Aerlingus Cabin Crew want the best of both worlds

cabincrew

qwerty13 wrote: »

Of course we'd all love shorter flowers and more honey, not just in EI, but in every job; but let's face it, those times are gone. Well gone.

I, and almost all of my friends, have had to take paycuts, do extra hours and be extremely flexible about deadlines, late hours, and weekends. You could argue that if everyone said no to that, then it wouldn't be imposed on any of us. But if everyone in our company said no, where do you think the customers would go? - to the cheaper competitor. And we'd be taking a salary cut down to zero then. Again, you could argue that things should be more about people and a nice working environment than profit, but times have changed, businesses don't operate like that anymore - because customers are far better informed, and aren't prepared to put up with the higher costs - and competitors set themselves us to take advantage of that. I mean to take it to a very familar level, I'm sure everyone here shops around for the best value that they can get for groceries - and if you think that makes the job of anyone in retail any easier, then I'm afraid you are mistaken. Of course there's always the tiny % that will pay more for high-end goods/services, but most people don't have the cash or the snobbery to do that.

So where does ths leave EI? Aim for the high end market, or try to cut costs to remain competitive (with MO'L snapping at their heels at every turn). They've clearly decided to try to be competitive, so the reality is that they simply can't afford to leave a plane lying idle while crew have their break on the ground, all together. And I can't see what the problem is. I work in a desk job, sandwich at my desk while I'm working most days - at whatever time fits in around my working schedule. Is anyone seriously saying that this is not possible on a flight? Come on, I'd often have half my lunch in under 5 mins, get interrupted, and return to the other half of by then soggy sandwich later on - fitting in around work. Of course I'd love to have lunch at a time of my choosing, with my friends/colleagues, but really, it's hardly something to be up in arms over.

I've read all of this thread, and I can't feel the slightest bit of sympathy for the cabin crew. All I feel like saying is 'welcome to reality'. And the ridiculous points put forward about women with children and the data protection act re couriers just makes me feel that the union clearly have not got a leg to stand on, if they are advancing beyond silly arguments like that. Time and time again on this thread, people have asked for the huge sense of grievence to be explained - and I don't feel that anyone has done that. Guys, all I can say is that you can choose to stand firm on your principles - which, some of you at least, clearly believe in - but at what cost? And at what personal cost to the people in EI who are willing to meet reality? Can't you see that? Can't you feel the overwhelming lack of support here? Can't you see that for EI to be competitve and yet have T&C that are way out of whack with competitors is just not sustainable? I mean what do you want to happen, do you genuinely believe that it is possible to retain the advantageous EI T&C, and that the company can be competitve? Really?

And i am so sick of people on this forum coming up with the same story of we all took cuts and extra hours and weekends etc etc...the wage cuts extra hours are not the issue here ok,we have agreed to that , we haven't gone back on our word with the extra hours and wage cuts,as ive explained many times before,we increased the productivity by 13 percent ,its the lack of respect that the company have for people that's the problem..what harm is it to ask for a weekend off every 8 weeks to productivity,what harm is it if people have a preference for lates or early s provided there is an equal amount of crew for both.why should i be out for a meal or go down the country to visit my sisters thinking that in in work for 12pm the next day only to receive a 'text' MSG on my ph to say im now in at 8am instead of 12..and that wont be a once off either,they can do it when they want and how much they want.the 12-8am would probably be manageable but not a 9am-5am,that's the reality of it,yes people have to come in early from time to time and i understand that but not every day.and there's a big difference to getting out of bed at 6am than half 3 in the am when ur not prepared for it.

qwerty13

I've often made plans that I've had to change due to work, my friend had to cancel her 30th birthday party due to work, my preference would be to come in late and work late - but the reality is that I can't. I've missed lectures, dinners, gigs, buying groceries, worked until 2am so that everything was done before I go on hols ... shall I go on?

My point is that EI cabin crew are not alone in this. Of course we'd all love not to have our personal lives interfered with by work, but that's reality. Why do you believe that your job should be exempt from this?

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

No kevin..that would be saying that apart from our leave and public hols that we work the balance remaining..but we dont,u must factor in our normal days off in each week,then divide the balance.if i wasnt so tired i,d so it for you but i havnt the energy. we can work 190 duty hours in 28 days. spread our or not so spread out what ever way the company decide.

OK I can't find out whether the 1716 duty hours is inclusive of your days off and holiday time so I'll take your word on it.

However, the limit is 2000 duty hours per year and 14 in any single day so Aer Lingus is not treating you bad at all.

Also 850 flight hours isn't bad when the limit is 900.

cabincrew

qwerty13 wrote: »

I've often made plans that I've had to change due to work, my friend had to cancel her 30th birthday party due to work, my preference would be to come in late and work late - but the reality is that I can't. I've missed lectures, dinners, gigs, buying groceries, worked until 2am so that everything was done before I go on hols ... shall I go on?

My point is that EI cabin crew are not alone in this. Of course we'd all love not to have our personal lives interfered with by work, but that's reality. Why do you believe that your job should be exempt from this?

I know people have but not every day of your working career,we've all missed birthdays (even our own) family events hosp appointments god i don't know where to begin,my job has always been that way,my family and my friends also have to plan around my roster,that's how its always been and we except that is part of the job,but i am sorry there's only so much a person can take having their roster changed on a daily basis by 3hours early or later which also means a later landing time,i don't believe this is the way for most people,how can anyone plan for anything when they don't know what there doing ,where they are going or a rough idea of when they,ll be home.

kevinmcc

What would you say to a colleague in Belfast when they ask you why your entitled to an easier contract than them?

Why should you have it easy when they work their ass off to ensure the survival of the company?

kate74

jerry2623 wrote: »

I agree whole heartly here

Also demanding to have breaks all together on the ground costs the Airline a fortune in both extra payments for crew,

What is costing the airline more is hiring in ryanair and other airlines aircraft and letting their own aircraft sit on the ground, complete waste of money

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

OK I can't find out whether the 1716 duty hours is inclusive of your days off and holiday time so I'll take your word on it.

However, the limit is 2000 duty hours per year and 14 in any single day so Aer Lingus is not treating you bad at all.

Also 850 flight hours isn't bad when the limit is 900.

the 850 is our planned flying hours,the remaining 50 is your block hrs,we just don't add that in cause we don't know how much of that block hours they will use us for,so the 850 hrs are not inclusive of ur mandatory 2 weeks of block reserve you get each year.

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

What would you say to a colleague in Belfast when they ask you why your entitled to an easier contract than them?

Why should you have it easy when they work their ass off to ensure the survival of the company?

OMG,for god sake,you are talking crap or who ever is filling you full of it in belfast is talking crap.

Firstly im not going to make a mock of my colleagues up in belfast by saying they don't work hard because they do,but in fact our rosters are a far lot tougher then Belfast.so who ever is filling you full of h/s should get there fact straight.

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

OMG,for god sake,you are talking crap or who ever is filling you full of it in belfast is talking crap.

Firstly im not going to make a mock of my colleagues up in belfast by saying they don't work hard because they do,but in fact our rosters are a far lot tougher then Belfast.so who ever is filling you full of h/s should get there fact straight.

Sure they operate under the CAA (not the BAA as you called it - that's actually the people who own the airports) to the same conditions as DUB, they can work up to 900 hours. How are their rosters not as tough?

qwerty13

Ok, fair point CC - but I think you have to allow for the fact that your job has always been known to be anti-social hours ... and yes, it has become more anti-social, but I think so has everyone's really. I get the p*ss taken out of me by parents or people who work in a different environment re having to work unexpected or late hours/bail on things - like I'd choose to be at my desk instead of doing something enjoyable!

I guess my point is that I think most - not all, but most - people are going through similar stuff, and have increasingly done so for years now. So I really really don't understand why the big sense of grievience is there. Like I said, what do you (plural - not you personally) want from this? The reason that I do it is because I want a job in a company that will survive, simple as that. And I can't see how you (plural!) are doing anything but cutting off your nose to spite your face the way things are going. That's not meant as a dig - it is genuinely what I think.

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

Sure they operate under the CAA (not the BAA as you called it - that's actually the people who own the airports) to the same conditions as DUB, they can work up to 900 hours. How are their rosters not as tough?

Sorry for making a mistake,lock me up and throw away the key!!! they use to work the same as us before jar ops became eu ops but when eu ops was introduced the 'caa' adopted their stricter guidelines(which every country has the right to do) eu ops is basically the min standard,so although they can fly 900 hrs a year that is correct they cant however work 60hrs in 7days.that is what i mean by stricter guidelines

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

Sorry for making a mistake,lock me up and throw away the key!!! they use to work the same as us before jar ops became eu ops but when eu ops was introduced the 'caa' adopted their stricter guidelines(which every country has the right to do) eu ops is basically the min standard,so although they can fly 900 hrs a year that is correct they cant however work 60hrs in 7days.that is what i mean by stricter guidelines

And IAA guidelines are the same - 60 hours in 7 days.

So your reason as to Belfast not being as tough now is?

marienbad

cabincrew wrote: »

Sorry for making a mistake,lock me up and throw away the key!!! they use to work the same as us before jar ops became eu ops but when eu ops was introduced the 'caa' adopted their stricter guidelines(which every country has the right to do) eu ops is basically the min standard,so although they can fly 900 hrs a year that is correct they cant however work 60hrs in 7days.that is what i mean by stricter guidelines

So how about the CC in Shannon and Cork , they seem to be ok with their work/life balance also. How is that possible ?

cabincrew

qwerty13 wrote: »

Ok, fair point CC - but I think you have to allow for the fact that your job has always been known to be anti-social hours ... and yes, it has become more anti-social, but I think so has everyone's really. I get the p*ss taken out of me by parents or people who work in a different environment re having to work unexpected or late hours/bail on things - like I'd choose to be at my desk instead of doing something enjoyable!

I guess my point is that I think most - not all, but most - people are going through similar stuff, and have increasingly done so for years now. So I really really don't understand why the big sense of grievience is there. Like I said, what do you (plural - not you personally) want from this? The reason that I do it is because I want a job in a company that will survive, simple as that. And I can't see how you (plural!) are doing anything but cutting off your nose to spite your face the way things are going. That's not meant as a dig - it is genuinely what I think.

I really do understand your point i do,and i def do not think i should be exempt from any changes to work practice.this is my career.not a gap year or anything like it,i am also a qualified nurse so yes i am lucky in a sense that i have something to fall back on,however i don't want to,i absolutely love my job,yes the times i get to spend away from time to time are amazing at times but that's not the reason i am here,this job allows me use the skills that i have.its not about pushing a cart up and down all day its so much more than that,its the satisfaction of seeing people who have been away for years and the smile on their faces when they see the green plane,its the little old dears that get on and want to tell you their whole life story ,its seeing a child after been adopted abroad taking out of a hellhole orphanage touch town on Irish soil and its the amazing people i work i with that keep me here.but you have to understand that what the company are doing has nothing to do with productivity,if it did i,d see their point its to do with the fact they don't want us making a career out of it,the CEO own words were its a job for 18/19 year old on a gap year and not a long term career.

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

And IAA guidelines are the same - 60 hours in 7 days.

So your reason as to Belfast not being as tough now is?

because their base is within the uk not the republic,even thou its an Irish reg the base is within UK boundaries

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

because their base is within the uk not the republic,even thou its an Irish reg the base is within UK boundaries

Doesn't answer my question, I'm after telling you that the Irish Aviation Authority has the 60 hours in 7 day rule also, so therefore that rules out that Belfast has it easier, correct?

marienbad

cabincrew wrote: »

I really do understand your point i do,and i def do not think i should be exempt from any changes to work practice.this is my career.not a gap year or anything like it,i am also a qualified nurse so yes i am lucky in a sense that i have something to fall back on,however i don't want to,i absolutely love my job,yes the times i get to spend away from time to time are amazing at times but that's not the reason i am here,this job allows me use the skills that i have.its not about pushing a cart up and down all day its so much more than that,its the satisfaction of seeing people who have been away for years and the smile on their faces when they see the green plane,its the little old dears that get on and want to tell you their whole life story ,its seeing a child after been adopted abroad taking out of a hellhole orphanage touch town on Irish soil and its the amazing people i work i with that keep me here.but you have to understand that what the company are doing has nothing to do with productivity,if it did i,d see their point its to do with the fact they don't want us making a career out of it,the CEO own words were its a job for 18/19 year old on a gap year and not a long term career.

Possibly he is right and it is now just a gap year job. Things change and times change. Keep up those nursing skills.

Also staying up this late is not good for the work/life balance so ''now its time to say goodnight at the end of a lovely day''

cabincrew

marienbad wrote: »

So how about the CC in Shannon and Cork , they seem to be ok with their work/life balance also. How is that possible ?

So u haven't noticed that the cork base are also getting suspended?

and the snn base haven't been roster a flight that would get them suspended,they don't fly to the e,u from there just Paris which has only started up and as its a duty under 8hrs your not entitled to a meal break anyway,its only the flights over the 8hrs,the transatlantic going without the cabin manager.and the illegal doubles people are getting suspended over.

Hannibal

kevinmcc wrote: »

Doesn't answer my question, I'm after telling you that the Irish Aviation Authority has the 60 hours in 7 day rule also, so therefore that rules out that Belfast has it easier, correct?

Because there's less routes out of Belfast and therefore a more straight forward roster? its just Spain, Heathrow, Rome and the Canaries out of Belfast is it not?

kevinmcc

Of course times have changed. Look at Virgin Atlantic. They have a high turnover of cabin crew and there by no means Ryanair style. I think it's on average 2 years a cabin crew member stays. They've said it's not a skilled job and can train people in 4 weeks. And you know what, the customer service with virgin atlantic crew is streets ahead of EI, better looking and smiley faces, because it's not full of older women who expect it to be what it was when they joined decades ago.

If you can't deal with an ever changing industry why are you in aviation Maybe you should brush up on your nursing skills so.

kevinmcc

Dotsey wrote: »

Because there's less routes out of Belfast and therefore a more straight forward roster? its just Spain, Heathrow, Rome and the Canaries out of Belfast is it not?

There's 9 routes loaded on EI website for Belfast. How would less routes make a difference when they're still complying to the conditions Dublin won't such as doing BFS-LHR doubles etc?

qwerty13

cabincrew wrote: »

I really do understand your point i do,and i def do not think i should be exempt from any changes to work practice.this is my career.not a gap year or anything like it,i am also a qualified nurse so yes i am lucky in a sense that i have something to fall back on,however i don't want to,i absolutely love my job,yes the times i get to spend away from time to time are amazing at times but that's not the reason i am here,this job allows me use the skills that i have.its not about pushing a cart up and down all day its so much more than that,its the satisfaction of seeing people who have been away for years and the smile on their faces when they see the green plane,its the little old dears that get on and want to tell you their whole life story ,its seeing a child after been adopted abroad taking out of a hellhole orphanage touch town on Irish soil and its the amazing people i work i with that keep me here.but you have to understand that what the company are doing has nothing to do with productivity,if it did i,d see their point its to do with the fact they don't want us making a career out of it,the CEO own words were its a job for 18/19 year old on a gap year and not a long term career.

I'd take the "not making a career out of it" and 18/19 yo comment as meaning that he wants cheaper staff who are more flexible. And I agree, it's a far from nice thing to hear; but really, that's what all employers are like (not just aviation - everywhere!). Perhaps they don't put it as bluntly as that, but hell yeah, it is what they are thinking. So we all take paycuts and do more hours and be more flexible.

I'm not saying that I agree with his ethos, but I'm sorry, that's reality. If I don't row in with the cuts/the lates/the weekends - others in my company will. If none of us do - our competitors will (and we'll ultimately lose out). If no-one in this country did - the jobs get moved to another country with cheaper and more flexible workforce. You (or I) could argue that this is a bad system, putting people ahead of profit - but I can't think of any other solution that allows me to keep my job. It's just the way things are now. And we could get into a totally different argument on a 'race to the bottom', but I've yet to hear anyone put forward a workable alternative.

My thoughts are that I might not like it, but if that's what it takes to keep my job - which, like you, I actually enjoy - then I'll do it. But I'm not alone in having to do this - and neither are the EI cabin crew, and I think that's why people have such a hard time empathising.

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

Doesn't answer my question, I'm after telling you that the Irish Aviation Authority has the 60 hours in 7 day rule also, so therefore that rules out that Belfast has it easier, correct?

What has the iaa and Belfast got in common??nothing as the aircraft home is within the uk

eu-ops introduced 09

iaa accept the min guideline of eu ops without implementing stricter penalties.

the caa adopt stricter rules,so they are complying with the eu-ops min

standard but also implementing stricter rules.
so although both the iaa and the caa allow 900flying hours a year,the caa dont allow crew to work 60hrs in one week,but the iaa do.Belfast base falls under the caa .and the republic of ire falls under the iaa

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

What has the iaa and Belfast got in common??nothing as the aircraft home is within the uk

eu-ops introduced 09

iaa accept the min guideline of eu ops without implementing stricter penalties.

the caa adopt stricter rules,so they are complying with the eu-ops min

standard but also implementing stricter rules.
so although both the iaa and the caa allow 900flying hours a year,the caa dont allow crew to work 60hrs in one week,but the iaa do.Belfast base falls under the caa .and the republic of ire falls under the iaa

Are you just trying to be smart.
Belfast - Under CAA guidelines 60 hours per 7 days.
Dublin - Under IAA guildelines 60 hours per 7 days.

Go read the IAA guidelines properly this time under 'Flight and Duty Limitations' Part C - 60 hours in any 7 consecutive days.

Edit: And when you've done so, come back and give me a real reason as to why Belfast is not as tough as what you guys have it.

cabincrew

qwerty13 wrote: »

I'd take the "not making a career out of it" and 18/19 yo comment as meaning that he wants cheaper staff who are more flexible. And I agree, it's a far from nice thing to hear; but really, that's what all employers are like (not just aviation - everywhere!). Perhaps they don't put it as bluntly as that, but hell yeah, it is what they are thinking. So we all take paycuts and do more hours and be more flexible.

I'm not saying that I agree with his ethos, but I'm sorry, that's reality. If I don't row in with the cuts/the lates/the weekends - others in my company will. If none of us do - our competitors will (and we'll ultimately lose out). If no-one in this country did - the jobs get moved to another country with cheaper and more flexible workforce. You (or I) could argue that this is a bad system, putting people ahead of profit - but I can't think of any other solution that allows me to keep my job. It's just the way things are now. And we could get into a totally different argument on a 'race to the bottom', but I've yet to hear anyone put forward a workable alternative.

My thoughts are that I might not like it, but if that's what it takes to keep my job - which, like you, I actually enjoy - then I'll do it. But I'm not alone in having to do this - and neither are the EI cabin crew, and I think that's why people have such a hard time empathising.

Weather you empathize or not is your choice,im not here for the sympathy vote,all the crew are well aware of the recession and cuts etc etc the list is endless,we,re not blind to the fact the country is in a bad way,but at what cost are we to be grateful we have a job,it has to end somewhere,and the put up or shut up attitude is also not the answer to the country's recession.and anyone who thinks it is will get the wake-up call sooner rather than later.

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

Are you just trying to be smart.
Belfast - Under CAA guidelines 60 hours per 7 days.
Dublin - Under IAA guildelines 60 hours per 7 days.

Go read the IAA guidelines properly this time under 'Flight and Duty Limitations' Part C - 60 hours in any 7 consecutive days.

Edit: And when you've done so, come back and give me a real reason as to why Belfast is not as tough as what you guys have it.

I am not trying to be smart,ive already said that under the iaa we can work 60hrs in 7 days,i said Belfast cant as they are under the caa,however if you are now telling me that under the caa you can also work 60hrs in one week then i,ll take your word,but that was not the case with them a few months ago.

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

I am not trying to be smart,ive already said that under the iaa we can work 60hrs in 7 days,i said Belfast cant as they are under the caa,however if you are now telling me that under the caa you can also work 60hrs in one week then i,ll take your word,but that was not the case with them a few months ago.

Look taken from the CAA guidelines:

60 hours in any 7 consecutive days, but may be increased to 65 hours when a rostered duty covering a series of duty periods, once commenced, is subject to unforeseen delays.

So please can you enlighten us all as to how your BFS counterparts don't have it as tough?

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

i,ll take your word,but that was not the case with them a few months ago.

Wrong. This has been implemented since at least January 2004. I don't have the earlier editions so can't comment if it has been longer.

cabincrew

kevinmcc wrote: »

Look taken from the CAA guidelines:

60 hours in any 7 consecutive days, but may be increased to 65 hours when a rostered duty covering a series of duty periods, once commenced, is subject to unforeseen delays.

So please can you enlighten us all as to how your BFS counterparts don't have it as tough?

Seriously..? i have to explain it again????

the iaa and caa are belonging to 2 different country's

the iaa...republic of Ireland
the caa uk

what part of that don't you get?

qwerty13

cabincrew wrote: »

Weather you empathize or not is your choice,im not here for the sympathy vote,all the crew are well aware of the recession and cuts etc etc the list is endless,we,re not blind to the fact the country is in a bad way,but at what cost are we to be grateful we have a job,it has to end somewhere,and the put up or shut up attitude is also not the answer to the country's recession.and anyone who thinks it is will get the wake-up call sooner rather than later.

I didn't mean that you were here for the sympathy vote, that's not what I was saying at all. I just meant that it's a harsh working world out there (not just because of the R word - but also because of globalisation), and I'm afraid we all have to roll with it to a large extent. And I think people genuinely can't understand why EI cabin crew won't take this on board (no pun intented).

Not sure what you mean about the wake up call? It is all too easy for companies to move their base elsewhere. Again, I'm not saying that I think "yippie, great system" - but I don't know of any workable alternative to costs too high => customers move to another service supplier => jobs lost (to another competitor in Ireland, or elsewhere). Do you?

One last point I forgot to say CC - I'm not an EI basher, I would always choose to fly EI rather than FR - because I've personally always found it to be a nicer experience. But my cash limit is fairly low for doing so. Once an EI flight goes too much above FR, I'll go FR. So that's what I meant in an earlier post about EI's costs - sure it's nicer, but I can only afford to pay so much for nicer. And if EI can keep costs down by having a plane on the tarmac for less time (or whatever measures they need to take), then that means that I'm more likely to fly with them ... which means that they are more like to stay in business in Ireland and need more staff. I'm not getting at you - just saying that this is the reality of how I look at things when booking flights.

Gotta sign off now, I hope it all gets sorted soon; but I think the EI cabin crew need to ask themselves is the current mess ultimately worth it. I'm not antagonising you - at least not deliberately - I just think the big Q is how it will pan out if the cabin crew win this round, but EI slides down in terms of market share due to higher costs / public perception of 'oh my flight might be cancelled'. Hope it is resolved without the loss of jobs, as you clearly love yours (which is rare enough in any industry!).

kevinmcc

cabincrew wrote: »

Seriously..? i have to explain it again????

the iaa and caa are belonging to 2 different country's

the iaa...republic of Ireland
the caa uk

what part of that don't you get?

OMG..I get every part. Your not understanding that both IAA e.g. Dublin and CAA e.g. Belfast both have the same duty hours per 7 days. Your argument was that Belfast didn't have to do 60 duty hours like Dublin as the CAA are more stricter. I've now proved otherwise, and I'm asking you therefore do you now agree that Belfast has it as tough as Dublin?

kevinmcc

cabincrew you come on here and constantly misinform people of the facts and it's sickening to listen to.

Such as misinformation that Aer Lingus are planning on changing their departure time out of JFK to 1.20am. This won't happen for many reasons, such as flight restrictions at that time of the night, slot availability, they would also be unable to use custom preclearance at dublin, availabilty of suitable aircraft etc.

You said earlier how crew today refused to operate Chicago due to a 12 hour layover, however didn't add in until later questioned that on the return the crew would have no passengers on board. Your pilots who operates under stricter laws than crew are able to operate and fly an aircraft successfully with that amount of rest, yet you think it’s not possible to perform as a cabin crew member. You also assume that out of 12 hours rest you’d be lucky to get 6 hours sleep but can’t back it up.

You make out that you had 6 trips to the US in 12 months. I know for a fact that two different cabin crew members had 12 and the other 13 trips within a 6 month period, making your assumptions less than believable.

You try and argue that you have to work 60 hours in 7 days and that Belfast don’t have it as tough, again proven completely untrue if you read the CAA guidelines on crew rest it is the exact same for Belfast.

This proves that you just talk crap. Do yourself a favour and stay away unless you are prepared to talk some truth.

Diddler1977

cabincrew wrote: »

I really do understand your point i do,and i def do not think i should be exempt from any changes to work practice.this is my career.not a gap year or anything like it,i am also a qualified nurse so yes i am lucky in a sense that i have something to fall back on,however i don't want to,i absolutely love my job,yes the times i get to spend away from time to time are amazing at times but that's not the reason i am here,this job allows me use the skills that i have.its not about pushing a cart up and down all day its so much more than that,its the satisfaction of seeing people who have been away for years and the smile on their faces when they see the green plane,its the little old dears that get on and want to tell you their whole life story ,its seeing a child after been adopted abroad taking out of a hellhole orphanage touch town on Irish soil and its the amazing people i work i with that keep me here.but you have to understand that what the company are doing has nothing to do with productivity,if it did i,d see their point its to do with the fact they don't want us making a career out of it,the CEO own words were its a job for 18/19 year old on a gap year and not a long term career.

Thanks for outlining some really nice aspects to your job.

You will still enjoy these under the new conditions.

Don't let the Union take your job away from you by hijacking the company and causing it to fail.

Peanut2011

Just wondering if anyone has seen the IMPACT spokesperson interview on RTE last night?? Did anyone stop to think about what he said???

Was he talking about Ireland or UK, when he said AL was spending hundreds of pounds hiring in other aircraft's?????

Just another point that IMO proves the unions are stuck in the past!!!

Peanut2011

kate74 wrote: »

And cabincrew member don't bother trying to waste your energy replying to some of the misinformed memebrs of this board.

I fully agree with this. Save your energy for the picket or the 11 hr flight!

Seriously Kate, no one here thinks CC are robots, however cabincrew is not really doing them any real representation. If nothing else, it's making a very bad name for them!

Skadoosh

So just to get things straight:

You're admitting now that all your posts about 11 hours with no meal break were misleading. Now you're saying that you do get staggered meal breaks on the plane. However, you think that on certain routes it's going to be difficult for you to take them. Not that management is refusing to allow you to take breaks, but that you "can't see how this will be possible".

Dare I say I'm sure you'll find a way?

What else are you being deliberately misleading about?

Kevinmcc demonstrated that Belfast work the same hours as you are being asked to. You denied that with all sorts of IAA/CAA/BAA misdirection but the reality is that they work the same hours as has been proven. So to reiterate a question asked to you earlier, why should Belfast work those hours if you won't? Again, illustration of everybody else changing to save the airline but cabin crew (specifically Dublin cabin crew) wanting to be exempt.

Skadoosh

kate74 wrote: »

and I'm sure the cabin crew who haven't been paid in over a week want to pay their mortgages too.

Oh, I'm absolutely sure that they do.

And they'll also want to pay their mortgages in a couple of months when they're on the dole. And so will I, if my husband is on the dole because the airline closed down because a very tiny minority of staff decided they didn't want to make changes that other sectors have already implemented.

If you're a "disinterested observer" rather than cabin crew/relative of cabin crew, why do you have so little concern for the rest of the airline? You love the people who look after you on board, but not the ones who check you in/load your baggage/prepare the food so lovingly served by the cabin crew?

In your job, if you accepted a whole rake of changes but a couple of people in one department didn't, and it looked like your company might go under, would you be so forgiving?

If cabin crew accepted changes but catering balked, would cabin crew be backing up catering against "bullying management"?

Cabin crew, in all seriousness and not to be in any way patronising, I feel sorry for you and your colleagues because I genuinely feel the union has misled you badly to suit their own agenda. You weren't, as I understand it, offered the same migration terms as the rest of the staff because of your union. Do you not understand that the union will let the company go to the wall rather than give in? Their interest isn't whether or not the company survives, their interest is what's good for Impact.

The Ardagh (Irish Glass Bottle) closure in 2002 is an illustrative read.

Osgoodisgood

cabincrew wrote: »

no we work an ave of about 41 hrs a week give or take.ur not deducting our reg days off each week either,ur just deducting our leave days then dividing the balance by 1716,u also have to deduct our normal days off.so its roughly 41hrs a week but again we could work 60 hrs in 7 days and say 35 the next and so on.

I can't figure out your maths here. I agree that kevinmcc is assuming you spread your hours accross 328 days and that this is an unreasonable scenario. That said, I've tried numerous ways to arrive at a number in excess of 40 hours a week and I can't do it. 1716 hours divided by 41 indicates that you only work 41.85 weeks a year and that can't be right. So can you explain it to me please?

kevinmcc

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

I can't figure out your maths here. I agree that kevinmcc is assuming you spread your hours accross 328 days and that this is an unreasonable scenario. That said, I've tried numerous ways to arrive at a number in excess of 40 hours a week and I can't do it. 1716 hours divided by 41 indicates that you only work 41.85 weeks a year and that can't be right. So can you explain it to me please?

Exactly. There's something she's not telling the truth about on this one (shocker) and I suspect it's either:

She has more than 28 days annual leave plus her 9 public days OR
She doesn't work as many as 41 hours per week.

Is it just coincidence that 33 divides evenly into 1716, to make 52?
I suspect that your not supposed to deduct any days off from the figure she's provided, as it has already been taken into account.

xxx000

Everyone seems to be gettin hung up on the meal break issue, which isn't d only problem with the new rules the management want to bring in. One major factor is the "tour of duty". Before now d longest a crew member would be away from home would be 5 nights and if you didn't want this you had the choice to be on a europe only bid. Now the company wants to be able to roster crew to be away from home for up to 27 days with the choice of doing europes only completely abolished.
I have a little bit of info as my sister is crew with a 2 year old and always did just early europes (she has over her 850 hours done for this year already - year ends 30th April, i think). She enjoys her job and has told me a bit about it......not in a ramming it down my throat way, or we're completely right attitude.... but in a "I have no choice but to stand up to them" way. As if these rules come into play and she has to be away from home for a month at a time, she will have to quit for her family's sake.
Just thought I'd give one crew member's personal issue with it.

Diddler1977

xxx000 wrote: »

Everyone seems to be gettin hung up on the meal break issue, which isn't d only problem with the new rules the management want to bring in. One major factor is the "tour of duty". Before now d longest a crew member would be away from home would be 5 nights and if you didn't want this you had the choice to be on a europe only bid. Now the company wants to be able to roster crew to be away from home for up to 27 days with the choice of doing europes only completely abolished.
I have a little bit of info as my sister is crew with a 2 year old and always did just early europes (she has over her 850 hours done for this year already - year ends 30th April, i think). She enjoys her job and has told me a bit about it......not in a ramming it down my throat way, or we're completely right attitude.... but in a "I have no choice but to stand up to them" way. As if these rules come into play and she has to be away from home for a month at a time, she will have to quit for her family's sake.
Just thought I'd give one crew member's personal issue with it.

Your sister finds the new roster objectionable purely for her own personal reasons. But she is willing to bring down a company for this?

What about all of the other CC who just want a job and are willing to work the new rosters?

If your sister chooses to quit her job because it doesn't suit herself and her lifestyle that should only be of concern to herself.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

I have a little bit of info as my sister is crew with a 2 year old and always did just early europes (she has over her 850 hours done for this year already - year ends 30th April, i think).

Sure this is happy days for her, 850 hours done, legal limit as per EU ops is 900, means she will only have 50 to do by the 30 April

xxx000

Yeah but they're also fighting to put crew on the ground once they reach their max flying hours. So she worked all year long getting to max hours and will have to continue on the ground possibly. Either that or have to take time off which isn't good for money. It's not a great situation to be in. And i know a lot of people are sayin "if ya don't like it leave", but it's not what she signed up for, and if it does come into affect, she will leave.

Goldenegg

To get their monies worth, if a CC was up to date with their 900 hours, would the company not allocate them to a different area in the company like an office or check in until the CC new year starts again? This way the CO would be gaining extra labour from the employee all based on their basic wage... Makes sence no?

xxx000

Goldenegg wrote: »

To get their monies worth, if a CC was up to date with their 900 hours, would the company not allocate them to a different area in the company like an office or check in until the CC new year starts again? This way the CO would be gaining extra labour from the employee all based on their basic wage... Makes sence no?

Exactly! That's what they wanna do.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

Exactly! That's what they wanna do.

Could you show us proof of where they said this?

No cabin member would be made fly their 900 limit and then assigned to a different department, get real! Can you imagine the uproar from the Union if this was happening!

speedboatchase

Call me crazy but how about this for a law: no public service employees or employees of semi-state bodies are allowed strike - at all. Reagan was dead right in the Air Traffic Controllers Strike of '81

Skadoosh

Excuse me if this has been asked before, I don't remember, and it's a genuine question.

If it's being claimed that cabin crew are working 1716 hours annually, and 850 of them are flying hours, then that means that they're spending twice the amount of time on the ground as they are in the air. They check in an hour before the flight, and once the flight lands they're more or less straight off, so how does that work?

kevinmcc

Skadoosh wrote: »

Excuse me if this has been asked before, I don't remember, and it's a genuine question.

If it's being claimed that cabin crew are working 1716 hours annually, and 850 of them are flying hours, then that means that they're spending twice the amount of time on the ground as they are in the air. They check in an hour before the flight, and once the flight lands they're more or less straight off, so how does that work?

The 850 flying hours would be included in the overall figure of 1716, so they'd be claiming they are another 850 hours approx on the ground. Still your right, it does seem an awful long time to be on the ground considering this is how flying duty period is defined by the aviation authority:

Any time during which a person operates in an aircraft as a member of its crew. It starts when the crew member is required by an operator to report for a flight, and finishes at on-chocks or engines off, or rotors stopped, on the final sector.

xxx000

I don't know if it's been written anywhere about them working on the ground all I know is there was only "talk" of it but I honestly don't know that it's an issue with this dispute.
With regard to d hours, an example, and again, only from d bit I've been told, is say a crew mwmber does double manchesters (4 flights) they're only 35 mins each - that'd onlt be 2 hours 20 flight hours for the whole day but theer'd be an hour before the first flight, then 3 30 min turnarounds and then half hour after the flight so that'd be 3 hours.
So the time spent not flying is actually longer than that spent in the air. Does that make sense?
Then there's delays to account for as well I suppose.