so he knew exactly which pilots he wanted, what they were earning and what he had to offer them.

GORKI · Post by **GORKI** » 19 Oct 2007, 16:47

some of the pilots who left work now for TUI and TNT, both Belgian companies
It is indeed not the tax problem but in the first place a question of getting your career on the good track (e.g.wide body exp or upgrade) and working for a healthy company with a future plan

1V1 · Post by **1V1** » 19 Oct 2007, 17:31

Stij wrote:To be honest I think it's pretty selfish of our pilots.

Why are taxes and social contributions so high? Because we have a good (maybe to good) social welfare system. A lot of pilots used this welfare system when Sabena, Citybird etc. collapsed.

But now that every pilot is flying and they're in demand and they should contribute to the system, some prefer to sign contracts in Luxemburg or Ireland.

But guess what will happen when the sector ends up in trouble again and certain companies go bankrupt or start laying off? (I hope not, but we all know there's always a crisis ahead in aviation) A lot of these pilots will be fired again and then they will want the money again from the social welfare system.

I'm probably not making myself popular with this statement, but so be it.

Kind regards,

Stij

P.S. Don't get me wrong, taxes and social contributions ARE to high, but I think it's not correct to just lower them for 1 or 2 categories. They should be lowered for everybody.

After Sabena collapsed, our nice wellfare system paid me for 3 months (the time to find a job) around 900 euro/month while for many many years I had been paying huge taxes.
After having seen how our "maybe to good social wellfare system" treats people who have been contributing largely for so many years I decided it would be wiser to take care of it myself.
Pilots flying under non Belgian contracts will not get any Belgian social wellfare if their foreign company goes bankrupt. It looks to me that if you're willing to take risks you should be paid accordingly. Feel free to become an expat.

I think taxes and social contributions are high because in Belgium a small group of working people have to pay for a large group of non working people and because of the huge group of people in charge of redistributing this money and running the state.

Don't botter about not being popular we're used to this kind of statements.

best regards

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 19 Oct 2007, 17:52

Seems BATA (Belgian Air Transport Association) will takle over the battle from Brussels Airlines against the Belgian high taxes and high social charges: Jetairfly, Thomas Cook Airlines Belgium and VLM have told the press today they're facing about the same problems as Brussels Airlines.

http://www.hln.be/hlns/cache/det/art_62 ... omArtikels

fcw · Post by **fcw** » 19 Oct 2007, 18:08

LX-LGX wrote:
airazurxtror wrote:Mr Vanderputten says (in "Le Soir" to-day p. 23) that his pilots leave Brussels Airlines because they are much more taxed than if they worked for a foreign company. A few lines above, he says that ten of his pilots have left to work at CargoB.
What did you expect? That Cargo B was going to use pilots from Papoua New Guinea, from Malawî or from Kazachstan? Off course Cargo B engaged (Belgian) SN-pilots: Rob Kuijpers was CEO from SN Brussels Airlines till he has started up Cargo B, so he knew exactly which pilots he wanted, what they were earning and what he had to offer them.

If Mr Kuijpers knows it, then Mr Vanderputten should know it as well and he could solve his own problem.

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 19 Oct 2007, 19:07

YOu know what I think guys?

B.air is starting to get the first bills from the wet-leasing

The superb well-fare system is no use to pilots unless they loose their license. And pensions are very bad in this country...
All the wellfare we are paying is going to other divisions and is just a big joke.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 20 Oct 2007, 09:37

FLY4HOURS.BE wrote: You know what I think guys?
B.air is starting to get the first bills from the wet-leasing

Spot on...

They are being sent bills in excess of several hundred thousand euro's monthly for a single F100, while several planes of their own fleet sit on the ground, flights are cancelled daily and pilots keep on sending in their resignations....

VDP simply made the projection that at this rate, he'll be wetleasing about 3 planes soon and thus be paying so much money just to keep things going he'll effectively be burning all of SN's profit margin on contractors, so all of a sudden the pilot issue becomes HOT for him.

I've always said it: b.air will ONLY do something for us, the day it becomes cheaper for them to give us a payrise than it is NOT to...
It seems with the wetlease we have now arrived at this point, because they are currently offering a payrise of slightly more than 10% to all pilots under the newly proposed CLA...

10%

No worries though...
Give it some more months, and I am sure it will have risen to the demanded 25%.

Post by **sn26567** » 21 Oct 2007, 09:34

tolipanebas wrote:They are being sent bills in excess of several hundred thousand euro's monthly for a single F100

Not a surprise with the luxury service on board: three GIRjet flight attendants (where b.air usually has only 2), plus the SN chef de cabine to make sure that everything is according to SN standards!

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 21 Oct 2007, 21:09

tolipanebas wrote:
FLY4HOURS.BE wrote: You know what I think guys?
B.air is starting to get the first bills from the wet-leasing
Spot on...

They are being sent bills in excess of several hundred thousand euro's monthly for a single F100, while several planes of their own fleet sit on the ground, flights are cancelled daily and pilots keep on sending in their resignations....

VDP simply made the projection that at this rate, he'll be wetleasing about 3 planes soon and thus be paying so much money just to keep things going he'll effectively be burning all of SN's profit margin on contractors, so all of a sudden the pilot issue becomes HOT for him.

I've always said it: b.air will ONLY do something for us, the day it becomes cheaper for them to give us a payrise than it is NOT to...
It seems with the wetlease we have now arrived at this point, because they are currently offering a payrise of slightly more than 10% to all pilots under the newly proposed CLA...

No worries though...
Give it some more months, and I am sure it will have risen to the demanded 25%

Why are there only comments on wetleases from Brussels Airlines? Take a look at luchtzak's Spotters Database, and you will see plenty of flights, operated by another carrier. For September only, I've counted at least 50 (= leases in general, not even flying days) - from which at least 15 leases for our two leading charter companies. Are they also loosing money?

So Brussels Airlines is apparently loosing money on the flights by this Fokker 100. Could be. Trust those who state this, know the nett/loss account from these flights. Would be great if they tell us the exact gross revenue from these flights, the nett revenue, the operational costs (not by guessing, like ... I know what it cost: 1 mio euro...), the lease cost of the plane that is grounded (once again: not by guessing like ... a new plane costs 35 mio euro and lease companies charge double, so ...).

Is British Midland also loosing money when they hire in a ScotAirways Do328 for at least 54 flights to/from BRU this month?

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 21 Oct 2007, 21:28

Sure LX-

you really need the exact numbers and a bunch of auditors to figure out that it costs more to b.air to have an RJ on the ground and wetlease a F100, than it does not to wetlease that F100 and to actually fly the RJ.

The numbers are no secret BTW, they have been communicated by our management at the latest meetings after repeated questions from our side about this:

leasing cost for an RJ: around 85,000 monthly, even if we don't fly with it.

wetlease contract with Girjet: more than double the leasing cost of the RJ, which is no surprise, given that this is a wetlease (including 12 fulltime crewmembers)

You can argue the RJ lease has to be paid, regardless of whether we fly them or not, so I give you that one, but do 200,000 X 12, and you'll find to annual cost for b.airlines to operate 1 SINGLE wetlease F100 year round.

Still remember how much the forcasted annual profit of b.air is going to be? And that is generated from flying around almost 50 medium haul and 4 long haul planes!

But still you suggest that maybe that single F100 on wetlease may actually generate enough money that it could pay for its bill itself?

VDP really must be an idiot then, having admitted the wetlease is the worst thing b.air has had to do in a long time and even more he must be insane to offer us significantly increased salary conditions as he is suddenly doing, doesn't he?
He'd better lease a whole fleet of Girjet F-100 if your theory is even remotely correct!

Problem is, by the time the 4th will arrive, his airline will have gone bust....

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 22 Oct 2007, 15:41

tolipanebas wrote:Sure LX-

you really need the exact numbers and a bunch of auditors to figure out that it costs more to b.air to have an RJ on the ground and wetlease a F100, than it does not to wetlease that F100 and to actually fly the RJ.

The numbers are no secret BTW, they have been communicated by our management at the latest meetings after repeated questions from our side about this:

leasing cost for an RJ: around 85,000 monthly, even if we don't fly with it.

wetlease contract with Girjet: more than double the leasing cost of the RJ, which is no surprise, given that this is a wetlease (including 12 fulltime crewmembers)

You can argue the RJ lease has to be paid, regardless of whether we fly them or not, so I give you that one, but do 200,000 X 12, and you'll find to annual cost for b.airlines to operate 1 SINGLE wetlease F100 year round.

Still remember how much the forcasted annual profit of b.air is going to be? And that is generated from flying around almost 50 medium haul and 4 long haul planes!

But still you suggest that maybe that single F100 on wetlease may actually generate enough money that it could pay for its bill itself?

VDP really must be an idiot then, having admitted the wetlease is the worst thing b.air has had to do in a long time and even more he must be insane to offer us significantly increased salary conditions as he is suddenly doing, doesn't he?
He'd better lease a whole fleet of Girjet F-100 if your theory is even remotely correct!
Problem is, by the time the 4th will arrive, his airline will have gone bust....

Like I said: only speculations here, no real calculations about the nett/loss account about this operation. Like this 200.000 x 12: guess that's what Brussels Airlines probably should have to pay if they would hire in the F100 for 12 months (which they don't: they only hire in the plane for flights that are not cancelled and cannot be done because no cockpit crew).

Revenue is missing, so go on with it. If the Finance department from from Brussels Airlines would calculate like this, the company indeed is doomed.

By the way, I still wonder if British Midland is also loosing money on their 50 extra wetleases. And SWISS also has to hire in a few F-100 extra on their BRU-route these days.

boul · Post by **boul** » 22 Oct 2007, 16:19

By the way, I still wonder if British Midland is also loosing money on their 50 extra wetleases

Your comparison means British Midland also grounds 50 of their own airplanes !!! Because if not, your statement doesn't make any sense.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 22 Oct 2007, 16:24

BTW- I would never use an airline like BM as a reference...

Ask anybody with a minimal knowledge about how BM is run and you'll see a smile to his face.

Their network [notably on the long(er) haul], their fleet planning [A330 order] and their annual results are simply unbelievably poor for a LHR based airline.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 22 Oct 2007, 16:34

LX-LGX wrote:Like I said: only speculations here, no real calculations about the nett/loss account about this operation. Like this 200.000 x 12: guess that's what Brussels Airlines probably should have to pay if they would hire in the F100 for 12 months (which they don't: they only hire in the plane for flights that are not cancelled and cannot be done because no cockpit crew).

Well, there I caught you with either a LIE or a FACTUAL error.

The F100 is not leased 'ad hoc' as you suggest, it is leased long term.

As from mid september, it is planned EVERY single day on the daily morning and evening flight to LYS, on the late afternoon to MAN and it operates a late sunday afternoon flight to PRG to suplement its full time flight schedule. Not once, not short term, but indefinitely!

You are right though, the 200,000 euro cost per month is just an estimate based on the comment made by VDP that the wetlease costs b.air more than double the monthly fee for a single RJ (which he himself said costed 85,000), so it could indeed be more.

You are entitled to your opinion, you may even spin the facts if you like, but please don't tell BS like you are doing now, because everybody who participated in the recent 'meet our CEO' meeting of a week ago, is on the floor laughing with you now as you are contradicting what the CEO himself told everybody in the public!