Pilots win court ruling over pay for A380

[MAN Flyer]

A Singapore court ruling could trigger rises in pilots' pay as the Airbus A380 superjumbo enters service. The Industrial Arbitration Court agreed with a Singapore Airlines pilots' claim for extra pay for flying the jet.

The Court ruled that A380 pilots should get 700 Singapore dollars (US$458; £230) a month more than the minimum pay for flying a Boeing 747.

Singapore Airlines is the first user of the A380, and the ruling could spark similar claims at other carriers.

The Court consisted of a three-member panel, consisting of a judge and one representative each from Singapore Airlines and the Airline Pilots Association Singapore (ALPA-S).

The pilots argued that the new aircraft presented a more complex task for pilots than existing ones, and that those flying it therefore deserved recompense for what were in effect extra responsibilities.

ALPA-S president Captain P James told the court that switching from one type of airliner to another is "not as easy as changing cars".

Singapore Airlines, however, said the A380's greater size in comparison to the Boeing 747 it will replace would be offset by automation which would make pilots' jobs easier.

But the panel agreed with the pilots, deciding that flying Airbus' flagship aircraft entailed "very heavy responsibilities for the safety of passengers, crew, cargo and the aircraft".

The A380 can carry up to 850 passengers and 20 crew with its maximum seating configuration. Singapore Airlines is buying 19 of the A380 jets, and hopes to take delivery of the first in October 2007.

Both Singapore Airlines and ALPA-S recognised that there was a lack of firm information on what flying the new aircraft will involve.

"The A380 is a new aircraft, there's very little by way of an international benchmark to measure things," said Singapore Airlines' spokesman Stephen Forshaw.

The A380 is crucial for the future of Airbus and its parent company EADS. But the project has been plagued by delays.

Problems with the complex wiring required to allow different airlines to specify their own entertainment options and seating layout have meant the aircraft is being delivered about two years late.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6690711.stm

[SQ 777]

well at least both side turn out to be a win win situation.

[flyguy]

at least the Court did award the increase to future A380 pilots an increase of just S$700 per mth - which isS$300 down from what Alpha-S asked. It seems even ridiculous for SIA management to then even wanted to reduce SQ's 744 pilots when they fly the A380s - to the same level as B777s pilots's pay range. What were the management even thinking off?

[The High Flyer]

Note that apart from the starting salary for the A380 pilots, nothing has changed. Not the salary ceiling, not the allowances, etc. The courts essentially ruled in favour of the SIA management. I'm not sure if there were some forces at work behind the scenes.

[flyguy]

well - its a Singapore Court - and it wouldnt be surprising- that altho it awarded the pilots' S$700 per mth; it didnt acceed to Alpha-S of S$1,000.
After all even the local Courts disagreed with the US NTSC and Boeing's findings' over its silkair crash due to pilot's "suicide" and also rule that SQ taiwan's crash as due to "taipei's airport inadequencies" instead of SQ's pilots' negligence.

[The High Flyer]

After all even the local Courts disagreed with the US NTSC and Boeing's findings' over its silkair crash due to pilot's "suicide" and also rule that SQ taiwan's crash as due to "taipei's airport inadequencies" instead of SQ's pilots' negligence.

Not sure about the SilkAir crash, but in the SQ006 case, don't you find the Taiwan's ASC was too trigger-happy in pointing the finger at us? I am inclined to think both parties were at fault.

[flyguy]

In SQ6 taipei crash, the taiwan's airport authorities were not exactly fast or trigger happy to point at SQ - but its more a retailiatory move as SIA an S'pore govt were quicker to point to their airport's inadequacies. But the findings of NTSB and beoing - basically ocluded to as "lack of situational awareness by the flight crew" which contributed to the crash as a result of entering and taking off from a closed runway and the wrong runway at that.
Granted that taipei's airport do not have the ground radar - as do still some other airports - but the ground radar instructions to the pilots in giving them the correct runway and taxiway that they should follow - and in the NOTAMs, the closed runway was clearly marked. Even the onboard runway alignment indicator did indicate an error - which the pilots dismissed as likely due to the "smaller width of the runway" and the pilots did not visually checked the runway markings even though it was raining due to approaching typhoon but visibility was still ok at 400 metres which should have enabled the pilots to see the runway markings; and the fact that there were a few other aircrafts that took off from the very same runway that was given to SQ6; doesnt not indicate any problems with "airport inadequencies".
Amd of course that SIA settles all its outside (out-of singapore) claims in Out-of-Court" settlements which were private; do suggests that SIA itself understands whose real fault it is- as otherwise SQ will never relent if it have a good ruling that it was not at fault (as was the Court decision in Singapore that apportions most blame to taipei's airport).

[The High Flyer]

In SQ6 taipei crash, the taiwan's airport authorities were not exactly fast or trigger happy to point at SQ - but its more a retailiatory move as SIA an S'pore govt were quicker to point to their airport's inadequacies.

I remember that when the crash happened, SIA's management immediately apologised for the accident, even before investigations started. This act of self-blame was noted by many, who viewed the airline in a positive light. Of course it was a huge public relations exercise too. However, I admit that I had not followed up on the independent investigations' findings, so my view might have been tainted.