BigJets wrote: ↑
18 May 2020, 09:09
737MAX wrote: ↑
16 May 2020, 20:22
Captain BASIC salary at KLM: 11000€ before tax
Captain TOP salary intended by management after Covid at SN: 5000€ BEFORE!!! tax
Oh yes, retirement age in Belgium = 65
KLM? Full retirement at 60 (when they do not force you earlier out with plenty of money - and when it's the case, they work as freelancers for belgian airlines with huge salaries as well.........).
I agree, not everything is about money. I forgot to mention you'd work much more at SN than at KLM.
Are belgians that worthless?
Plenty of forum members here want a legacy carrier, with a huge network and why not brand new planes paid by LH, but you guys want staff members to work for peanuts?
Belgian managements could take a page from their book
Can you give me one single reason why these differences between SN & other carriers around Belgium would be acceptable?
Think twice before posting anti-union & staff posts like this, you do not live in their world and you really, really do not know what it all means.
I totally agree with you 737MAX. When Sabena was still around the government and public opinion were saying that staff salaries were too high, “let Sabena go bankrupt and let’s start over” they said, and that’s what happened, even though salaries at Sabena were already less than other surrounding countries.
When SN Brussels Airlines started up people were fighting to get a job. There were hundreds of jobs available with the new airline with thousands of applicants. The salaries were ridiculously low but it was take it or leave it. So many people, just to have work, accepted it (if they didn’t someone else would be there to take their place).
Today it seems that history is repeating itself. Didn’t anyone learn anything from the past? Don't they know how difficult it is to start over, not to mention what the demise of Sabena really cost the taxpayer (loss of income, unemployment, you name it…)? Almost 20 years later and Brussels Airlines still does not have the fleet and network that Sabena had. Brussels has fallen decades behind the competition and now they want to reduce it even more
When times go bad and the company is loosing money, an airline will look for the easy way (and one of the only ways) to save money: its employees. But, is it really the only option in Belgium?
737MAX is absolutely right: KLM captain 11,000€, SN captain 5,000€ before taxes. In the case of Brussels Airlines the employees are already some of the lowest paid in the western world, how much more can you squeeze out of them, especially since Brussels Airlines is already a, so called, slimmed down lower wage airline after Sabena?
It’s too easy to (always) blame the employees for everything because it draws away the attention from the real
problem. I often read on forums how airlines in Belgium are always loosing money. I see how the comparison is made with this airline or that airline. How can you compare? In reality, airlines in Belgium are NOT loosing money, they are very efficient, can be very profitable and successful. It is the Belgian government that is running away with all the profits in the form of extremely high social contributions.
Can you think of any other expense an airline in Belgium has that is more than other surrounding major carriers? Everyone talks about this as if it was nothing but this is the real fundamental reason for the failure of airlines in Belgium!
Belgium with it’s central location has everything it needs to succeed but still, it isn’t. When a Belgian airline wants to open a new destination, especially on long haul, they will do everything possible to avoid competition, why is that? Brussels Airlines might receive 390mil. Euro and then they have to say thank you to the government, the ones who have been “taking” the profits from them in the first place? If you want to compare Belgian airlines to other airlines then it should be done at a fair level, everyone with the same expenses (including the same landing fees in each carrier's home country). Correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Air France have a special statute for it’s cockpit and cabin crew where the airline pays much less social contributions because they consider their crews not to be working on French territory?
These are different times that call for drastic measures. If the Belgian government is really serious about helping Brussels Airlines then once and for all they must lower it’s social expenses, give the airline the necessary tools for it to grow as it should, that would create even jobs (and more contributions) in the long run. Profit margins with airlines are some of the smallest of any business and aviation's economic contribution is of the utmost importance yet until now the Belgian government sits by and does nothing.
They should not ask more from it's employees, that’s too easy. Take away their buying power and it too will be devastating for the economy. It’s a vicious circle.
Of course if all that profit would go directly into Lufthansa’s pockets without growth and progress at Brussels Airlines then all that effort would be for nothing. Negotiating is important. Let the Belgian government take Brussels Airlines away from Lufthansa and take matters in it’s own hands. At least for now.
Wishful thinking or something worth thinking about?
High social contributions are indeed a problem.
However, this is a systemic problem for all companies in Belgium and really not an exception compared to other countries.
Even Southern States like Italy have similar levels of social contributions.
I don't want to sanctify it, it's a systemic problem that needs to be fixed and perhaps even harmonised within the EU to avoid competition between states.
Social contributions are what's paying people today to stay home but also the medical cost of the Covid-19 crisis. Perhaps wasting less money in other area's can bring some relief.
However, this is less of a problem if the airline is nationalized.
The social contributions just flow back to the government, so more jobs and higher salaries are easier to sustain.
The other problem for SN are the high taxes in BRU. It's hundreds of millions in airport taxes per year for a revenue of around 1 Billion.
Again, less of a problem when BRU is partly owned by the government.
So I tink that it's pretty apparent that the government makes a lot of money through Brussels Airlines, so it doesn't hurt to reinvest it in it, as long as it's invested to keep and grow jobs, the airline, the economic well-being. So yes if LH can sign up to a 20+ fleet of long haul aircraft.
Otherwise, it's time for Belgium to take matters in its own hands.
I could also agree to a low interest loan for Ryanair, or say the Belgian State could invest an equity stake and take a 25% in a joint-venture of "Ryanair Belgium". CRL is a huge base for FR, the social impact in CRL should not be neglected and quite frankly, they benefit the taxpayer by offering or inducing low fares as a benefit.
This would enable to have a more comprehensive, fair and competitive market. i.e. Belgium against neighboring countries.
Belgium can better balance by focussing on BRU for its hub and CRL for low-cost leisure, perhaps even partnering together in BRU on routes that can provide some feed but are too leisure oriented.
Turn cut-throat competition into a partnership, and fight together against the BIG ones, making Belgium the go-to place for a fairly priced flight.