Aer Lingus - 6
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cork
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Aer Lingus wish to operate with a crew of 4 and are legally allowed to do so, what business is it of the union? That's crazy stuff altogether. They should take it up with the IAA if they have a problem.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing new here. I hope that EI management will hold firm and that, once and for all, this shower of wasters will be put in their place. The bloody cheek of them! If I tried to dictate to my boss on what terms I would work I'd be thrown out the door in a flash. You can't run any business like that.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The union is trying to look after their members, that's what they're there for. I'm no union loving lefty, far from it, but terms and conditions are collapsing across the industry. At some point, enough is enough. Working with substantially less manpower on each flight may be legal, but that's 20% less than the competition use so we'd be the first to whine about service levels no doubt.
I think we've cut the fat of the former nationalised company, now, as people tend to do, they're taking it too far.
I think we've cut the fat of the former nationalised company, now, as people tend to do, they're taking it too far.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'd be on the route year round if it weren't for the logistical problems that develop when it runs late. Hard to keep LHR on schedule when there are only 320's as back up aircraft particularly when it's heavily booked.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Home
Posts: 1,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective of the unions v company debate, I cannot understand why EI are so determined to operate T/A with legal minimum crew when all other airlines with similar equipment operate presumably profitable with 5+ crew.
I appreciate certain airlines operate 189 seat aircraft with 4 crew on inter-European routes that are not far off the duration of the proposed EI flights. However, the expectations of T/A pax are totally different to even the longest inter-European flight.
I appreciate certain airlines operate 189 seat aircraft with 4 crew on inter-European routes that are not far off the duration of the proposed EI flights. However, the expectations of T/A pax are totally different to even the longest inter-European flight.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in a house
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with TSR2 on this point......
EI are trying to ensure their are the main airline on Ireland-USA routes. How can they ensure they achieve this position if they are operating B757's with 1/3 less crew which then means a lower service level onboard. Whats the config? 12/170? I know another airline which has 189 and 4 crew......
5 crew ensure situations onboard can be handled without stopping service. (Anytime I have seen an ill pax onboard an aircraft it usually takes 2 crew to deal with the issue)
If I was a UA/DL/US passenger the offering from EI would not really interest me.
EI are trying to ensure their are the main airline on Ireland-USA routes. How can they ensure they achieve this position if they are operating B757's with 1/3 less crew which then means a lower service level onboard. Whats the config? 12/170? I know another airline which has 189 and 4 crew......
5 crew ensure situations onboard can be handled without stopping service. (Anytime I have seen an ill pax onboard an aircraft it usually takes 2 crew to deal with the issue)
If I was a UA/DL/US passenger the offering from EI would not really interest me.
DB
while I agree with some of your post, why would an airline ramp up CC numbers to cope with occasional events?
T/A services may very well be purchased on a different basis to European short haul, but price is still a factor for passengers as is maximising the long term profitability of the route to the airline.
I haven't flow EI T/A since 2006 (I haven't flown anyone T/A since 2006) but generally on all long haul (not just EI) I do recall noticing the amount of time CC seemed to spend not involved in any visible service related task. Outside of the tasks related to the meal and shopping services, they do appeared to sit around at the back of the cabin chatting. Now, there's nothing wrong with that and I'm not suggesting staff don't deserve a break, but on an aircraft (just like the aircraft itself), if they're not generating revenue then they're a cost (in essence, for the proportion of the flight that CC are not active then from an accounting perspective they could be viewed as Pax/weight that the airline is paying for).
I know that might sound harsh and it's not intended to, merely to point out that from a process analysis and "bean counter" perspective, that's how you'd view the crewing arrangement. For a business deciding to sell on price it's simple, reduce the cost, improve the margin and/or give yourself room to cut fares.
Management assess whether the product on offer would be improved by one additional crew member ... if so, how many more Pax will it attract and/or how much more would each Pax be prepared to pay for that marginal increase .. .and if you do it what are the cost implication? If there's no demonstrable benefit to the bottom line, then why do it?
JAS
while I agree with some of your post, why would an airline ramp up CC numbers to cope with occasional events?
T/A services may very well be purchased on a different basis to European short haul, but price is still a factor for passengers as is maximising the long term profitability of the route to the airline.
I haven't flow EI T/A since 2006 (I haven't flown anyone T/A since 2006) but generally on all long haul (not just EI) I do recall noticing the amount of time CC seemed to spend not involved in any visible service related task. Outside of the tasks related to the meal and shopping services, they do appeared to sit around at the back of the cabin chatting. Now, there's nothing wrong with that and I'm not suggesting staff don't deserve a break, but on an aircraft (just like the aircraft itself), if they're not generating revenue then they're a cost (in essence, for the proportion of the flight that CC are not active then from an accounting perspective they could be viewed as Pax/weight that the airline is paying for).
I know that might sound harsh and it's not intended to, merely to point out that from a process analysis and "bean counter" perspective, that's how you'd view the crewing arrangement. For a business deciding to sell on price it's simple, reduce the cost, improve the margin and/or give yourself room to cut fares.
Management assess whether the product on offer would be improved by one additional crew member ... if so, how many more Pax will it attract and/or how much more would each Pax be prepared to pay for that marginal increase .. .and if you do it what are the cost implication? If there's no demonstrable benefit to the bottom line, then why do it?
JAS
Last edited by Just a spotter; 10th Oct 2013 at 11:39.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cork
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JAS has it right in my view, service level is the decision of the airline, not the cabin crew or union. Obviously 1-2 less crew members is going to affect onboard operations, so clearly EI have made a choice that that's the way they want to go. Definitely not a reason to be balloting for strike action.
Last edited by widebody69; 10th Oct 2013 at 12:38.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah don't you just love Unions looking after the welfare of people ...............course there are now 30 people who just may not feel a union is for them.
It's not worded as "Would you like to work long haul with the smallest compliment of B757 cabin crew on the North Atlantic?"
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 10th Oct 2013 at 12:57.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,625
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I stop to think some more about it it may well suggest that EI management have been taking a calculated gamble on this one knowing for sure the existing cabin crew would not agree to the four cabin crew arrangment which in turn allows them to hand it over to the subcontractor. I feel most sorry for the young boys and girls now turned away from new jobs and whom it seems had their uniforms issued as well. Imagine how hurtful that must be to anyone but especially to the young ladies involved whom were hired for the job. You would be in despair for them.
If EI had hired crew whom were willing to give the four crew a go, well, just let them at it and see how it goes. Why do the based crew at snn have to get involved - it seems it has little to do with them. Yes, I accept all the other airlines involved crew with five or more cabin crew but if four crew is legal that on one level that should be the end of it if the new crew involved are trained and prepared to give it a go, so to speak.
Aer Lingus will know soon enough if there are problems emerging.
If EI had hired crew whom were willing to give the four crew a go, well, just let them at it and see how it goes. Why do the based crew at snn have to get involved - it seems it has little to do with them. Yes, I accept all the other airlines involved crew with five or more cabin crew but if four crew is legal that on one level that should be the end of it if the new crew involved are trained and prepared to give it a go, so to speak.
Aer Lingus will know soon enough if there are problems emerging.
Last edited by Tom the Tenor; 10th Oct 2013 at 13:45.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If EI had hired crew whom were willing to give the four crew a go, well, just let them at it and see how it goes. Why do the based crew at snn have to get involved - it seems it has little to do with them.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The plan was to have the 757 flights operated by SNN crew, including the DUB-YYZ. The A330 is 8 cabin crew - minumum crew levels for that aircraft, so Im not really sure what the argument is for 5 on the 757. Safetly has not ben mentioned, so I don't think that is the problem.
I would have thought that with 5 crew there would have been two crew looking after business, one in the galley one doing the service and helping in Y with tea and coffee and three in the main cabin. I'm not sure how the current J service could be delivered in a timely manner to even 12 seats, unless they plan on having just 2 crew look after Y?
I would have thought that with 5 crew there would have been two crew looking after business, one in the galley one doing the service and helping in Y with tea and coffee and three in the main cabin. I'm not sure how the current J service could be delivered in a timely manner to even 12 seats, unless they plan on having just 2 crew look after Y?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8 cabin crew on the A330-300 deal with average of 40 passengers.
4 cabin crew on the B757-200 deal with average of 43 passengers.
Flights won't have 100% LF all the time. All EI flights have min crew on aircraft and service levels don't suffer. This is a non issue and as usual unions don't want staff to actually do a decent days work.
It will only be a matter of time before US carriers are forced to cut costs and become more efficient if they want to remain viable between US and Europe. Fuel, airport charges and Government taxes are only going one way and passenger income is in most cases going the other and the gap will have to be reduced at some point.
For all the extra CC on some US carriers, service levels leave a lot to be desired.
4 cabin crew on the B757-200 deal with average of 43 passengers.
Flights won't have 100% LF all the time. All EI flights have min crew on aircraft and service levels don't suffer. This is a non issue and as usual unions don't want staff to actually do a decent days work.
It will only be a matter of time before US carriers are forced to cut costs and become more efficient if they want to remain viable between US and Europe. Fuel, airport charges and Government taxes are only going one way and passenger income is in most cases going the other and the gap will have to be reduced at some point.
For all the extra CC on some US carriers, service levels leave a lot to be desired.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a whole range of issues at play in the wider EI IR environment at the moment and the decision by CC to ballot for industrial action should be viewed in this context. Whilst I don't share the CC's grievances over the proposed crewing level, it should be noted that this comes at a time when a myriad of other outstanding issues are set to come to a head.
I suspect the ballot results will strongly reflect the discontent that has been steadily growing in the section over the past number of months.
On a side note - a poster above referred to crew as a "shower of wasters". I fail to see how such remarks add value to the debate.
I suspect the ballot results will strongly reflect the discontent that has been steadily growing in the section over the past number of months.
On a side note - a poster above referred to crew as a "shower of wasters". I fail to see how such remarks add value to the debate.
Last edited by EI320; 10th Oct 2013 at 21:41.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EI320
Look at it this way if unions are not prepared to adapt to change then there will be no work for then as routes will close and aircraft sold on as losses will mount. EI crew are in a very good place compared to other national flag carriers.
Look at it this way if unions are not prepared to adapt to change then there will be no work for then as routes will close and aircraft sold on as losses will mount. EI crew are in a very good place compared to other national flag carriers.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Ireland
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm taking an objective view, EI-A330-300.
EI CC have shown their willingness to adapt time and time again. They continue to adapt, as all staff must.
I repeat: I do not share the CC's grievance over the crewing levels. However, I believe there are other elements of the 757 proposal that, if true, CC would be understandably concerned about. Do these issues warrant industrial action? That would be a matter of opinion.
IR disputes are rarely black and white and this is certainly no exception. Both sides must shoulder some of the blame for allowing the situation to reach this point.
EI CC have shown their willingness to adapt time and time again. They continue to adapt, as all staff must.
I repeat: I do not share the CC's grievance over the crewing levels. However, I believe there are other elements of the 757 proposal that, if true, CC would be understandably concerned about. Do these issues warrant industrial action? That would be a matter of opinion.
IR disputes are rarely black and white and this is certainly no exception. Both sides must shoulder some of the blame for allowing the situation to reach this point.
Last edited by EI320; 10th Oct 2013 at 22:08.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a side note - a poster above referred to crew as a "shower of wasters". I fail to see how such remarks add value to the debate.
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 but they're still living in the past and think they have a stranglehold on everything that moves. That's why it is essential that the management holds firm and shows them that they haven't. I feel very sorry for the abandoned trainees and the impact this will have on existing staff. Bright futures all ruined by, yes, wasters.