Can anyone shed any light on what the old vs new roster looks like?
Clearly management is in for the long haul, hiring in replacement aircraft isn't cheap, taking people off the payroll is a very, very strong statement.
I have no direct knowledge, and no vested interest in it whatsoever. But can I just ask someone to shed some light on the changes to the current roster versus the new roster, which is at the heart of the disagreement.
All I read in the papers are that the airline is looking for 850 hours a year. now, I presume that's flight hours, and as is always the case when flight and cabin crew hours are discussed, it looks outrageous to the layman who will divide by 40 hours to get numbers of weeks worked and surmise that EI cabin crew work 22 weeks a year and get paid for 52.
In that context, could someone give me a sense of how the current roster will change, e.g. from dub - bcn and back daily, for a month, to, dub - bcn plus a dub - lhr and back or something. At least then when you read that a cabin crew member was suspended for an unauthorized tea break you can get some sense of what is actually the substance of the issue, rather than have to rely on a non walsh surnamed industrial correspondent report blandly that a meeting took place today between union and workers today, the airlines responded by cancelling x number of flights, x aircraft and crew were hired in at a cost of (i'm sure this comes from the company press release) then you learn nothing more until the issue is resolved.
Before I get shot down as a potential journalist, I can assure you that I am not. I seek only some facts so that I can make up my mind as to whether these are legitimate productivity concessions sought by a company fighting a ruthless lo-co (with a shade under 30% stake) in it's back yard or, if they're another example of a race to the bottom with bully boy tactics soundly backed by a well oiled spin machine.