Aer Lingus at it again......

maggy_thatcher

youcancallme>al wrote: »

What does code share mean?

It means the flight has two (or more) flight numbers, with a different companies carrier. For example, all British Midland flights between Dublin and London also have a Lufthansa and United Airlines flight number associated with them. This means a UA customer can buy a single ticket from Chicago to Dublin via London on a United Airlines ticket, getting UA airmiles, baggage through-checked etc.

Aer Lingus have code-shares with BA, UA and KL. They also have "through ticket" arrangements with a bunch of other airlines, but it seems frequently the staff in check-in won't do it even though they can.

dymonaz

Bluetonic wrote: »

Can they keep making business decisions and when they don't work out chop staff?

From where I sit, Aer Lingus are not obliged to provide jobs to anyone (except where it could break existing laws/contracts). So, the workers should get over it and deal with it. Are you obliged to buy that big plasma telly? No, you're not. Aer Lingus doesn't have to buy the workforce. Should TV shop owners declare a "strike" on you just because you don't buy THEIR tellies? Now that wouldn't work, would it? I wonder if car insurance companies will go on strike, if I choose not to drive anymore, because I can't afford it...

Why don't all these people try to go and establish their own airline(s) and see how much salaries can they pay. It's easy to demand something which does not belong to you.

It's just business and survival of the fitest.

brick tamland

Right, getting away from all the name calling and what not

does anyone have any info on how likley this strike is to go ahead?

poppysquirrel

Hey all,

I am due to fly out to New York (JFK) on December 8th , and have two hours in JFK to catch a connecting flight with American Airlines down to Florida, and my return flight is December 20th, arriving Dublin December 21st.

I called Aerlingus (or Aer-Fungus as I would be more inclined to call them after all this typical mess) and was told that if I were to cancel my flight, i would get back a grand total of €65, out of the €594 i paid. And if the strike was to go ahead, I would be put on standby for the next availbale flight WITH AER LINGUS. Now, if there was a strike going on, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY AER LINGUS FLIGHTS! Anyway, I left it at that.

My friend whom booked a similar flight through a travel agens (with Aer Lingus also) was told that the reason that Aer Lingus have such low taxes on their flights are for this ver reason. USually the fare is low and the taxes are high.

I called Aer Lingus again yesterday and this time got a more talkative customer service rep who assured me that nothing was definate as regards the strike, that a notice has been served. She then said that, if their strike was to go ahead, it would begin on November 24th, as outlined in their notice, and at best would only be work stoppages i.e. for 3/4 hours, so flights would at worst be delayed.

ALso, she assured me that the dates on which I am travelling should not be afftected by any industrial actions. As between November 24th and December 8th, something would definately be sorted.

So, in my panic the other day I checked alternative flights but all are not feasible for my travel times, so My plan is to hold tough. As with the past 4 or 5 years, there has been an Aerlingus strike threatening every year, and none have gone ahead. Surely the government will step in, if not for the sake of 100's or 1000's familys travelling home for CHristmas.

Good luck to everyone travelling with Aerlingus. Hold tough is what I would say. The employees/unions are not going to get the backing of the public on this one. Like any other sector/industry in this recession, cutbacks have to be made. I'm sure we all know someone who has been effected from this global downturn , whether in construction/engineering etc. Why should AerLingus employees remain immune to all this? Deal with it, and stop trying to bully the airline into keepin you on, you are only hurting innocent parties. I hope all you Union reps/aer lingus staff know how it feels to be unable to see family travelling home for Christmas, or have travel plans ruined from this kinda crap sometime, then see how you feel.

godtabh

Bluetonic wrote: »

I should of course said they have been making massive profits, any projected losses this year still leave them with a big pot in the bank

With logic like that it can’t go wrong.

None of this is sustainable as in actions and products that meet current needs without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet theirs.

How does that fit in with your theory of hard working aer lingus staff and their families?

Bluetonic

kearnsr wrote: »

How does that fit in with your theory of hard working aer lingus staff and their families?

What theory was that?

Bluetonic

poppysquirrel wrote: »

I hope all you Union reps/aer lingus staff know how it feels to be unable to see family travelling home for Christmas, or have travel plans ruined from this kinda crap sometime, then see how you feel.

There is an irony there.

Voipjunkie

To be honest it is hard to feel sorry for any of you

Such a bunch of self centred I'm alright merchants you don't give a **** about anyone but yourselves.

The reason why there has been so much disruption over the last couple of years is because the management of this company keep getting their pound of flesh and coming back for more.

Its Irish Ferries part 2 they want to get rid of the people who built it into a successful airline and get the cheapest labour they can find.

This was all premised on the price of oil being $150 a barrel it is now below 60 so they claim they have to absorb the new travel tax they will in their arse absorb it.

Anyone with an ounce of decency will support the Aer lingus workers against the unwarranted attack on their jobs.

BTW I don't work for them nor does any of my family and I have a flight booked for the 7th of December with them.

Climate Expert

Anyone with an ounce of decency will support the Aer lingus workers against the unwarranted attack on their jobs.

]
hahah, its their job now. The world doesn't owe them a job for life.

If I was in charge of AL I'd make half the staff redundant on the minimum payment tomorrow. Then get in younger, cheaper foreign staff and build the company up again without union influence.

Stark

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Its Irish Ferries part 2 they want to get rid of the people who built it into a successful airline and get the cheapest labour they can find.

Oh boohoo. I'm sure working for union-inflated wages all these years was a huge sacrifice for them. Irish Ferries part deux or Irish Rail part deux?

MrEko

Voipjunkie wrote: »

To be honest it is hard to feel sorry for any of you

Such a bunch of self centred I'm alright merchants you don't give a **** about anyone but yourselves.

Yes, because the threat of strikes and disruptions to our trips, holidays, and family visits really should make us stop and think 'Aww, the poor little unions and their poor workers.'

You say we dont give a toss about anyone but ourselves but how does what we are doing here differ any bit from what they are threatening to do? Summer and Christmas, what do they have in common? Aer Lingus workers threatening to strike over something, thats what. They do it every year and its gotten old.

Sea Devils

Voipjunkie wrote: »

To be honest it is hard to feel sorry for any of you

Such a bunch of self centred I'm alright merchants you don't give a **** about anyone but yourselves.

Yeah you're right. The very notion of people having the gaul to be upset over the possible disruptions caused to flights that they recently booked or have had booked for a long time is disgraceful.

Sarcasm

ixoy

According to a report on RTE, they've been getting 8% pay increases per year for the last 3 years. The sob story keeps growing...

FlutterinBantam

ixoy wrote: »

According to a report on RTE, they've been getting 8% pay increases per year for the last 3 years. The sob story keeps growing...

I don't think that's true.

Red Sleeping Beauty

MrEko wrote: »

Would we? I dont think I would. For Gods sake, we are facing a global recession, the country is in recession, a hell of a lot of us are not a very good position (I'm an apprentice chippy myself, my area of employment is more unstable than most). Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that companies have to do what they have to do to survive.

Aer Lingus is first and foremost a company, not a babysitter. They exist to turn a profit. The trade unions are a stubbern bunch who are as welcome to change as the Catholic Church.

As a guy who has had his ticket to Chicago booked since August to see a girlfriend he hasn't seen since then the very idea of strikes is making me sick to my stomach. I dont choose my holidays, I dont have the cash to re-book. This trip has kept me going over the past 4 months and now this.

I say f**k them. They want to screw with the ordinary consumer, an innocent party, they deserve any job losses.

You're an appretince tradesman and you've no interest in trade unions? Workers rights ? No ? That doesn't interstet you ?

If we're in such a terrible crisis then what are you people doing with fancy holidays off abroad? :rolleyes:

matsil wrote: »

I was layed off in June due to the economic down turn. I got statutory redundancy, which I am still waiting for from the CIF. No options, no golden parchutes, just thanks very much, close the door beind you. Did I whinge and moan? No. Did my colleagues go out and strike? No. Should they? No. Business was bad, my job, at the rate I was on, was unsustainable........ so I got my act together, and spent close to 18hrs a day for over a month, and got myself a new job..... not 10km from home like I used to, but 60km....... why could I find work so "easily" - well (1) I was motivated to do so, (2) I have worked hard and have a strong cv, (3) I worked my butt off to get the qualifications I have....... and (4) I was prepared to do what it takes to get employed......

Now I am guessing here, but I would say that alot of Aerlingus workers are simply unemployable...... they are essentially unskilled, underworked, underprodictive, and OVER PAID...... which iswhy they find themselves in the situation they are in: "There is also a stark productivity gap between Aer Lingus and Ryanair. Aer Lingus has around 4,000 staff and through October the airline carried 900,000 passengers. Ryanair's staff complement is 5,300 and they handled 5.3 million passengers last month. " That's about 5 times LESS productive........ and the party is now over, costs are increasing, and Aerlingus is now a sinking ship, along with many other so called "national carriers" in Europe...... so management have two choices.... go down with the ship OR drag the dinosaur that is Aerlingus into the 21st century.

Workers are faced with either accepting the golden parachute they are being offered, or else risking the entire company going to the wall and the lot of them loosing their jobs. We are in a recession. 1000's of people are out of work - 1000's of hard working people, who have been dumped, while the millionaire property developers and bankers keep their hard earned cash in the bank instead of investing (I wouldn't blame them, so would I).......

Its business.... its life..... and its necessary...... GET OVER IT........

I just hope Aerlingus stick to their guns this time, even if it means disruption to my placs..... be ruthless like O'Leary would...... in times like this, it is men like O'Leary that keep people in their jobs by running viable profitable businesses..... not muppets on the picket line getting their knickkers in a twist because the party is over...... when the players start givig the managers orders, then why is there management if the players effectively manage themselves and dictate terms......

It's men like O'Leary that got "us" into this mess. O'Leary would fire you and watch your family starve if he thought he could make a few extra quid for himself.



Lots of sour grapes around here.....

maggy_thatcher

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

It's men like O'Leary that got "us" into this mess. O'Leary would fire you and watch your family starve if he thought he could make a few extra quid for himself.
Lots of sour grapes around here.....

So given the choice -- some voluntary redundancies / early retirements, and those who want to stay still have a job and are therefore able to feed their families, or the company goes to the wall and everyone loses their job, you would choose the latter? If someone isn't prepared to work under certain conditions, what right do you have to stop somebody else from doing so? That's effectively what the unions are trying to do.

Voipjunkie

Climate Expert wrote: »

]
hahah, its their job now. The world doesn't owe them a job for life.

If I was in charge of AL I'd make half the staff redundant on the minimum payment tomorrow. Then get in younger, cheaper foreign staff and build the company up again without union influence.

Aer Lingus owes them a bit of loyalty for the years of service.

Honestly the type of society that would exist if you Micheal O'leary wannabes were allowed to run things would be some hell hole.

There is more to life to profit

Stark

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

You're an appretince tradesman and you've no interest in trade unions? Workers rights ? No ? That doesn't interstet you ?

It's been a long time since workers were working 80+ hours a week in squalid conditions on subsistence pay. The modern trade union only serves to make things comfortable for a select group of members at the expense of everyone else.

alan_dune wrote:

It's men like O'Leary that got "us" into this mess. O'Leary would fire you and watch your family starve if he thought he could make a few extra quid for himself.

Lots of sour grapes around here.....

I'd lose my job/get a pay reduction too if my salary exceeded my worth. I don't expect anyone to employ me on bloated wages for the sake of being charitable. If it's handouts you're looking for, then that's what the dole is for.

Aer Lingus wrote:

Aer Lingus owes them a bit of loyalty for the years of service.

Aer Lingus paid them far more than they worth for many years. Aer Lingus doesn't owe them squat.

Mitch Connor

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Aer Lingus owes them a bit of loyalty for the years of service.

Honestly the type of society that would exist if you Micheal O'leary wannabes were allowed to run things would be some hell hole.

There is more to life to profit

for years of service they were paid a very good wage for - the staff have been paid above what a lot were worth, Aer Lingus owes them nothing. Other way round imo.

maggy_thatcher

Voipjunkie wrote: »

There is more to life to profit

1. The first responsibility to a public company is to provide a return to its stockholders. If a company can't do that, then the rights of the investor weren't fulfilled
2. There is also more to life than sitting in the dole queue which is where everyone in the airline will end up if they can't cut their costs.

Voipjunkie

Stark wrote: »

Oh boohoo. I'm sure working for union-inflated wages all these years was a huge sacrifice for them. Irish Ferries part deux or Irish Rail part deux?

Have you any proof that they are earning inflated wages I remember O'Leary claiming not so long ago that employees in Ryanair were better paid than those in Aer Lingus.

Aer Lingus management want to rid themselves of any responsibilities to their workforce by outsourcing and eliminating Pension contributions, Sick pay, Holiday pay and of course converting jobs that currently pay a living wage into minimum wage jobs with no security.

If companies like Aer Lingus are allowed to get away with this the future for everyone in this country is bleak unless you like the idea of a growing underclass of people with **** jobs no pensions no prospects.

Red Sleeping Beauty

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

1. The first responsibility to a public company is to provide a return to its stockholders. If a company can't do that, then the rights of the investor weren't fulfilled
2. There is also more to life than sitting in the dole queue which is where everyone in the airline will end up if they can't cut their costs.

Are you Michael O'Leary ?

maggy_thatcher

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Are you Michael O'Leary ?

No. If I were, I'd probably be encouraging the strike so that I could buy what's left of EI at a cut-down price
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company -- similar rules no doubt apply here too.

Stark

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Have you any proof that they are earning inflated wages I remember O'Leary claiming not so long ago that employees in Ryanair were better paid than those in Aer Lingus.

Aer Lingus management want to rid themselves of any responsibilities to their workforce by outsourcing and eliminating Pension contributions, Sick pay, Holiday pay and of course converting jobs that currently pay a living wage into minimum wage jobs with no security.

If companies like Aer Lingus are allowed to get away with this the future for everyone in this country is bleak unless you like the idea of a growing underclass of people with **** jobs no pensions no prospects.

Have you any proof that those are the plans of Aer Lingus management? Sick pay and holiday pay are legal entitlements, they can't simply take those away. As for pension contributions, not even workers in that great money-leeching institution: the civil service get a pension for nothing. Their pension contributions are taken off their salary.

The reality you describe is the reality for most people whose jobs aren't subsidised by the tax paying public. Aer Lingus workers are still living in a cushioned bubbles from the days when the company was Government-owned and their inefficiencies could be compensated by bailouts from private sector taxes and 3 figure travel fares. In the real world, your job security relies on your employer remaining profitable.

ixoy

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Have you any proof that they are earning inflated wages I remember O'Leary claiming not so long ago that employees in Ryanair were better paid than those in Aer Lingus.

You're not picking up on a key point - over-staffing. Even if Ryanair were paying more, they're not employing too many many employees. The ratio of staff was discussed previously and Aer Lingus seem to employ too many people. Other areas, such as inhouse catering, have no real need not to be outsourced as it is with other airlines.

converting jobs that currently pay a living wage into minimum wage jobs with no security.

The Sunday Times noted that baggage handlers in Aer Lingus could be on 70k. Not exactly just a "living wage" - more like a bloated, over-paid one. It's that sort of wage, and too many of them, that's necessitating these costs.

If companies like Aer Lingus are allowed to get away with this the future for everyone in this country is bleak unless you like the idea of a growing underclass of people with **** jobs no pensions no prospects.

So no company should ever downsize if their profits are down? Why aren't you going on about the many other companies that have let people go recently without the generous deals that Aer Lingus management are offering?

Voipjunkie

matsil wrote: »

Now I am guessing here, but I would say that alot of Aerlingus workers are simply unemployable...... they are essentially unskilled, underworked, underprodictive, and OVER PAID...... which iswhy they find themselves in the situation they are in: "There is also a stark productivity gap between Aer Lingus and Ryanair. Aer Lingus has around 4,000 staff and through October the airline carried 900,000 passengers. Ryanair's staff complement is 5,300 and they handled 5.3 million passengers last month. " That's about 5 times LESS productive........ and the party is now over, costs are increasing, and Aerlingus is now a sinking ship, along with many other so called "national carriers" in Europe...... so management have two choices.... go down with the ship OR drag the dinosaur that is Aerlingus into the 21st century.

.

Complete and utter bull****
This is spin Ryanair have already contracted out workers so how many people actually work for Ryanair through another company.
Also Ryanair is a short distance only carrier so obviously they carry more passegers in number terms alone
Where as Aer Lingus has a large transatlantic fleet and flies to places like Dubai common sense will tell you if a Plane is on a 10 hour flight to orlando it cannot possibly carry the same number of people as a plane that is doing 8 Dublin to London Flights in the same time.
Crewing on long distance flights is obviously going to be much higher than on short distance you are comparing apples and oranges and then jumping to conclusions based on that.

Stop believing the spin and start thinking for yourself

Red Sleeping Beauty

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Stop believing the spin and start thinking for yourself

There's something there though, lots of cynical people around.

"we're in tough times... times like these...economic crisis.... global downturn.... financial crisis/downturn/recession....."

All that talk to quite a few people seems to mean "right, fúck the lot of ye, I'll crawl over whatever dead bodies I have to get to the top"

I'm not worried about the buzzwords that are bandied around. What I am fearful of is this desire for ruthlessly agressive tactics. Right now is a perfect time for any and all businesses to fire people willy nilly and blame it on the economy.

KerranJast

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

You're an appretince tradesman and you've no interest in trade unions? Workers rights ? No ? That doesn't interstet you ?

Every conceivable workers right it protected by EU law now. It makes it very hard for a company to swiftly and unfairly sack people. I worked for Motorola in Cork around the time of the first voluntary redundancies in 2004. It was around two months of mandatory consultation with the employees before anyone left the payroll. Two days after the voluntary scheme was announced in Cork, hundreds were let go immediately in one of Motos US offices.

The workers have a stark choice. By taking the scheme, some will retain their jobs for the future, some will get a generous redundancy package by any standards and can retire or have time to find alterate work. By striking they risk public anger and driving the company under resulting in ALL staff losing their jobs.

Voipjunkie

ixoy wrote: »

You're not picking up on a key point - over-staffing. Even if Ryanair were paying more, they're not employing too many many employees. The ratio of staff was discussed previously and Aer Lingus seem to employ too many people. Other areas, such as inhouse catering, have no real need not to be outsourced as it is with other airlines.


The Sunday Times noted that baggage handlers in Aer Lingus could be on 70k. Not exactly just a "living wage" - more like a bloated, over-paid one. It's that sort of wage, and too many of them, that's necessitating these costs.


So no company should ever downsize if their profits are down? Why aren't you going on about the many other companies that have let people go recently without the generous deals that Aer Lingus management are offering?

Again spin as I said in my last post a simple passengers carried to direct employees tells you nothing

And Sunday times spinning
You add up all the wages and then divide by the number of staff and then claim people are highly paid.
Example you take a pilot earning 150,000 and a steward earning 30,0000 average earnings are 90,000 euros thats not bad money for a air steward of course it is not true.
Ryanair have been pulling that stunt for years average employee wages are a smoke screen.
The other one is to take the guy who earned the most but not reveal the hours worked or the grade so you have a supervisor in the baggage handling working 100 hours a week he might earn 70,000 so that allows you to say people working in the baggage handling are earning UPTO 70,000


Because we are talking about Aer Lingus if you want to discuss another company open a thread about it.
Aerlingus are using the recent surge in oil prices as cover that cover has gone away so they aree using the fig leave of the government tax as justification.

ALFIET

This strike action is an absolute joke. How dare the unions threaten the irish public with this in the run up to xmas. We are all working hard in tough times and unfortunately people are losing their jobs (which is never nice) but why should those people who have saved long and hard to travel with Aer Lingus to see family they havent seen in 12 months be subjected to this action by the blooming unions.

I am travelling hopefully in Dec to the US to see my mother whom i have not seen since Sep 07!!! I am absolutely fuming with the bloody unions.

ALFIET

Sick pay is not a legal entitlement..

KerranJast

ALFIET wrote: »

Sick pay is not a legal entitlement..

Good thing too. The amount of abuse of sick day entitlements in some sectors is ridiculous.

ALFIET

The Sunday Times noted that baggage handlers in Aer Lingus could be on 70k. Not exactly just a "living wage" - more like a bloated, over-paid one. It's that sort of wage, and too many of them, that's necessitating these costs.

WHAT???? 70k to handle baggage??? Seriously if that is what they are being paid, no wonder they are fighting to hold onto the jobs!!!!

Where in the world will they find another job like it????

70k.... wot a joke!!!

ALFIET

KerranJast wrote: »

Good thing too. The amount of abuse of sick day entitlements in some sectors is ridiculous.

Completely agree with you...

Voipjunkie

ALFIET wrote: »

Sick pay is not a legal entitlement..

obviously who said it was?

Voipjunkie

ALFIET wrote: »

The Sunday Times noted that baggage handlers in Aer Lingus could be on 70k. Not exactly just a "living wage" - more like a bloated, over-paid one. It's that sort of wage, and too many of them, that's necessitating these costs.

WHAT???? 70k to handle baggage??? Seriously if that is what they are being paid, no wonder they are fighting to hold onto the jobs!!!!

Where in the world will they find another job like it????

70k.... wot a joke!!!

See the spin works especially on those who don't want to think for themselves

ALFIET

Have you any proof that those are the plans of Aer Lingus management? Sick pay and holiday pay are legal entitlements, they can't simply take those away. STARK QUOTE

KerranJast

Voipjunkie wrote: »

See the spin works especially on those who don't want to think for themselves

IF baggage handlers are on €70k pa then that is crazy for a company in such a precarious industry. Everyone is entitled to a fair wage but paying that amount of money for relatively unskilled labour is not good business.

ALFIET

This thread is showing stark differences between those who are pro unions and those who live in the real world of business decisions being money driven... in the capitalist society we live in.

maggy_thatcher

Voipjunkie wrote: »

The other one is to take the guy who earned the most but not reveal the hours worked or the grade so you have a supervisor in the baggage handling working 100 hours a week he might earn 70,000 so that allows you to say people working in the baggage handling are earning UPTO 70,000

If there was someone working 100 hours/week, they'd have a very real case against their employer for violating the 48 hours/week maximum that Europe wide health and safety rules dictate. Also I don't see how anybody could be productive working a minimum of 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

KerranJast

ALFIET wrote: »

This thread is showing stark differences between those who are pro unions and those who live in the real world of business decisions being money driven... in the capitalist society we live in.

In the real world if businesses aren't money driven they go bust and people lose their jobs. Tough but true. If you're not making a profit you're making a loss and ultimately that's unsustainable. Aer Lingus is now a private company not a public service. It's time the staff realised that.

Red Sleeping Beauty

ALFIET wrote: »

This thread is showing stark differences between those who are pro unions and those who live in the real world of business decisions being money driven... in the capitalist society we live in.

The capitalist system that has led to this ? Capitalism isn't sustainable, by it's very nature it's destructive.

KerranJast

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

The capitalist system that has led to this ? Capitalism isn't sustainable, by it's very nature it's destructive.

Naked Capitalism isn't. A regulated Capitalistic system with strong oversighted works relatively well. Like Democracy, it's the best of a bad lot.

old boy

i booked a holiday to n.y. for christmas last may, dunno what to do,

ALFIET

well done old boy for refocusing us ALL on the real issue here...

None of us know what to do as we are in the hands of the unions...

ALFIET

Capitalism is the best we have.
It is what we have!
We have to wake up to the fact that there will be peaks and troughs... its a cycle.
it will peak again but in the meantime some tough decisions will have to be taken.

Stark

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

The capitalist system that has led to this ? Capitalism isn't sustainable, by it's very nature it's destructive.

Neither is a system where everyone earns their keep through blackmail. It only works for a small subsection of people as society at large subsidises them. The country would collapse in no time if we all adopted the union worker ethos.

Loco

hope Aer Lingus dies soon.

Voipjunkie

maggy_thatcher wrote: »

If there was someone working 100 hours/week, they'd have a very real case against their employer for violating the 48 hours/week maximum that Europe wide health and safety rules dictate. Also I don't see how anybody could be productive working a minimum of 14 hours a day, 7 days a week.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/si/0020.html

Transport exemption

Of course you would not need to be doing 100 to get to 70,000 if your basic pay is 40000 for a 40 hour week working 60 hours a week would quickly get you to 70,000 and is completely legal under the exemption of the transport sector I have given the link to.

grahamo

Why is everyone blaming the Workers rather than the Aer Lingus bosses? I think the workers have been pushed and pushed by the bosses and finally they've decided to stand up for themselves.
I bet most of the people complaining are younger workers who are accustomed to good working conditions won for them by union members from an older generation.
The Fatcats have done a great job of brainwashing most of you lot.