Aer Lingus suspend their poster girl..
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I wrote in the heat of the moment! And left out pilots, you do know they are behind cabin crew 100%?! I know only the ground staff got migration pay off. And that is exactly my point! Cabin crew got nothing apart from their conditions taken off them and numerous pay cuts and pay freezes.
Thats what all this is about! I am sure CABIN CREW WILL WIN THIS ONE!
Thats what all this is about! I am sure CABIN CREW WILL WIN THIS ONE!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ireland
Age: 52
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well let's see, cabin crew were the only group to vote against the Greenfield plan. We could suppose that it was because of a certain militancy amongst Cabin Crew. More realistically they were probably lead to believe by the union that a better deal could be obtained.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe, but the blame still lies with the union to a large degree. My experience with being involved in union disputes is that many people have an unrealistic view of what's possible. The union's job is to reign in that attitude and bring people around to more realistic options.
This they have failed to do and when you look at their rather timorous response to this ongoing situation. You have to wonder what they are playing at.
Despite Delta Oscar's optimism the Cabin Crew won't win this.
This they have failed to do and when you look at their rather timorous response to this ongoing situation. You have to wonder what they are playing at.
Despite Delta Oscar's optimism the Cabin Crew won't win this.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in the toilet
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's disgraceful...A quick legality issue...I suppose Ms Walsh couldn't demand they remove her image from the billboard now that she's been "removed from the payroll",can she?
If it was me, I'd be INFURIATED!
(PS: for what its worth, I think Ms Walsh is incredibly beautiful too!)
If it was me, I'd be INFURIATED!
(PS: for what its worth, I think Ms Walsh is incredibly beautiful too!)
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear!
To Corsair et al - you seem to have falling into the Union busters trap... many companies at the moment from all sorts of industries are doing it... all hiding behind ''economic reality''
Sooner or later if this apathetic attitude continues we will be back to how life was before Unions.
I am by no means saying that Unions are perfect, but it seems people are more willing to accept impositions and rubbish working conditions and excessive cuts all because the companies hide behind the ''current economic reality'' line.
The cabin crew are 100% right to stand up in my opinon. I don't know the full story but EI seem to be totally immoral!
To Corsair et al - you seem to have falling into the Union busters trap... many companies at the moment from all sorts of industries are doing it... all hiding behind ''economic reality''
Sooner or later if this apathetic attitude continues we will be back to how life was before Unions.
I am by no means saying that Unions are perfect, but it seems people are more willing to accept impositions and rubbish working conditions and excessive cuts all because the companies hide behind the ''current economic reality'' line.
The cabin crew are 100% right to stand up in my opinon. I don't know the full story but EI seem to be totally immoral!
PPRuNe Engineering Dept Apprentice
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Deep in the boglands of Western Ireland
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the ground in DUB:
I reckon that this is micro-management at its worst, but it isn't a matter of CC "winning" or "losing". We need common sense to prevail, and at the moment neither side of this dispute is displaying it. IMPACT arent doing anything to try and get the public on-side, and management are taking micro-management too far and not being flexible.
Losers both.
I reckon that this is micro-management at its worst, but it isn't a matter of CC "winning" or "losing". We need common sense to prevail, and at the moment neither side of this dispute is displaying it. IMPACT arent doing anything to try and get the public on-side, and management are taking micro-management too far and not being flexible.
Losers both.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Premium crew, like it or not that's the new reality. Other unions and staff in Aer Lingus accepted this reality, for some reason Cabin Crew haven't.
Unions have only themselves to blame. The screwed the system for years to the detriment of jobs and profits.
As for economic conditions being used as cover, that's not quite true. This has been ongoing for some time and in part is a consequence of unions misusing their position. We won't be returning to the days before unions. I've worked in several non union companies. Most except for a certain other Irish airline go out of their way to keep employees happy simply because it's in the best interests of the company itself. Disgruntled employees are bad for business.
Unions have only themselves to blame. The screwed the system for years to the detriment of jobs and profits.
As for economic conditions being used as cover, that's not quite true. This has been ongoing for some time and in part is a consequence of unions misusing their position. We won't be returning to the days before unions. I've worked in several non union companies. Most except for a certain other Irish airline go out of their way to keep employees happy simply because it's in the best interests of the company itself. Disgruntled employees are bad for business.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ireland
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corsair, you may have missed the recent Aer Arann thread, as I doubt that they are 'the certain other Irish airline' you are talking about.
In my experience, airlines with no unions only need to keep the majority of people happy. Good luck to Aer Lingus cabin crew.
P.S. Are you sure it's a union bust? Aer Lingus just spent 25mill so employees could be issued shares. That'll keep them fed (and EI's bank account bleeding) for a while.
In my experience, airlines with no unions only need to keep the majority of people happy. Good luck to Aer Lingus cabin crew.
P.S. Are you sure it's a union bust? Aer Lingus just spent 25mill so employees could be issued shares. That'll keep them fed (and EI's bank account bleeding) for a while.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no stake in this either way, but the following reality check is required for staff complaining about "having a life":
"Aer Lingus’ total booked passenger numbers in December 2010 were 572,000, a decrease of 25.3% compared to December 2009, the airline said.
Short haul booked passengers were 504,000, a 27.3% decrease on December 2009 while long haul booked passengers in December 2010 were 68,000, a decrease of 6.8% on December 2009."
With numbers like that, it doesn't take 7 years in university to realise that you would be more concerned about feeding the kids shortly, rather than "having a life". With due respect to crew, everyone who is still working in private business in Ireland these days is working very hard. Everything, as usual, is relative.
"Aer Lingus’ total booked passenger numbers in December 2010 were 572,000, a decrease of 25.3% compared to December 2009, the airline said.
Short haul booked passengers were 504,000, a 27.3% decrease on December 2009 while long haul booked passengers in December 2010 were 68,000, a decrease of 6.8% on December 2009."
With numbers like that, it doesn't take 7 years in university to realise that you would be more concerned about feeding the kids shortly, rather than "having a life". With due respect to crew, everyone who is still working in private business in Ireland these days is working very hard. Everything, as usual, is relative.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am glad that this thread has gained some traction. To my mind, i've learned more from the contributions on these two pages than I have from a fortnight of broadsheet and national broadcaster coverage on the subject.
I'm truly glad that a forum such as this exists where the truth can be sorted from the spin and sensible debate can prevail. With that said, I'd like to contribute to the debate based on what those affected by the changes have revealed.
The Irish economy is truly in a weak state and to echo the sentiments of the previous poster, those of us employed in private companies are undoubtedly working harder and for less pay (and paying more taxes too) to try to hold on to the jobs we have. In that context, and with Ryanair and the major US carriers competing eith EI for a share of contracting markets (in passenger numbers and importantly, yields) cabin crew should expect to have to work harder.
Clearly they have agreed to do so under the Greenfield plan, so I think we should focus on what the roster changes mean to the workers and to establish whether they are in fact, reasonable changes to working conditions, or, whether they are so disruptive and unreasonable as to be unworkable.
The aggregate numbers don't seem to bad on the face of it. It was mentioned that flight hours have increased by 100 hours, with 850 flight hours equating to about 1900 duty hours. So, a ratio of 2.1:1 duty to flight hours. At that ratio, the additional 100 flight hours mean about 210 extra duty hours. Assuming you do get 2 rostered days off per 7 days, and assuming you get 20 days leave, 9 days bank holidays, that leaves a working days of 232 per annum. so, the changes mean about an extra hour duty per working day. To me, that doesn't seem wildly unreasonable and over the 232 days works out as 8.5 hours duty per day. Obviously there will be peaks and troughs to average that out, and having worked shifts, including 16 hour shifts previously, I can appreciate how tiring long duty days can be, but it does average out over time.
A ban on requesting weekdays off appears outrageous. I think the entitlement to one rostered weekend off per 8 weeks was it, is perfectly reasonable and I would certainly resist those changes.
The double duty London, Paris, Amsterdam example was cited as a change and i'm afraid to my mind, that appears completely reasonable. Yes, it is a 10 or 11h duty day, but is that not fair enough? That alternative is needing one crew per return duty to short range European destinations, and that seems uneconomic to me in the times we live in.
One poster also cited the minimum Atlantic rest as 12 hours and that a crew member could conceivable work the outbound New York on one day and operate the return duty the same night. Given the published EI timetable for NY flights, I don't see how this is possible. Arriving at 13.15 into JFK, the crew would be first available for duty no sooner than 01.15 (with the next flight departing at 17.40) or if they arrive at 18.15 the crew would be available no sooner than 06.15 with the next flight departing at 17.40. so it appears that though the minimum rest is 12hours, assuming the flights operate to timetable, then the actual rest is likely to be closer to 20 hours - 24 hours. It seems to be that the minimum rest change has been designed to cope with disruption to the schedule so that if a crew is later into JFK but the next days flight is expected to depart on time, then they can operate the return leg on time and EI don't have to delay the JFK departure to abide a 24 hour minimum rest rule. That does seem reasonable to me.
Regarding the 3 hour alteration to a duty day - this could go either way. If that is again designed with flexibility in mind so that if the planned flights get badly delayed then the reporting crew can be asked to operate the flights they were expected to (albeit that they'll start 3 hours later and finish 3 hours later) this appears reasonable to me, as delays of that magnitude should be the exception rather than the rule. If of course it's going to become the norm, that you report at 0500 only to be told to come back at 0800 on a regular basis, then that's obviously going to be unworkable, but it strikes me that it's designed with the former rather than the latter in mind.
regarding meal breaks, i'm not familiar with how this operates, but it seems reasonable to me that crew should be allowed to take 30 mins for a meal after 6 hours, or 6.5 hours of duty. However, can the crew take this meal break whilst operating, i.e. in flight? Would staggered meal breaks throughout the day not achieve this, i.e. one crew member down the back on break during one segment of the flight? not sure of the practicalities of this but are management really expecting crew not to consume one iota of food from reporting for duty and finishing duty 10, or 12 hours later? Surely common sense can prevail here. I would be opposed to the idea that the turn around should be delayed by a minimum of 30 minutes for one sector of the day as all crew down tools together for a meal break, but surely this isn't the case and a commonsense solution can be easily negotiated, designed and implemented?
I've read Corsair's posts alluding to the fact that the union was simply playing hardball to get a better deal for it's members. Is this actually a substantive part of the issue? I know that all ground staff got a circa E30k minimum pay off and it's been mentioned that flight crew and cabin crew got nothing (the ground staff deal struck me as ludicrous as the time, what could be one years salary for a person with only two years service is a bit over the top is it not) so are cabin crew just looking for a pay off in lieu of the roster changes being imposed considering ground staff got a sweet deal?
Having read what i've read, there are certainly some legitimate grievances that cabin crew have but it strikes me that they should be resolved through negotiation (tweak the 3 hour duty change rule so that it can only be implemented x times per annum in order to prevent it being abused and to ensure that it's only used for what I suspect to be it's intended purpose of enabling flexibility to operate the schedule in the event of delays, negotiate an agreeable meal breaks entitlement - is it not illegal to deny a worker the right to a break under the organization of working time act???).
The work to rule is resulting in members being removed from the payroll and I think that some mechanism needs to be found to enable crew to return to work (perhaps operating the new rosters on a trial basis to see are they really going to be as bad as they're being made out to be) with a review process after x number of weeks.
This strikes me as a situation where common sense can prevail. There seems to be a lot of reference to management almost as the enemy. I don't think that all managers in EI are making CEO money, and most are probably on reasonable salaries and are just as concerned with their continued employment as the crew, and are making changes to the rosters designed to ensure the continued ability of the company to generate cash with which to pay their salaries.
I'm truly glad that a forum such as this exists where the truth can be sorted from the spin and sensible debate can prevail. With that said, I'd like to contribute to the debate based on what those affected by the changes have revealed.
The Irish economy is truly in a weak state and to echo the sentiments of the previous poster, those of us employed in private companies are undoubtedly working harder and for less pay (and paying more taxes too) to try to hold on to the jobs we have. In that context, and with Ryanair and the major US carriers competing eith EI for a share of contracting markets (in passenger numbers and importantly, yields) cabin crew should expect to have to work harder.
Clearly they have agreed to do so under the Greenfield plan, so I think we should focus on what the roster changes mean to the workers and to establish whether they are in fact, reasonable changes to working conditions, or, whether they are so disruptive and unreasonable as to be unworkable.
The aggregate numbers don't seem to bad on the face of it. It was mentioned that flight hours have increased by 100 hours, with 850 flight hours equating to about 1900 duty hours. So, a ratio of 2.1:1 duty to flight hours. At that ratio, the additional 100 flight hours mean about 210 extra duty hours. Assuming you do get 2 rostered days off per 7 days, and assuming you get 20 days leave, 9 days bank holidays, that leaves a working days of 232 per annum. so, the changes mean about an extra hour duty per working day. To me, that doesn't seem wildly unreasonable and over the 232 days works out as 8.5 hours duty per day. Obviously there will be peaks and troughs to average that out, and having worked shifts, including 16 hour shifts previously, I can appreciate how tiring long duty days can be, but it does average out over time.
A ban on requesting weekdays off appears outrageous. I think the entitlement to one rostered weekend off per 8 weeks was it, is perfectly reasonable and I would certainly resist those changes.
The double duty London, Paris, Amsterdam example was cited as a change and i'm afraid to my mind, that appears completely reasonable. Yes, it is a 10 or 11h duty day, but is that not fair enough? That alternative is needing one crew per return duty to short range European destinations, and that seems uneconomic to me in the times we live in.
One poster also cited the minimum Atlantic rest as 12 hours and that a crew member could conceivable work the outbound New York on one day and operate the return duty the same night. Given the published EI timetable for NY flights, I don't see how this is possible. Arriving at 13.15 into JFK, the crew would be first available for duty no sooner than 01.15 (with the next flight departing at 17.40) or if they arrive at 18.15 the crew would be available no sooner than 06.15 with the next flight departing at 17.40. so it appears that though the minimum rest is 12hours, assuming the flights operate to timetable, then the actual rest is likely to be closer to 20 hours - 24 hours. It seems to be that the minimum rest change has been designed to cope with disruption to the schedule so that if a crew is later into JFK but the next days flight is expected to depart on time, then they can operate the return leg on time and EI don't have to delay the JFK departure to abide a 24 hour minimum rest rule. That does seem reasonable to me.
Regarding the 3 hour alteration to a duty day - this could go either way. If that is again designed with flexibility in mind so that if the planned flights get badly delayed then the reporting crew can be asked to operate the flights they were expected to (albeit that they'll start 3 hours later and finish 3 hours later) this appears reasonable to me, as delays of that magnitude should be the exception rather than the rule. If of course it's going to become the norm, that you report at 0500 only to be told to come back at 0800 on a regular basis, then that's obviously going to be unworkable, but it strikes me that it's designed with the former rather than the latter in mind.
regarding meal breaks, i'm not familiar with how this operates, but it seems reasonable to me that crew should be allowed to take 30 mins for a meal after 6 hours, or 6.5 hours of duty. However, can the crew take this meal break whilst operating, i.e. in flight? Would staggered meal breaks throughout the day not achieve this, i.e. one crew member down the back on break during one segment of the flight? not sure of the practicalities of this but are management really expecting crew not to consume one iota of food from reporting for duty and finishing duty 10, or 12 hours later? Surely common sense can prevail here. I would be opposed to the idea that the turn around should be delayed by a minimum of 30 minutes for one sector of the day as all crew down tools together for a meal break, but surely this isn't the case and a commonsense solution can be easily negotiated, designed and implemented?
I've read Corsair's posts alluding to the fact that the union was simply playing hardball to get a better deal for it's members. Is this actually a substantive part of the issue? I know that all ground staff got a circa E30k minimum pay off and it's been mentioned that flight crew and cabin crew got nothing (the ground staff deal struck me as ludicrous as the time, what could be one years salary for a person with only two years service is a bit over the top is it not) so are cabin crew just looking for a pay off in lieu of the roster changes being imposed considering ground staff got a sweet deal?
Having read what i've read, there are certainly some legitimate grievances that cabin crew have but it strikes me that they should be resolved through negotiation (tweak the 3 hour duty change rule so that it can only be implemented x times per annum in order to prevent it being abused and to ensure that it's only used for what I suspect to be it's intended purpose of enabling flexibility to operate the schedule in the event of delays, negotiate an agreeable meal breaks entitlement - is it not illegal to deny a worker the right to a break under the organization of working time act???).
The work to rule is resulting in members being removed from the payroll and I think that some mechanism needs to be found to enable crew to return to work (perhaps operating the new rosters on a trial basis to see are they really going to be as bad as they're being made out to be) with a review process after x number of weeks.
This strikes me as a situation where common sense can prevail. There seems to be a lot of reference to management almost as the enemy. I don't think that all managers in EI are making CEO money, and most are probably on reasonable salaries and are just as concerned with their continued employment as the crew, and are making changes to the rosters designed to ensure the continued ability of the company to generate cash with which to pay their salaries.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's an interesting assessment of the roster. All this talk of family life being destroyed just struck me over the top and more of a soundbyte than reality. After all no one has actually worked the roster. Having worked rosters and shifts over the years. I know that the practical application often differs from written down. It does seem to be designed to cover the exceptions, the delays and force majeure.
If that's an accurate assessment in any way. It simply confirms my belief the union have been misleading it's members. The management don't care. They are just turning the screw.
If that's an accurate assessment in any way. It simply confirms my belief the union have been misleading it's members. The management don't care. They are just turning the screw.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Dublin
Age: 60
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair Staff on Aer Lingus Aircraft
I believe Ryanair cabin staff have been hired in by Aer Lingus to work on their Airbus aircraft. Seeing that Ryanair only use Boeing 737's, are these people qualified to work on an Airbus as it is a completely different plane?
When you qualify as cabin crew, does your qualification only apply to one type of aircraft or do you have to do additional training to work other types of aircraft?
When you qualify as cabin crew, does your qualification only apply to one type of aircraft or do you have to do additional training to work other types of aircraft?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UIP : 4° 10’ 0” W, 47° 58’ 0” N
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair cabin crew are not working on Aer Lingus aircraft. They'd have to go thru full training for the aircraft which takes time and that's only from a safety point of view. It would be the same if Aer Lingus crew were to go working for Ryanair. That's a poor rumour that needs to be knocked on the head now. 
As regards the other question about training for an aircraft. The short answer is that all aircraft are different and cabin crew need to train up on each individual type as the location and use of certain safety and emergency equipment and door types are different. A B737 is so different to a A320 as is a B777 to a A330. Perhaps to the average Joe Public, on first glance, there is no difference but there most definitely is.
As regards the other question about training for an aircraft. The short answer is that all aircraft are different and cabin crew need to train up on each individual type as the location and use of certain safety and emergency equipment and door types are different. A B737 is so different to a A320 as is a B777 to a A330. Perhaps to the average Joe Public, on first glance, there is no difference but there most definitely is.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: in the toilet
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EISNN, just out of interest, how long would this type of conversion training take? Obviously all aspects of safety equipment location and operation, exit layout,galley functions etc would have to be covered? Must be fairly intensive to ensure total familiarisation?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UIP : 4° 10’ 0” W, 47° 58’ 0” N
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I remember it was approx 2/3 weeks initial training per aircraft. There are requirements set down by the IAA and the same is said for the CAA and the FAA. In fact I remember when EI operated a wet leased American MD11 (World Airways I think) which flew from SNN to JFK for four years during the peak Summer seasons. The cabin crew were required to follow an initial MD-11 course for three weeks. Just for that aircraft. The following years they were required to follow just a four or five day refresher course. Similarly EI wet leased an L10-11 from a UK company and the crew had to follow a similar course for a similar length of time. There are set out procedures/curriculums to ensure that every part of the aircraft is known, what each piece of equipment does and how it works and if god forbid there was an evacuation that the crew know exactly what to do and when to do it. Before the crew are signed off/certified they must do at least one familiarisation flight that lasts at least one hour 30 mins as an extra crew member to observe and ensure that they understand the workings of the aircraft - as required by all aviation authorities although times may vary.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sunny Berkshire
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reports that the dispute is on hold pending an independant arbitrators investigation. BUSINESS WORLD - Aer Lingus crew dispute resolved
