Pilot shortage at Brussels Airlines ?

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 14 Aug 2007, 18:35

LX-LGX wrote:So if you like it or not, the problem for SN really is that they have to pay too much taxes and charges to the Belgian State.

Whether I like it or not is not even the point here! My point is that the tax system might be a problem for Bru.Air, it cannot be the problem! You make it sound as if it is and I just don't believe that you can bring back the behaviour of over 50 pilots to just one factor: salaries.

Why can't you?

First of all, exactly because of the reasons some pilots at Bru.Air told me: other criteria (such as type certifications, recognition by the company, working conditions, historical promises by management,...) matter as well.
Secondly, I don't know whether you noticed, but the net salaries didn't drop all of a sudden this year, so why are they all leaving at once do you think? Because all of a sudden they are not happy with their paycheck?

I don't think that you'll find a group of over 50 people that is so narrow-minded. If you want to believe there is...feel free: it's a free world!

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 14 Aug 2007, 18:56

to LX-LGX : so you seem to be a manager or close to management at b.air (I had already guessed that from your comments). Please, note that I as a passenger find a net salary of 3,500 euros per month for a pilot ridiculously low. Instead of telling us there is no problem or the problem is the total salary cost which is so high, please, think of something constructive. If the pilots agree to be delocalized, would it not be high time for management to tell the government (not threat, tell) that if airlines in Belgium don't get a "tax shelter" (see articles in recent press about "tax shelters" for the Belgian movie industry and possibly for the Belgian fashion sector), your airline will delocalize its pilots. Of course, delocalizing is easier said then done. Since it is not easy, it high time management studies the various delocalisation options, and quickly. And if the guys on the Board of Directors don't like the idea, would they prefer to see their airline grounded because of a lack of pilots. Have some constructive discussions with your pilots and find a solution. Even if the solution doesn't imply any savings for the airline, but if it means the pilots get a salary worth of their profession and responabilities and if it will make them happy and stay, it is worthwile doing.

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 14 Aug 2007, 19:31

now there's a post I can identify with! On the condition that the discussion is kept in a constructive way and that opportunities and threats for the future are properly assessed, as well as the potential reaction from your counterparties.

Example: If I were on the other side of the table and someone tells me that he will possibly delocalise his pilots resulting in lower revenues for me, than I will react in a way that will defend my revenues. This reaction can result in different suggestions:

- work together on a system that will make the situation economically viable for the company and financially neutral for me (ex: can I grant them a favourable loan with rock-bottom rates at the level of inflation)
- can they offer something in return which has a value for me that is higher than the production cost for them?
- If a company would not agree with constructive initiatives such as hereabove and decide to delocalise, regardless of my opinion or situation, I would act hard and enforce a tax that will neutralise my financial losses.

Now, the above examples I gave are just illustrative and the fruits of two seconds (ok, maybe three

) of work for my humble collection of grey cells. That is why I believe that the more intelligent people among us will be able to come up with far more constructive measures than merely lowering taxes or delocalising pilots.

If you're not convinced, just ask yourself this question: Suppose you delocalise or lower the tax rates, how sustainable will the advantage be that you gained? How will for example your own governement, Air France, other industries,etc react? Do you think it will just pass unnoticed?

I don't think so, but hey, that's just my hummble opinion!

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 14 Aug 2007, 20:17

to teddybAIR : please, read a previous post by "pressman" : Air France pilots apparently alady get a "tax break", being taxd as "Artists". I don't know the details, but I seem to remember that in France, workers called "intermittants du spectacle" are very favourably treated in terms of taxes and social benefits. I don't know if Air France pilots are assimilated to these "intermittqnts du spectacle" (would seem strange to me), but the French government is still a shareholder and as such may be willing to "help" the company of which it is a shareholder. So there seems to be a precedent (and maybe more) in the EU.
Whatever you think of it, it is urgent that the pilots get a decent net salary corresponding to their qualifications and responsiblities, that they are happy so that can can do a good job (job satisfaction is important for every worker, whatever the job) and stay ! Doesn't the Board of Directors and management understand this ? Seems pretty easy to understand to me. It is however more difficult to find a proper solution quickly, that I admit.

tolipanebas · Post by **tolipanebas** » 15 Aug 2007, 10:21

LX-LGX wrote: You don't have be a Master in Economics to understand this:
3.500 euro = nett
6.475 euro = gross
9.975 euro = total cost for SN

So if you like it or not, the problem for SN really is that they have to pay too much taxes and charges to the Belgian State.

No sir, the only problem is that Brussels Airlines doesn't want to spend more than 10K on an average pilot and that in order to be able to offer a more competitive NET pay urgently needed to retain its pilots, the airline can only achieve this by praying for tax breaks.

Again you make it sound as if Brussels Airlines is the only airline in Europe which has to pay extra's on top of gross salaries, whereas others don't have to spend an extra euro!

I know you've put a lot of efford in making us believe:
Total cost for SN = 9.975 euro = gross salary at Easyjet

Yet, as somebody who works at Easyjet has mentioned, Easyjet too has to pay quite some extra's. BANG, there goes your last weak argument!

Let's now thus correctly compare Easyjet (Orly) to the left with SN to the right:
7,000 euro = nett = 3,500 euro
10,000 euro = gross = 6,475 euro
14,750 euro = total cost = 9,975 euro

A quick glance at the above table immediately learns you that regardless whether one discusses net salaries, gross salaries or total labour costs, SN is offering dramatically lower terms throughout the table.

Sure, the percentage difference between the labour costs is smaller at the total labour cost level than at the net salary level (fully in line with expectations), yet the lead easyjet has taken in the net salaries remains retained throughout the table and ironically for you, the difference between total labour costs is actually BIGGER than the difference between net salaries in real values!

LX-LGX wrote:With all respect: if one ignores why pilots don't get more on their bank account....

Indeed, if one can't subscribe to the basic principle that in order to give a net wage increase, one must also offer a gross wage increase and ultimately also an increase in total labour costs, it is indeed difficult for an airline to seriously discuss improving net salaries like SN pretends to be doing....

Mind you, you are exactly on SN's corporate line: equally naive, equally unwilling to face the simple facts and equally shocked by the current reality at other places which is now causing the massive exodus and soon the grounding of half of SN's fleet!

Corto · Post by **Corto** » 15 Aug 2007, 11:05

I realize this is quite a bit naive to ask, but after reading all your posts on the matter, this comes to mind:
Pilot shortage is a worldwide phenomenon, and that situation is not going to improve soon, unless the warlords extend their game westwards.
Europe has now a licencing system that makes it easier for pilots to work abroad (in EU) and yet close to home, with improved real income.
If some adventurous pilots consider to relocate further, licencing is now made easy for companies "further away" to poach them from where ever they can be found and man fleets according to need; besides, those "further away" companies have means to pay net wages that EU airlines cannot afford to pay, net or gross. The culture in those "further away" countries is such that job satisfaction and good life style is achieved more readily than in our lands where a bar tender will do you a favour to give you attention at his convenience, should you wish to order a drink, and where aircraft cleaners come to work by employer sponsored public transport, but take their BMW for saturday shopping.
What do you, gentlemen with opinions, suggest or propose should be done to prevent the flow of qualified pilots outwards of the Kingdom's airlines (not only B.Air)?

Air Key West · Post by **Air Key West** » 16 Aug 2007, 23:47

In an article in De Standard a couple of days ago, they said "In the war for talent, employers show their more attractive side". Doesn't seem to apply at b.air since pilots are leaving (only pilots ?)

FLY4HOURS.BE · Post by **FLY4HOURS.BE** » 17 Aug 2007, 03:59

I ve already pointed some arguments but I ll make my pleasure pointing them out again.

The shortage of pilots is a global phenomenon and it will reach a peak in the next decade and might continue to increase during the decade thereafter (but future is not foreseeable).

I ve already pointed out that the problem is in the cost of the education of the pilots.
Many say that governement help is a waste blablabla and that it would never happen. I agree that the pilot education is very costly.

But what about all those undetermined university students we are raising every year and that end up unemployed for years (or married if we talk about girls)without being able to find a job after studying 5 years at the tax-payer's cost? (without counting all the money their parents have to invest)

If many good pilots leave for better salaries in foreign countries, so be it. You can't help it, the more you pay, the better quality you get.
But the problem we are encountering now is an unusual problem: now there even is a shortage of cadets, and the airlines paying the cheapest salaries are the first to be impacted.

It is easy to explain it: In three words, if the industry needs 50 000 pilots, and that there are only 40000, the airlines paying the less will need to shut down because the pilots will go where they get more.

Some will say: "yeah but there are many cadets". This is true, but getting a frozen ATPL doesn t mean you gonna be hired the next day.
There is a gap between the license and the job, that the most need to fill through a temporary job as flight instructor (let's leave aside the very wealthy, as they are rare cases: most don t even think about working seen what mammy and daddy have put aside for them.)

And it even gets worse, if we compare the growth of the industry with the drop of the amount of students in the schools. This means that there are less and less students interested due to the increasing prices of the training (due to the decreasing number of students and the worthening economy, costs for flight schools are rising with some smaller FTO's needing to shut down) and the decreasing amounts of the wages (which makes eventual loans more long-lasting).As a result of the decrease of the number of students, less instructors are needed. Less instructors means less airlines pilots.

If someone doesn t come up with a formula, some airlines (SN seems to be the first of those) are gonna have serious problems, because even the very few cadets will soon be attracted to other, better-paying airlines.

Government help is needed in the training. And not only to get the license, but until the students step into the cockpit of the airliner. And it would be a wise choice for the government: their investment will pay the highest taxes of the national job market as the wages of the average pilot are way higher than any average employee with a bachelor-degree!!

9/11 and the fall of Sabena is 6 years away now, but in terms of future, the history's greatest pilot shortage might even be closer...

Ps: Students who receive gov aid will be happy with lower salaries as it will be easier for them to pay their loans. Gov can in return ask for loyalty for a predetermined period...EU will understand. Can it get easier??

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 17 Aug 2007, 08:43

makes sense.

Do you know that b.air is not the first choice anymore for ab-initios?
Schools are advising students to go to Thomas Cook instead, because of the better type-rating.

I think b.air should seek for a partnership with a flying school. Doing interviews before the training, and granting a seat 3 years later, after the student gets his licence.
But again, they are not able to imagine themself in 6 months, so how would it be possible?

I heard as well that quality of new ab.initios has hugely dropped. And some flying schools don't have the standards they had before...
At least b.air is failing some candidates. Meaning they are not yet ready to let a public danger fly a jet...

Pikey · Post by **Pikey** » 17 Aug 2007, 08:48

At least b.air is failing some candidates. Meaning they are not yet ready to let a public danger fly a jet...

Dangerous words if you ask me!

Schools advice students to got to Thomas Cook because of the typerating. Which schools are we talking about?

Cheers

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:02

At least one guy ex hub-air and one ex-sfa told me they were advised to first try thomas cook.

Pikey · Post by **Pikey** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:04

Are conditions and payment better there? Question is just for info cause I really don't know.

FlightMate · Post by **FlightMate** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:08

honestly I don't know.

Heard JetAir is worse (salary + quality of life)

Heard Thomas cook not too bad. Type-rating A320 and bonded as in b.air

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:13

FlightMate wrote: Do you know that b.air is not the first choice anymore for ab-initios?
Schools are advising students to go to Thomas Cook instead, because of the better type-rating.

Type rating is important for "new pilots"
If you see the airplane type of Bru air.... the beginners normally will begin on AVRO. (to be verified !)
The leaving pilots leaves A319 or perhaps surely B737 and..... the actual AVRO pilots are upgraded. (to be verified too and don't shot the pianist ;-

)
For a beginner, the starting type of aircraft on Bru Air is not the best for the future.....

flyavro · Post by **flyavro** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:29

most pilots of BA who are avro pilots as it seems that type rating is getting less important but the hours you have in the airline are. I of course don't know for the ex-virgin pilots.

At this moment there is no upgrading to 737 from the avro and almost no training on the Airbus as they prefer to use old ex-pals from sabena.
Plus our DO already said he thinks us avro captains are not fit to fly the airbus (yippy for motivational speeches)

Jetair pays worse but you do have a good type rating afterwards (which you have to pay again yourself

) as with thomas cook.

And forget about training bonds, they are illegal in this country so if they decide to go to court let them. Especially at BA they have no way to enforce them because they made sure of that themselves (this is one of the good thing management has done for us! -> see I can be positive

)

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:52

flyavro wrote:Plus our DO already said he thinks us avro captains are not fit to fly the airbus (yippy for motivational speeches)

This was surely not my intention.

My intervention was only that type of airplane for beginners at Bru Air (if they first fly AVRO!) is not "sexy"
It's also easier for ac CPT or FO rated A319 or B737 to find another job with the appropriated certification.

As airplane fan, i consider every pilot as a real pilot 8)

Pikey · Post by **Pikey** » 17 Aug 2007, 09:57

For the moment ratings don't matter... Looking at all the different carriers BA people go!

OO-SAB · Post by **OO-SAB** » 17 Aug 2007, 10:19

Could someone please explain what was written in the article published by L'Echo yesterday: "Social unrest looms for Brussels Airlines pilots" ?

Pikey · Post by **Pikey** » 17 Aug 2007, 10:23

yes please

flyavro · Post by **flyavro** » 17 Aug 2007, 10:31

i have no clue about l'echo but I do know that our per diems which should normally be paid at the latest the 15th are still not on our bank accounts

indeed type ratings are less important right now but it's the hours that get you somewhere: at those charter companies you fly longer hours (as they have longer flights) so you're able to find a plush job earlier.

They wanted to let ab initios also pay for their avro type rating but were smart enough to cancel that idea. They already don't find enough qualified candidates as it is