In this case EI management appears to have decided from a cost-effective viewpoint to use 757's with a specified number of crew. End of story. It's none of the union's business
I'm sorry but you seem to be misunderstanding the point of a union. What's the point of a union if it allows management to decide unilaterally that five people should do the work of four? Or pilots in Belfast are worth less than pilots in Dublin? A "cost-effective point of view" just means paying your staff less and less and less. In this case, I would suggest they can just paint someone elses aircraft green and crew it with contract cheaper crew. I would suggest this was Plan A and Plan B. The customer gets a more "cost effective" service, Aer Lingus takes out an in house staff cost, classic MBA approach. Terms and conditions of people working in the industry tumble further. I mean I am a bit of an old capitalist but the thought that a union should just sit back allow management to cut willy nilly makes me shudder. Four crew on a transatlantic B757 is back to basics cheap and cheerful.
Worth googling BA and AML (Asset Management Limited) if you want to know what happens next. I mean it's hardly the NUM is it?
I feel very sorry for the abandoned trainees and the impact this will have on existing staff. Bright futures all ruined by, yes, wasters.
Whose future earnings are a fraction of what they were due to massive pressure to reduce costs to maintain an unstable business model. Pay peanuts, get monkeys. I am old enough to remember when airlines had their wn ground handling staff who were empowered to do things to help you. Now we get a shrug from a young person on minimum wage employed by Menzies or Servisair for a few years until they tire of being screamed at by hacked off punters. Cost effective?
Yup.