Aerlingus Cabin Crew want the best of both worlds

bicardi19

I am supposed to be flyin to Boston next Thursday, wonder what my chances are of getting there?

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

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.

Again your calculations are incorrect. A flight to Manchester is not 35 minutes, it is between 55 mins or 1 hour.

You also claim half an hour after the flight, again incorrect, let me repost what the criteria is on duty hours:

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

Therefore their duty period ends once the engines switch off.

kevinmcc

bicardi19 wrote: »

I am supposed to be flyin to Boston next Thursday, wonder what my chances are of getting there?

You should be ok, they've hired in planes, it may not be an aer lingus plane though.

RasTa

Manchester is only 35-40mins of airtime

Skadoosh

xxx000 wrote: »

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.

And even leaving aside Kevinmccs explanation of the Manchester route you're referring to, those short hops only make up a small amount of the routes. So if you factor in transatlantic (1 hour on the ground, or thereabouts, before the flight, 6 to 8 hours flying time), and even the European routes (2+ hours flying time) then that would weight the hours heavily in favour of flying term -v- ground time. So why are they working comparable hours on the ground as in the air? I don't get it.

There's no way they're off the plane half an hour after passengers. I've hardly ever got my bags from baggage claim without seeing the crew from the plane go past me. Last passenger off = crew off, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to disembark a plane.

kevinmcc

RasTa wrote: »

Manchester is only 35-40mins of airtime

Not the case, check the EI site.

EI202 DUB MAN 06.30 07.30
EI204 DUB MAN 09.25 10.20
EI212 DUB MAN 17.50 18.45

So therefore the crew will gain the respective flying hours above.

Capt'n Midnight

speedboatchase wrote: »

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

Are Aer Lingus semi-state ?

have you any idea of the safety implications of that Air Traffic Controllers strike ?

ixoy

speedboatchase wrote: »

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

NYC Subway workers are also forbidden from striking due to the crippling effect it has on the New York economy.
I doubt though we could claim EI is an equal necessity. It's not comparable to the ATC which affects all routes.
Can you imagine the fury if this sort of legislation was passed? Having said that, there is something to be said for a certain swathe of critical services being forbidden from strikes in some form.

xxx000

kevinmcc wrote: »

Not the case, check the EI site.

EI202 DUB MAN 06.30 07.30
EI204 DUB MAN 09.25 10.20
EI212 DUB MAN 17.50 18.45

So therefore the crew will gain the respective flying hours above.

I guarantee you a flight is only 35 mins, not that it really matters, but all airlines allow a little longer for whatever reason and flight hours, are exactly that, what's spent flyin doesn't matter how long it's rostered as.
Guys I'm not tryin to change anyone's opinion here, just giving d little bit of info i have.
But I do know for FACT that after a flight finishes crew are givin 20 mins duty time to clear customs, drop back float and whatever else there may be. So once d flights over, surely it might take 10 mins to get passengers off and do there checks before they can get off then the other 20 mins would indeed make half an hour.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

I guarantee you a flight is only 35 mins, not that it really matters, but all airlines allow a little longer for whatever reason and flight hours, are exactly that, what's spent flyin doesn't matter how long it's rostered as.
Guys I'm not tryin to change anyone's opinion here, just giving d little bit of info i have.
But I do know for FACT that after a flight finishes crew are givin 20 mins duty time to clear customs, drop back float and whatever else there may be. So once d flights over, surely it might take 10 mins to get passengers off and do there checks before they can get off then the other 20 mins would indeed make half an hour.

Can you not read the aviation authority's guidelines that I posted

Once again CC duty time ends once the plane blocks into the gate. So EI crew aren't even claiming the 20 mins it takes to get all pax off, and out of customs etc in these 1716 hours.

The flight may be only 35 mins when you flew it, however EI crew get the full 55mins/1 hour flying time.

xxx000

Skadoosh wrote: »

And even leaving aside Kevinmccs explanation of the Manchester route you're referring to, those short hops only make up a small amount of the routes. So if you factor in transatlantic (1 hour on the ground, or thereabouts, before the flight, 6 to 8 hours flying time), and even the European routes (2+ hours flying time) then that would weight the hours heavily in favour of flying term -v- ground time. So why are they working comparable hours on the ground as in the air? I don't get it.

There's no way they're off the plane half an hour after passengers. I've hardly ever got my bags from baggage claim without seeing the crew from the plane go past me. Last passenger off = crew off, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to disembark a plane.

I know, they check in 1 hour 45 mins before an atlantic, and turnarounds on europes are longer than on UK's cause the aircraft has to be cleaned.
Crew do, do a fair bit of reserve too, my sis seems to always be on it, which would only count as ground hours.
I don't really have any other explanation to be honest but it's not made up as they have a work website they can check things and her flight hours last night were 876 and duty hours 1503 for this year. So it's not quite double d flying hours.
This is all i know.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

turnarounds on europes are longer than on UK's cause the aircraft has to be cleaned.

Again incorrect, aircraft are deep cleaned at DUB. For example the turnaround on Brussels is 40 mins, since when is that in the UK?

I'm sorry but your sister who works for EI CC has you brainwashed with her lies.

xxx000

kevinmcc wrote: »

Can you not read the aviation authority's guidelines that I posted

Once again CC duty time ends once the plane blocks into the gate. So EI crew aren't even claiming the 20 mins it takes to get all pax off, and out of customs etc in these 1716 hours.

The flight may be only 35 mins when you flew it, however EI crew get the full 55mins/1 hour flying time.

Sorry i didn't read it, I will though. Apologise if I'm wrong - like I said I'm not tryin to piss anyone off here just giving my view.
But please look into it, i guarantee you they would not get 1 hour flight time for a 35 min flight. It's chocks on to chocks off - unless it;s really long taxi's or something.

But I have seen her flight duty total's. If she's rostered say manchester now this afternoon her hours will be up by 2 hours (for over and back) on her hours now - but I swear by d time she got off the aircraft it would be updated and her hours would be down a little bit, to only count the exact time of chocks on to chocks off.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

her flight hours last night were 876 and duty hours 1503 for this year. So it's not quite double d flying hours.
This is all i know.

Well then she should also know that she can only legally do 900 flight hours. So she has 24 flight hours to do by end of april you said. What's the deal there? It's not in her contract to be assigned to another department once her flight time is used up.

Skadoosh

xxx000 wrote: »

I guarantee you a flight is only 35 mins.

xxx000 wrote: »

But I do know for FACT that after a flight finishes crew are givin 20 mins duty time to clear customs, drop back float and whatever else there may be. So once d flights over, surely it might take 10 mins to get passengers off and do there checks before they can get off then the other 20 mins would indeed make half an hour.

xxx000 wrote: »

I know a few people who work for aer lingus on the ground and even they are aggreing with the collegues, the crew. The pilots are also supporting them as are anyone who bothers, like myself, to get the real facts on the dispute

Not being argumentative here but you said as a fact that there was lots of support from ground crew. You didn't mention at that stage that you had cabin crew relatives. I can guarantee you there is little or no support for cabin crew from ground crew. You're stating a lot of "facts" with nothing to back them up and on this, at least, you're 100% wrong. (And, like Kate, remarkably well informed on cabin crew duties for a civvy).

xxx000

kevinmcc wrote: »

Again incorrect, aircraft are deep cleaned at DUB. For example the turnaround on Brussels is 40 mins, since when is that in the UK?

I'm sorry but your sister who works for EI CC has you brainwashed with her lies.

I don't mean deep cleaned or anything i just mean hoovered or whatever. Is 40 mins not less than 30 mins? I'm not bein smart but they are somewhat shorter and some turnarounds are 55 mins, or on A330 routes during the summer a bit longer again - bigger aircraft - takes longer to turn around.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

I don't mean deep cleaned or anything i just mean hoovered or whatever. Is 40 mins not less than 30 mins? I'm not bein smart but they are somewhat shorter and some turnarounds are 55 mins, or on A330 routes during the summer a bit longer again - bigger aircraft - takes longer to turn around.

Turnaround for LHR is 45 minutes so no your wrong. EU flights are not hoovered away from base. Only a presentation check is performed by crew e.g. walk up the aisle and lift pieces of trash that may not have been picked up prior to landing.

Skadoosh

xxx000 wrote: »

I don't mean deep cleaned or anything i just mean hoovered or whatever. Is 40 mins not less than 30 mins? I'm not bein smart but they are somewhat shorter and some turnarounds are 55 mins, or on A330 routes during the summer a bit longer again - bigger aircraft - takes longer to turn around.

And correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but don't loaders clean the planes because cabin crew refused to it in a different dispute? So the extra work was given to loaders instead because cabin crew were militant? But there's loads of support from ground crew? :rolleyes:

xxx000

Skadoosh wrote: »

Not being argumentative here but you said as a fact that there was lots of support from ground crew. You didn't mention at that stage that you had cabin crew relatives. I can guarantee you there is little or no support for cabin crew from ground crew. You're stating a lot of "facts" with nothing to back them up and on this, at least, you're 100% wrong. (And, like Kate, remarkably well informed on cabin crew duties for a civvy).

I'm not a civvy??? I've openly said my sister, who I see nearly every day, is crew. I give out bout my work - she does same - d normal stuff, ya know. I've seen a few of her e -mails of support from different groups sending them on to impact. Come here - of course people are going to say to her face they support her - so if they're lyin or she's lyin (though I would not doubt her) then so be it.

Capt'n Midnight

Haven't read the entire thread.
But as far as I can tell it's all well within the Working Time Directive and other national and EU law. If not then meal breaks issue would be an open and shut case.

How long does it take to train cabin crew ( 4 weeks ?) , and how long does it take to train up. I understand that there is more to it than being a trolley dolly but it's a sad state of affairs if new crew could have been trained up from scratch since the beginning of the talks.

Yes the company is trying to take advantage of the economic climate, but if the share price of Aer Linugus falls enough RyanAir would be tempted again in spite of any ruling. And it doesn't need to be explained what would happen then to terms and conditions.

Actually can propose a buyer for Aer Lingus that wouldn't result in a change n work practices greater than those currently on the table ?


And yes I prefer to fly Aer Lingus, but will switch to British Midland on the London route because of better baggage allowence if carrying stuff. I will switch to RyanAir if there is a large difference in price.

xxx000

kevinmcc wrote: »

Turnaround for LHR is 45 minutes so no your wrong. EU flights are not hoovered away from base. Only a presentation check is performed by crew e.g. walk up the aisle and lift pieces of trash that may not have been picked up prior to landing.

They are hoovered at request. And if an aircraft gets in early they cannot board til check in's closed. In amstersam I've heard that can be a major problem. So they could be on ground for an hour and still leave on time.
All bins also have to be emptied as a security risk or breach or whatever that would be and do they not cross seatbelts.

xxx000

Skadoosh wrote: »

And correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but don't loaders clean the planes because cabin crew refused to it in a different dispute? So the extra work was given to loaders instead because cabin crew were militant? But there's loads of support from ground crew? :rolleyes:

Cleaners are back. Like proper cleaners cause loaders wouldn't do it anymore.

Skadoosh

xxx000 wrote: »

I'm not a civvy??? I've openly said my sister, who I see nearly every day, is crew. I give out bout my work - she does same - d normal stuff, ya know. I've seen a few of her e -mails of support from different groups sending them on to impact. Come here - of course people are going to say to her face they support her - so if they're lyin or she's lyin (though I would not doubt her) then so be it.

As I said, I have friends who are cabin crew. Am I saying to them "hold on a sec, why are you moaning about getting up at 5.00 when other groups get up at 2.00?". No, I'm not (and yes, they do moan about getting up at 5.00). Do I gently say "Oh yes, I know, DH was up at 2.00 this morning, it's awful". Yes. If they choose not to see the irony, that's their problem. But you said you had friends in ground crew who support cabin crew, and you never mentioned your sister being cabin crew until waaaaaay into the thread.

Skadoosh

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How long does it take to train cabin crew ( 4 weeks ?) , and how long does it take to train up. I understand that there is more to it than being a trolley dolly but it's a sad state of affairs if new crew could have been trained up from scratch since the beginning of the talks.

My understanding is they're going to advertise the cabin crew positions next week.

For those who are cabin crew or have relatives who are cabin crew, just a question. If you're one of the first to be told "work per your contract or you're fired", and you stick to your principles and lose your job, do you think after 50 or 60 firings the people behind you will do the same? Or will they think "well, that's not working, we'll have to back down". And if they do, do you think you'll be rehired? It's those people I feel sorry for.

kevinmcc

xxx000 wrote: »

and turnarounds on europes are longer than on UK's cause the aircraft has to be cleaned.

xxx000 wrote: »

I don't mean deep cleaned or anything i just mean hoovered or whatever.

xxx000 wrote: »

They are hoovered at request.

You kinda contradict yourself a lot.

kevinmcc

Skadoosh wrote: »

My understanding is they're going to advertise the cabin crew positions next week.

For those who are cabin crew or have relatives who are cabin crew, just a question. If you're one of the first to be told "work per your contract or you're fired", and you stick to your principles and lose your job, do you think after 50 or 60 firings the people behind you will do the same? Or will they think "well, that's not working, we'll have to back down". And if they do, do you think you'll be rehired? It's those people I feel sorry for.

Yes I seen that on the news, they said they were now expecting to dismiss them within a few days. I don't know how long Aer Lingus training lasts but usually it's around 4 weeks. I'd imagine they'll be advertising asap.

xxx000

Skadoosh wrote: »

As I said, I have friends who are cabin crew. Am I saying to them "hold on a sec, why are you moaning about getting up at 5.00 when other groups get up at 2.00?". No, I'm not (and yes, they do moan about getting up at 5.00). Do I gently say "Oh yes, I know, DH was up at 2.00 this morning, it's awful". Yes. If they choose not to see the irony, that's their problem. But you said you had friends in ground crew who support cabin crew, and you never mentioned your sister being cabin crew until waaaaaay into the thread.

I've a good friend who's partner is on the ground, now again, he could just be tellin my sis that to be nice. I don't know.
And my god i only had 4 posts d other day, not exactly waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy into the thread. Besides I wanted a little understandin of it for myself before i could form a proper opinion.
i have as much knowledge from my sister's side as you could have from your husbands - woud that noy be fair to state.
I don't really like this personal attack you seem to be taking with anyone you "suspect" may be crew!!!

xxx000

kevinmcc wrote: »

You kinda contradict yourself a lot.

I'm not tryin to prove anything. I just say what I think and then someone points out that I may be wrong so I correct myself if it's a fair point

Skadoosh

I dislike people pretending to be what they aren't, that's all. At least cabincrew came out and very obviously stated what she was and argued her point.

And no, you won't have as much knowledge from your sister's point of view as I have from my husband's 20 plus years (for all of which we've been married). Aer Lingus pays my mortgage, I'm presuming it doesn't pay yours. I have a bit more interest in following all the various ups and downs of the company than I presume you have.

My sister works for a multinational. I know a good bit about what goes on but would I know the same as her partner? No.

(And what I meant about way into the thread was page 62, not your number of posts).

And again, I'm talking specifically about you saying that there's support from ground crew. There isn't. If there was, as already was pointed out, then ground crew would refuse to deal with the hire-in planes out of solidarity. The fact that they haven't shows how much support there is out there. That's not subjective.

kevinmcc

Statement from Aer Lingus released yesterday evening:

Aer Lingus commenced its "Greenfield" cost reduction programme in late 2009 in order to ensure the future viability and cost competitiveness of the Group. A core element of the "Greenfield" programme was the requirement by cabin crew to achieve 850 flying hours per annum. This requirement was accepted by 93% of cabin crew in a ballot in March 2010 and was subsequently affirmed under legally binding arbitration by the Labour Relations Commission 5 months ago.

Aer Lingus has developed revised rosters in line with international best practice to achieve the 850 flying hours per annum requirement, as agreed under the "Greenfield" programme. However, IMPACT cabin crew members refused to constructively engage with management in the development of these rosters and instead commenced a work-to-rule programme in October 2010. IMPACT cabin crew members subsequently refused to operate these revised rosters on the final phase of their introduction on 17 January 2011. As a result of this refusal, approximately 180 cabin crew have now been removed from the Group's payroll.

As a commercial entity, Aer Lingus has a reasonable right to expect that all parties with whom it has contracts, including staff, honour their contractual commitments. For operational and financial reasons, Aer Lingus can no longer tolerate a situation where IMPACT cabin crew members unilaterally decide that previously agreed contractual agreements do not apply to them. As a result, Aer Lingus is today commencing disciplinary proceedings against these staff members, which could ultimately result in the termination of their employment with the Group.

Aer Lingus will apply its best efforts to minimise passenger disruption caused by this non-cooperation by IMPACT members over the coming days. Despite these efforts, Aer Lingus currently expects it will be forced to cancel up to 10% of its flight schedule, subject to daily review. The Group will be proactively cancelling flights on high frequency routes in order to be able to offer customers alternative travel options as soon as is practicable.

Aer Lingus will continue to lease aircraft and crews from other airlines in order to minimise passenger disruption. At current levels, the financial cost of these leases is not material in the context of the Group's operations. However, a continuation of the dispute could have an adverse impact on passenger bookings which could, in turn, have a potentially significant impact on the Group's trading performance.

The responsibility for any adverse financial impact of this disruption is attributable directly to those IMPACT cabin crew members who have decided not to operate their agreed rosters. This decision has been taken at the expense of Aer Lingus, its passengers and shareholders, including a significant number of current and former employees who own shares in the Group.

Aer Lingus will make further announcements as appropriate.

kate74

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Haven't read the entire thread.
But as far as I can tell it's all well within the Working Time Directive and other national and EU law. If not then meal breaks issue would be an open and shut case.


.

Cabin crew are NOT covered by the working time act, the same as junior doctors

foxinsox

kate74 wrote: »

Cabin crew are NOT covered by the working time act, the same as junior doctors

Earlier on in this thread someone said that they are covered by it?

I'd find it hard to believe that they are not.

I was also wondering does it say in their contracts that they cannot take a break in a 10/11 hour shift?

I did ask this question already in the thread but nobody answered it.

mandy30

xxx000 wrote: »

I've a good friend who's partner is on the ground, now again, he could just be tellin my sis that to be nice. I don't know.
And my god i only had 4 posts d other day, not exactly waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy into the thread. Besides I wanted a little understandin of it for myself before i could form a proper opinion.
i have as much knowledge from my sister's side as you could have from your husbands - woud that noy be fair to state.
I don't really like this personal attack you seem to be taking with anyone you "suspect" may be crew!!!

I seem to remember you are very good at the personal attacks yourself.
Whats good for the goose.....

kate74

foxinsox wrote: »

Earlier on in this thread someone said that they are covered by it?

I'd find it hard to believe that they are not.

I was also wondering does it say in their contracts that they cannot take a break in a 10/11 hour shift?

I did ask this question already in the thread but nobody answered it.

I have no idea what is in their contracts but cabin crew are not covered by working time act so breaks that you have to get by law in office and other jobs don't apply.

kevinmcc

kate74 wrote: »

I have no idea what is in their contracts but cabin crew are not covered by working time act so breaks that you have to get by law in office and other jobs don't apply.

But they are covered under EU ops as is anyone who is crew

kate74

kevinmcc wrote: »

But they are covered under EU ops as is anyone who is crew

DO EU ops state that crew have to have a break? I'm not familiar with their regulation

kevinmcc

kate74 wrote: »

I have no idea what is in their contracts but cabin crew are not covered by working time act so breaks that you have to get by law in office and other jobs don't apply.

But they are covered under the EU Ops so stop making out they will be going 11 hours with nothing, taken from the handbook:

A meal and drink opportunity must occur in order to avoid any detriment to a crew member’s performance, especially when
the FDP exceeds six hours.

mandy30

xxx000 wrote: »

If you had any clear input into it yourself Mandy, you'd have more to say than "oh, they sit on their asses". As to me not relating to the real thread - it seems it's turned into a "we hate cabin crew" thread. As many previous posters said it's all envy!! I know a few people who work for aer lingus on the ground and even they are aggreing with the collegues, the crew. The pilots are also supporting them as are anyone who bothers, like myself, to get the real facts on the dispute - not just the "they're whingers and old fat ladies lucky to have a job" attitude that you seem to have!!!!! Was your flight cancelled recently? - Is that the real reason you're so bitter? Did you ever actually work for EI - I don't believe anyone who did would spout off the rubbish you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hypocrite.

When you joined the thread you failed to mention you were being brainwashed by your sister. Who is turn has been brainwashed by IMPACT.

Ground staff supporting them? EH NO!

ENVY? Of making a public fool of yourself? And walking face first into the dole queue? NO!

foxinsox

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age a company would ask any worker in any situation to work 10/11 hour shift with no break.

kevinmcc has said, EU regulations covers it..
I have googled to try and find the facts of whether The Working Time Directive is not applicable to airline staff?
Can't find the answer.

From a neutral point of view I'm just trying to understand the situation.

So this thread is bouncing back and forth..

One of the issues I have picked up is the no break for 10/11 hour shift?
Now it seems that that is not the case.

The 27 days away from home situation?

Has that been rostered for anyone yet?

Micky Dolenz

If anyone has a problem with a post/poster please report the post.

Lets all stay grounded here.

mandy30

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If anyone one has a problem with a post/poster please report the post.

Lets all stay grounded here.

Lol - grounded indeed

kate74

I never said crew will be going 11 hours without anything to eat (that's a bit dramatic) I just said they are not covered by working time act so the case isn't as open and shut as the previous poster said.

mandy30

Interesting

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20110125-712689.html

kevinmcc

kate74 wrote: »

I never said crew will be going 11 hours without anything to eat (that's a bit dramatic) I just said they are not covered by working time act so the case isn't as open and shut as the previous poster said.

True, but you did say that anyone working more than 8 hours is entitled to a break. Do you not think the EU Law is sufficient to have a drink and meal if you have more than 6 hours of duty?

Skadoosh

Other people including cabincrew have stated that they will work 11 hours without a break.

It has since been proven that they will have breaks, just that they will have to stagger them and take them on the plane.

Not the same thing at all.

foxinsox

Skadoosh wrote: »

Other people including cabincrew have stated that they will work 11 hours without a break.

It has since been proven that they will have breaks, just that they will have to stagger them and take them on the plane.

Not the same thing at all.

Thanks, I was pretty sure I didn't just make up the 10/11 hour shift with no break..

I just don't have the time or the energy to go searching for the particular posts..

If anyone can provide a link where it says that Irish airline staff are not covered by The Working Time Directive I'd be interested to see it. As there seems to be conflicting opinions on here as to whether they are covered by it or not..

Sad as it is to say, I think a lot of people are going to end up losing their jobs as they are not working in accordance to the T & C they agreed on.

mandy30

foxinsox wrote: »

Thanks, I was pretty sure I didn't just make up the 10/11 hour shift with no break..

I just don't have the time or the energy to go searching for the particular posts..

If anyone can provide a link where it says that Irish airline staff are not covered by The Working Time Directive I'd be interested to see it. As there seems to be conflicting opinions on here as to whether they are covered by it or not..

Sad as it is to say, I think a lot of people are going to end up losing their jobs as they are not working in accordance to the T & C they agreed on.

I think you are right.
See quote below from RTE News.

A Ryanair spokesman said: 'Ryanair will in common with other shareholders continue to support the Board and Management of Aer Lingus, to minimise disruptions to passengers and damage inflicted upon Irish tourism by this ill-judged, unnecessary and unwarranted trade union disruption.'

Ryanair and all the other carriers are supporting EI through this and will continue to do so.

juke

foxinsox wrote: »

If anyone can provide a link where it says that Irish airline staff are not covered by The Working Time Directive I'd be interested to see it. As there seems to be conflicting opinions on here as to whether they are covered by it or not.

This isn't an definitive answer - just from some googling, so I stand to be corrected:

Under Section 3.3.a of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 the Minister may

by regulations exempt from the application of a specified provision or provisions of this Act persons employed in any specified class or classes of activity—
(a) involving or connected with the transport (by whatever means) of goods or persons

ie the Minister can exclude employees from the provisions of the act if they work in transport.

If the Minister did it would be by way of Statutory Instrument and a quick search resulted in this:
S.I. No. 507/2006 — European Communities (Organisation of Working Time)(Mobile Staff in Civil Aviation) Regulations 2006

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2006/en/si/0507.html

which applies to mobile staff in civil aviation and it sets out annual maximum hours etc.

homerjay2005

surprised so many people thanked this post, but it stands out as an example of why this country is no longer the force it was - people just looking for somebody to blame.

Joey the lips wrote: »

It explains why

We have unions with no power.

your joking right? apart from france, our unions are up there with the most troublesome in the world. youve either never worked with unions, been affected by them or are in one. unions are a shower of troublesome, selfish, desperate, c*nts who do no good only screw companies over for their own benifits.

Joey the lips wrote: »

People on crap wages.

again, your taking the Pi*s here. this country has a huge wage structure, one of the biggest in europe...people are being over paid here, by quite some distance. for a job that people get paid €8.65 an hour for in ireland, its 2 or 3 € in other parts of europe. irish wages are too high, it is part of the reason we are now in the s*ite as people got paid too much, bought houses they couldnt afford and now, when the sh*t has hit the fan, they cant pay them back.

Joey the lips wrote: »

Ryanair are very unethical in this dispute imo. They have given aer lingus plays at below market rate and these are most likely staffed by people who are more delighted they are in a plane than in there own country.

dont see you point here, your making no sense...your bordering dangerous, snobbish remarks here.

Joey the lips wrote: »

It has the real effect of totally screwing up our kids chances of decent employment as it will become the standard in jobs.

in what way? we are already turned into a nation of lazy people who look for the first reason not to go tow work and get away with it. "decent employment" is a priviledge, not a right. just ask people who are currently on the dole who would give their right arm for a job, any job. you are expected to go to work and within reason, do the job your asked to. you get paid for it. it seems here, that a company with a history of strikes and disruptions is once again being held to randsom by their employees and for the first time ever, they are not giving in.

Joey the lips wrote: »

But not to worry you can get where your going so screw everyone else i imagine.

thats absolute B8llix imo. easy to say when your probably sitting at home, with no intention of travelling anywhere. meanwhile, 100's of people each day are getting flights cancelled, not able to get home, stuck in some airport they dont want to be in. if you pay for a service, you expect it to happen. you telling me you go to a club and they close the bar for half an hour to strike, youd be happy? or if the chef in the restaurant you were in, had his wages docked 40cents an hour decided to go on strike between your starter and dessert, youd support him? would you f*ck.

we can all claim the moral highground and scream for better workers rights, but go work in other less well off countries and youll see just how well off we are...while i am sure theres examples of people being exploited in this country, are lingus is not one of them and the work force here is pretty well treated.

Skadoosh

foxinsox wrote: »

Thanks, I was pretty sure I didn't just make up the 10/11 hour shift with no break..

I just don't have the time or the energy to go searching for the particular posts..

Allow me.

This is what was put out by cabin crew on Facebook, quoted by Kevinmcc (post #55).

All meal breaks removed from European flights. This means cabin crew can work shifts of up to 11 hours with no meal break. There was formerly an entitlement to a half-hour break after six hours duties.

happygolucky90 wrote: »

My friend was suspended yesterday because she took a 30 minute meal break after a 4 hr 30 min journey to las palmas before she had to fly directly home. please bare in mind that she checked in over an hr before she began flying, spent 30 mins on the plane before it took off. So Basically her working day was approx 11 hrs. now anyone that flys regularly knows how exhausting it is, so you can imagine what its like flying for 9 hrs while being rushed off your feet.

happygolucky90 wrote: »

My friend is now suspended witout pay indefinatly, just for taking a break. she has a mortgage and 2 children, do u really think shes striking because shes a "spoilt brat"??.

whycliff wrote: »

Having worked in Aerlingus in the past i know how it goes.

There are many different aspects to this dispute. One of which is Aerlingus do not wish to grant a half hour meal break during a duty. A duty could last anything up to a 10 hour day. In what other job would someone not get a half hour break during a 9 hour day?

I'm neither siding with the Union or the Company, but people should know all the facts.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

Also heard of a couple of staff being suspended for taking a meal break during an 11 hr shift.

cabincrew wrote: »

why should i be out for a meal

plasmaguy wrote: »

From what I understand, the cabin crew aren't allowed a meal break despite working for 11 hours in a row.
.

And then after being pulled up on the fact that it's not that cabin crew aren't allowed meal breaks but now have to have them on the plane:

cabincrew wrote: »

the problem is the company want us to take our breaks in the air and not have the 30min meal break on 3sector.