FlyingMoose

In the same way those legacy employees were better positioned to screw over the legacy airline prior to the Chapter 11?

GUWonder

No. The legacy employees were only to get what the company had previously agreed to provide them.

The way I see it: a party who doesn’t stick to their word with an employee is also less likely to stick to their word with me as a supplier, client, borrower, investor or whatever.

FlyingMoose

But times have changed, business results have changed and the company is as a result of people trying to stick to legacy promises on the verge of bankruptcy? At what point do parties need to come together and solve the issue that is affecting both parties?

GUWonder

SAS didn't give me my money back when I’ve have non-refundable tickets that I couldn’t use because circumstances had changed for me. We made a deal when I bought those tickets, and they didn’t let me re-neg on the deal. What’s applicable for me should be what’s applicable for SAS: no entitlement to allow a re-negging on a deal already made and accepted by the counter-party.

FlyingMoose

A customer relationship and employee relationship is not the same, hence different laws and rules apply. Other (European) airlines have done exactly the same during for example COVID, either layed off staff or cut their pay (mutually agreed) as circumstances where no longer allowing sustainable operations. If you holding on to an old promise bankrupts your employer there are no winners. So you either find alternative employment against better pay, both parties wins, you get more pay, the airline gets to backfil you with a lower wage employee or the company bankrupts and you find a different job against lower pay or don't find a different job at all, no winners, in fact even a third loser if the taxpayer is now paying for your welfare.

GUWonder

If you holding on to an old promise from an employer bankrupts your employer, then the employer deserves to go bankrupt. Wasn’t that almost like the Norwegian pilots’ stance?

There are winners when the employer goes bankrupt.

gojko88

That is absolutely true, but being in the right won't pay the soon-to-be-former SAS employees any bills.

GUWonder

Actually, it could have in a way — more so if they hadn’t cut the zombie-in-the-making any break at some earlier points.

A zombie doesn’t do the living a favor; and the longer the zombie is around, the more damage it ends up doing to the living and lifetime earnings by the end.

FlyingMoose

Putting the needs of a handful of overpaid pilots over the needs of economies and populations of multiple countries won't find much support for that logic. Norwegians have interesting views.

If the unions push a local brewer of appalling beer into bankruptcy few would care and probably agree but doing so to critical infrastructure is highly questionable.

the810

Lowering employment standards would have negative effect on populations of those countries. There is clear support for the Nordic employment model among local population. Remember Wizz Air's attempt to enter Norwegian domestic market with underpaid crews?

gojko88

Pilots are hardly a representative sample of working standards among the general population.

the810

Of course not. But this phenomenon exists in other industries as well.

In my opinion, pilots have nothing to lose. If SAS go bust, they will fly for Ryanair or Norwegian or whoever and they will work under similar conditions as SAS offers right now. But if they win, there is some chance for them to maintain the Nordic standard of living.

GUWonder

If any group is a representative sample of working standards among the general Scandinavian population, which group is it?

On the basis of post-tax employment earning — that too in a market where there is a lot more wage compression than average in the developed world— the average pilot in the region is rolling in how much more dough than the average working person in the region? When answering, keep in mind to factor things like non-taxable income for some of those working people who aren’t pilots.

CPH-Flyer

I doubt Ryanair offers conditions equivalent to what the pilots gets with SK now.

SK employed union leaders in Denmark were (are?) negotiating an agreement with Ryanair for Denmark at significantly lower conditions than SK, and they seemed happy to offer Ryanair a much better deal than they were willing to offer SK. I do understand that there is a difference between making a new agreement from scratch, and accepting a cut on current conditions, but it does question the relation between current SK conditions and the market.

fassy

Didn't Ryanair have the concept of those zero hour contracts for pilots...?