Well done Aer Lingus

ProfessorPlum

NSAman wrote: »

My point is that the customer should not have to listen to the staff's gripes. If they feel that the job is not for them, then there are options. As a paying customer I deserve (as does every other customer) the same treatment.

Moral can be low in all jobs from time to time, (people get tired, disillusioned etc) but being a professional should not see this affecting their performance though. They have a job to do.

From time to time - maybe, not for 5+ years. I take your point though, but I do think it's a company's responsibility also to maintain a reasonable moral among it's staff.

NSAman

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

From time to time - maybe, not for 5+ years. I take your point though, but I do think it's a company's responsibility also to maintain a reasonable moral among it's staff.

If you are pee'd off for 5+ years, isn't it time to find a new job? Don't blame the company, do something about it, for your own sense of health and happiness?

ProfessorPlum

Balmed Out wrote: »

Load of crap. There are plenty of other options in an industrial dispute that wont put the livelihood and the very jobs of the nearly 200,000 people working in tourism at risk.

6 times the LRC have ruled in the cabin crews favour, and 6 times the company has refused to implement the findings. They are at the end of their tether.

Woodville56

bumper234 wrote: »

Shock horror, CEO of a large company earns more than the workers.

More avoidance of the fact which I pointed out and sarcastic crap to boot ! If that's the level of your debate, I'm out of here !
Incidentally I think Meuller earns significantly more than CEO's of comparative size airlines if you care to check !!

I am pie

suicide_circus wrote: »

Are aer lingus not loss making?

1st quarter 2014 Operating Loss was 48.5m. As in, it costs 48.5 million a year to run the airline. No profit made.

Staff costs increased more than 6% from last year so it is not feasible to hire new staff or incur new costs in that area.

No point being disengenuous and pretending AL have money to burn. The cash they have betwenn 500 to 600m is steadily being eroded. All other costs including fuel costs and airport charges are flat or decreasing, staff costs are increasing 6% every year.

Make of that what you will. All available in the Mar 2014 corporate statement.

I am pie

On the pension front. Judge for yourselves.

Do you think that 75% final salary pensions with early retiremen plus free air travel are the norm?

ProfessorPlum

I am pie wrote: »

1st quarter 2014 Operating Loss was 48.5m. As in, it costs 48.5 million a year to run the airline. No profit made.

Staff costs increased more than 6% from last year so it is not feasible to hire new staff or incur new costs in that area.

No point being disengenuous and pretending AL have money to burn. The cash they have betwenn 500 to 600m is steadily being eroded. All other costs including fuel costs and airport charges are flat or decreasing, staff costs are increasing 6% every year.

Make of that what you will. All available in the Mar 2014 corporate statement.

First quarter is always slow in aviation. Profitable for the last 3 years from memory

I am pie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

First quarter is always slow in aviation. Profitable for the last 3 years from memory

Staff costs still rose 6% , the only operating expense to rise.

Overall profit was 60m in 2013. Consider that against the fact that:

It costs 1.36 billion euro to run the airline earning 1.43 billion.

It's a knife edge basically. Controlling one of your largest costs makes sense to me.

Perhaps the fact that CEO Mueller has turned the airline round to make a small % of profit after years of loss making reflects the value of his package?

Nulty

suicide_circus wrote: »

You would be forgiven for thinking that aer lingus management are truly despotic and working conditions draconian given the staff's propensity for industrial action. Average salary of €74k plus various perks seems decent to me but what do I know.

That ain't the cabin crew

Nulty

suicide_circus wrote: »

Are aer lingus not loss making?

No. They've made profits of €40M in each of the past two years. In no small part Thanks to the cabin crews efforts.

Nulty

NSAman wrote: »

My point is that the customer should not have to listen to the staff's gripes. If they feel that the job is not for them, then there are options. As a paying customer I deserve (as does every other customer) the same treatment.

Moral can be low in all jobs from time to time, (people get tired, disillusioned etc) but being a professional should not see this affecting their performance though. They have a job to do.

You're not wrong. It's clearly complicated and messy and stone of then are just arseholes but a little understanding allows you to see that. As a paying customer though you deserve good service when things aren't as bad as they are when employees feel the only way to resin with the company is to take industrial action.

I am pie

Nulty wrote: »

No. They've made profits of €40M in each of the past two years. In no small part Thanks to the cabin crews efforts.

Profit margin is around 3 to 4 % , you need to spend about 1.4bn to generate that profit. It's very thin, understandable that it's important to manage costs.

What costs can be controlled out of the 3 significant costs to run an airline year on year.

1. Oil/Fuel - nope. Unless they buy themselves a small petrol producing country!
2. Airport Charges - nope. Unless they buy themselves a few hundred airports!
3. Staff Costs. yes.

It's a fairly cold view of things but in the context of low margin high cost operations in the private sector, it is always going to be staff costs which are under pressure.

Nulty

I am pie wrote: »

Profit margin is around 3 to 4 % , you need to spend about 1.4bn to generate that profit. It's very thin, understandable that it's important to manage costs.

What costs can be controlled out of the 3 significant costs to run an airline year on year.

1. Oil/Fuel - nope. Unless they buy themselves a small petrol producing country!
2. Airport Charges - nope. Unless they buy themselves a few hundred airports!
3. Staff Costs. yes.

It's a fairly cold view of things but in the context of low margin high cost operations in the private sector, it is always going to be staff costs which are under pressure.

I'm no financial expert.

Am I reading these wrong?

http://corporate.aerlingus.com/investorrelations/keyhistoricperformancedata/index.html

Nulty

I am pie wrote: »

Staff costs still rose 6% , the only operating expense to rise.

Overall profit was 60m in 2013. Consider that against the fact that:

It costs 1.36 billion euro to run the airline earning 1.43 billion.

It's a knife edge basically. Controlling one of your largest costs makes sense to me.

Perhaps the fact that CEO Mueller has turned the airline round to make a small % of profit after years of loss making reflects the value of his package?

The staff are trying to get better working rosters. As far as I can tell this will take some administrative work to organise but they'll still be as productive if not more so once it's implemented.

I am pie

Nulty wrote: »

The staff are trying to get better working rosters. As far as I can tell this will take some administrative work to organise but they'll still be as productive if not more so once it's implemented.

So long as the cost per hour worked doesn't increase I can't see why they wouldn't do it, my uninformed impression is that there must be some additional cost to the airline.

I don't believe they would jeopardise st paddys weekend / week revenue and other lost revenue due to strikes just because they aren't open to new rostering. Sounds implausible.

Again, the only facts are that the airline makes a 3 to 4% margin on a billion+ investment, fuel costs and charges by other airlines are outside of their control so to protect and increase margin they will look to staff costs. That's just how CEO or management at that level will think.

end of the road

jmayo wrote: »

Unions in lots of enterprises, particularly our public service, protect inefficency.

they don't

jmayo wrote: »

For instance please note how unions ensured that workers were not made redundant or moved to other areas when the HSE was supposedly created to almagamate and consolidate the health boards.

unions in protecting their members shocker

jmayo wrote: »

In any other enterprise duplications would have been removed either by moving staff to other areas or removing them altogether.

happens in all jobs, sometimes duplication is necessary

jmayo wrote: »

Thus the HSE was a dead duck from day one because unions had ensured there were no cost savings through the removal of duplication of effort.

dead duck maybe, not because of the unions, cost savings happened, but if you want a health care system you have to pay for it

jmayo wrote: »

Unions prevent inept and lazy staff from being removed from the system.

they don't, if theres a good legitimate reason for the staff member being sacked they will be, if not then the union will step in.

jmayo wrote: »

How many inept non functioning teachers have been fired in this state in the last 40 years for instance ?

i'm sure many

jmayo wrote: »

You mean the British industry that was on strike almost every other day of the week at one stage.

down to bad management and personality clashes, thatcher would have sold it off to her little buddies anyway or shut it down to drive the working class into indefinite poverty as she was only interested in the middle and upper classes

jmayo wrote: »

Ever wonder why thatcher got elected PM in the first place ?

no, it was because poor michael foot wasn't seen to be a good leader for the country, while she was the worst of 2 evils if her opposition wasn't seen to be a good leader then she was going to get in.

jmayo wrote: »

It was because most people were sick and tired of the shyte that unions were doing and bringing the country to a standstill every other week.

begrudgers yes, many knew why the unions did what they did, the government were trying to remove their jobs.

jmayo wrote: »

Watching your rubbish pile up on the street causes the likes of thatcher to gain a lot of popularity.

yeah, rubbish piling up usually means more rubbish thats very true, and britain got it in the form of mrs thatcher burn in hell

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah of course it was all the fault of those evil rich people that British industry became a joke and ended up being picked apart by foreign vultures.

government, the "foreign vultures" would have picked it apart anyway when it was all sold off to a governments friends.

jmayo wrote: »

you forgot to mention the mail whilst up on that high horse of yours.

i wouldn't wipe me arse with it

end of the road

Balmed Out wrote: »

Load of crap. There are plenty of other options in an industrial dispute that wont put the livelihood and the very jobs of the nearly 200,000 people working in tourism at risk.

there isn't, if a strike is called its because all other options have been exausted

Idbatterim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven81 View Post
Would love to see what o leary would do if people dared mess with him
with trade unions, it could end in a blood bath on both sides, he's best off at ryanair

I posed the question before, would there be any strikes if Ryanair had a controlling stake in AL? Are they simply taking the piss because they are used to getting away with it?

As for anyone what has booked flights recently with AL, LOL you musnt have a lot to worry about if there was an alternative choice on your route!

noodler

Nulty wrote: »

I'm no financial expert.

Am I reading these wrong?

http://corporate.aerlingus.com/investorrelations/keyhistoricperformancedata/index.html

Nulty wrote: »

No. They've made profits of €40M in each of the past two years. In no small part Thanks to the cabin crews efforts.

Years of losses prior as well.

They also have shareholders, right?

SaveOurLyric

So one day of strike and Aer Lingus management caves.
No wonder the cc think they may as well go for more.

Director of Communications, Declan Kearney said: “IMPACT's stated reason for engaging in a strike, which damaged Aer Lingus’ business and its customers was to seek the 5:3:5:3 fixed roster pattern. This is exactly what Aer Lingus has put on the table for the past three days. - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/further-strikes-loom-as-aer-lingus-cabin-crew-talks-break-down-30335558.html#sthash.oBpZUHPu.dpuf

suicide_circus

Idbatterim wrote: »

I posed the question before, would there be any strikes if Ryanair had a controlling stake in AL? Are they simply taking the piss because they are used to getting away with it?

As for anyone what has booked flights recently with AL, LOL you musnt have a lot to worry about if there was an alternative choice on your route!

I'm flying with them later in the summer but only cause I had no other option!

Two more srike days now planned for 16 and 18 June

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0606/622024-aer-lingus/?noredirection=true

I certainly couldn't afford to lose this many days pay!

jjbrien

Id say we are in for a summer of strikes with them now. The government should just have allowed Ryanair to take them over years ago, O'Leary would not have put up with any of this. SAS in Denmark had this same issue a few years ago the fix was they bought a private norwegian airline called Braathens and managed to get all their norwegian staff on braathens contracts. They then turned around to the Danish unions and said if you dont want to work we will hire in people from Norway and they will work the new contracts. Worked like a gem they all signed the new contacts and it was over.

Look at what Irish Ferries did here in Ireland (I dont agree with what Irish Ferries did personally but it worked for them) they hired in Polish staff from an agency. Its a similar job to cabin crew at aer lingus but it cut out all the union rubbish.

end of the road

jjbrien wrote: »

The government should just have allowed Ryanair to take them over years ago

EU competition laws, not up to the government, if it was it would have been sold

jjbrien wrote: »

O'Leary would not have put up with any of this.

who cares, he has his own airline he can stay there, i'd rather have no job then work for the likes of his type.

jjbrien wrote: »

SAS in Denmark had this same issue a few years ago the fix was they bought a private norwegian airline called Braathens and managed to get all their norwegian staff on braathens contracts. They then turned around to the Danish unions and said if you dont want to work we will hire in people from Norway and they will work the new contracts.

and? the thing to do there is to make sure that if a threat like that is made to call their bluff and then if they do get in new workers make sure theres no jobs for them

jjbrien wrote: »

Worked like a gem they all signed the new contacts and it was over.

it didn't work, a non-published behind the sceenes agreement would have been reached before those contracts would have been signed.

jjbrien wrote: »

Look at what Irish Ferries did here in Ireland (I dont agree with what Irish Ferries did personally but it worked for them) they hired in Polish staff from an agency. Its a similar job to cabin crew at aer lingus but it cut out all the union rubbish.

the unions should have destroyed irish ferries for doing that, discusting behaviour, i believe some ports refused to allow irish ferries ships to dock during that issue? fair play to them if so the way to go

jjbrien

end of the road wrote: »

EU competition laws, not up to the government, if it was it would have been sold



who cares, he has his own airline he can stay there, i'd rather have no job then work for the likes of his type.



and? the thing to do there is to make sure that if a threat like that is made to call their bluff and then if they do get in new workers make sure theres no jobs for them



it didn't work, a non-published behind the sceenes agreement would have been reached before those contracts would have been signed.



the unions should have destroyed irish ferries for doing that, discusting behaviour, i believe some ports refused to allow irish ferries ships to dock during that issue? fair play to them if so the way to go

What im trying to say is the way the union is going there might not be much of an aer lingus left. I dont agree with the unions holding the traveling public to ransom. Also people are coming here on holidays too and we asa country need to be open for business. There are many people on the dole who would love that pay and do them hours glady.

end of the road

jjbrien wrote: »

What im trying to say is the way the union is going there might not be much of an aer lingus left.

the unions members are striking for good reason, nobody strikes for the hell of it as they lose a days pay, it was the last tool in the box.

jjbrien wrote: »

There are many people on the dole who would love that pay and do them hours glady.

that old nonsense chessnut, if such people on the dole would love the pay so much and would so gladly do the hours then why didn't they apply when the opportunity was there? truth is they wouldn't do the hours, and some would look down their noses at the pay, its a sad reality but a reality

SaveOurLyric

end of the road wrote: »

the unions members are striking for good reason, nobody strikes for the hell of it as they lose a days pay, it was the last tool in the box.

There is no such thing as a strike for good reason. A strike is used when employees reckon they can force an outcome they want by a show of force superior to that which the employer is judged to be able to defend without paying a higher price than giving in to the bullying. It is a cynical and immoral action. Justifying it as 'last tool in the box' or 'we didnt want to but we had no other option' is no better than the 'she made me hit her your honour' defence.

end of the road

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

There is no such thing as a strike for good reason. A strike is used when employees reckon they can force an outcome they want by a show of force superior to that which the employer is judged to be able to defend without paying a higher price than giving in to the bullying. It is a cynical and immoral action. Justifying it as 'last tool in the box' or 'we didnt want to but we had no other option' is no better than the 'she made me hit her your honour' defence.

nonsense, they tried every other option and it didn't work, as management refused to listen to the greevence

Cravens

As much as I hate to say it, I decided to avoid EI for my travels this year, and that is due to the fact that there seems to be a threat of a strike at any given moment. I think that both sides are equally liable for this cock-up, both sides and their inability to budge have caused a toxic situation. So I am going to go with what Paul Kilduff labelled "Ruinair."

I would have paid the €20 extra to travel with Aer Lingus, but not with this frequency of strike threats. I think that the unions may have been somewhat surprised really that Aer Lingus said "enough is enough" on this occasion.

I can't really give any insight into how either side could put this right in a satisfactory way for both sides, but the sooner both sides learn to compromise the better.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

RahenyD5

Does anyone think more should be done to save Aer Lingus from extinction?

It would be sad to see it disappear like Hungary's Malev with Ryanair likely becoming our new flag carrier.

Perhaps Air France-KLM or IAG should take it over instead of Ryanair due to competition otherwise Dublin Airport T1 would become dedicated to Ryanair flights only and we would only have Ryanair to get anywhere in Europe, hardly a choice.

The government should force Ryanair to accept more competition such as allowing other budget carriers like Norwegian, Germanwings & Easyjet to Irish airports.

Thank god for that BA link from Dublin to Heathrow, in case of problems with Aer Lingus & Ryanair.

SaveOurLyric

end of the road wrote: »

nonsense, they tried every other option and it didn't work, as management refused to listen to the greevence

They listened alright. Not giving them what they want doesnt equate to not listening. But saying they wouldnt listen is better PR if you dont mind playing loose with the truth.

end of the road

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

They listened alright. Not giving them what they want doesnt equate to not listening. But saying they wouldnt listen is better PR if you dont mind playing loose with the truth.

the management didn't listen to the issues and thats the end of it, your wrong move on

end of the road

RahenyD5 wrote: »

Does anyone think more should be done to save Aer Lingus from extinction?

It would be sad to see it disappear like Hungary's Malev with Ryanair likely becoming our new flag carrier.

Perhaps Air France-KLM or IAG should take it over instead of Ryanair due to competition otherwise Dublin Airport T1 would become dedicated to Ryanair flights only and we would only have Ryanair to get anywhere in Europe, hardly a choice.

The government should force Ryanair to accept more competition such as allowing other budget carriers like Norwegian, Germanwings & Easyjet to Irish airports.

Thank god for that BA link from Dublin to Heathrow, in case of problems with Aer Lingus & Ryanair.

yes, no way should ryanair be abel to take over Aer Lingus or become our national carrier, we need a high quality product for those who don't want what ryanair offers, competition

bumper234

RahenyD5 wrote: »

Does anyone think more should be done to save Aer Lingus from extinction?

It would be sad to see it disappear like Hungary's Malev with Ryanair likely becoming our new flag carrier.

Perhaps Air France-KLM or IAG should take it over instead of Ryanair due to competition otherwise Dublin Airport T1 would become dedicated to Ryanair flights only and we would only have Ryanair to get anywhere in Europe, hardly a choice.

The government should force Ryanair to accept more competition such as allowing other budget carriers like Norwegian, Germanwings & Easyjet to Irish airports.

Thank god for that BA link from Dublin to Heathrow, in case of problems with Aer Lingus & Ryanair.

At this stage i personally believe it should be allowed to die. It's more committing suicide than extinction. Let it go and let the staff try to find jobs in the aviation industry when it is gone. They won't be long in wishing for their old contracts back.

Slicemeister

What days are they striking anyone know?

curioser

Slicemeister wrote: »

What days are they striking anyone know?

Heard 16 and 18 June mentioned

miss no stars

bumper234 wrote: »

At this stage i personally believe it should be allowed to die. It's more committing suicide than extinction. Let it go and let the staff try to find jobs in the aviation industry when it is gone. They won't be long in wishing for their old contracts back.

And what about all the non-cabin crew staff who aren't striking?

Choice is good. If Aer Lingus were to go you wouldn't be long waiting on the prices out of Dublin with Ryanair to go way up.

Valetta

end of the road wrote: »

the management didn't listen to the issues and thats the end of it, your wrong move on

The cabin crew didn't listen to managements' proposals. That's the end of it. Move on.

(two can play that game)

bumper234

miss no stars wrote: »

And what about all the non-cabin crew staff who aren't striking?

Choice is good. If Aer Lingus were to go you wouldn't be long waiting on the prices out of Dublin with Ryanair to go way up.

They should have a chat with their fellow workers before they find themselves unemployed.

end of the road

Valetta wrote: »

The cabin crew didn't listen to managements' proposals. That's the end of it. Move on.

(two can play that game)

cabin crew did listen to managements' proposals. wrong again, the proposals were way short of the half way mark where the union would be willing to meet.

Valetta

end of the road wrote: »

cabin crew did listen to managements' proposals. wrong again, the proposals were way short of the half way mark where the union would be willing to meet.

You're just making sweeping statements with nothing to back them up, which is why I called it a game.

I am pie

Can anyone tell us from the airline's perspective what the problem is with the rostering proposal?

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

cabin crew did listen to managements' proposals. wrong again, the proposals were way short of the half way mark where the union would be willing to meet.

Em and why should the managent listen to them? Every single person working there signed up to work the current scheduling system. Its up to management if it needs to be changed. They dont like the schedule then quit. Its time the pampered aer lingus staff realized they arent state run anymore.

simplybam

Wow, just came across this thread and read all 13 pages of it. What a read!

Well, here's my 2¢ +VAT

Unions had a Raison d'être until the early to mid 80's at the most. They then should have all been abolished. The only thing they do these days is to invent justifications for their existence so they can keep drawing their ridiculous salaries while ruining businesses.

Business is what makes the world go round. People getting off their holes and taking a risk starting a business, creating jobs, giving other people a livelihood. And once they start to see a reward, they have a union trying to ruin them because 10 or 20 years down the line they actually make a lot of money and that just can't happen.

And going on strike of inconvenient working hours?! Are ye kidding me? I've worked in hospitality for 15 years - from Burger King to Hilton Hotels in 4 different countries. Had my own restaurant for a while too. It was all on a weekly roster which could change any time. I knew what I signed up for, because I knew what the hospitality sector is like.

For the past 10 years I've been working in the entertainment industry. Same story here. As an example I'll be leaving my house a 5:30am tomorrow morning to go to a job in Belfast; I'll get back around 3am Wednesday morning and have the next job here in Dublin at 7am also on Wednesday. I don't have a problem with that because I know the industry and that's how it works. And more often than not I am working on a day-to-day basis now - so no roster at all!

I still maintain a social life and I would never consider any of that 9-5 stuff. I have never been a member of a union and as a matter of fact I despise those self-righteous, self-serving individuals who run those mobs.

And to the AL employees concerned I can only say - get a grip on reality. Learn about your industry before applying for a job and be aware of the fact that things change. If you don't like the change - go find another job - there are other people out there who will take yours; else deal with it and make it work for you.

On a final note - and I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this before - it was Michael O'Leary who first called for sanctions for cabin crew on strike - specifically to withdraw their travel concessions.

Well, there y'all go. Let the slaughter begin!

end of the road

VinLieger wrote: »

Em and why should the managent listen to them? Every single person working there signed up to work the current scheduling system. Its up to management if it needs to be changed. They dont like the schedule then quit. Its time the pampered aer lingus staff realized they arent state run anymore.

they shouldn't have to quit, they should be able to discuss any problems with management, good management will listen and come up with a solution that meets the needs of all. the current scheduling system isn't the problem, its the changes, one should be able to work the same shift all the time as having one work a day shift then a night another time and so on is bad for the body clock and means the staff are less productive

simplybam

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't have to quit, they should be able to discuss any problems with management, good management will listen and come up with a solution that meets the needs of all. the current scheduling system isn't the problem, its the changes, one should be able to work the same shift all the time as having one work a day shift then a night another time and so on is bad for the body clock and means the staff are less productive

You can never make everybody happy! And especially in an industry like that it is simply impossible to work the same shift all the time. I don't wanna be offensive now, but did you actually engage your grey matter before writing your post? There are numerous variables to take into account - late passengers being the most frequent - but also technical issues either with the plane or at the airport, even crew being late (as happened on a flight I was on very recently) and lots of others. And once you miss you take-off slot you'll have to wait till there's another one available.

end of the road

simplybam wrote: »

Unions had a Raison d'être until the early to mid 80's at the most. They then should have all been abolished.

ah yes, the perfect employment law that all employers are so lovely to obey at all times so no need for anyone to police it, the only reason your types believe the unions should have been abolished or even abolished around the 80s is because once the slave labour conditions were more or less removed you knew improvement in pay would be next and the employers or at least people like you don't want that

simplybam wrote: »

The only thing they do these days is to invent justifications for their existence so they can keep drawing their ridiculous salaries while ruining businesses.
Business is what makes the world go round. People getting off their holes and taking a risk starting a business, creating jobs, giving other people a livelihood. And once they start to see a reward, they have a union trying to ruin them because 10 or 20 years down the line they actually make a lot of money and that just can't happen.

ah yes, slag off the union and make up rabel rabel gibberish to try and fail to discredit them and bleet on about "da poor businesses" you have just admitted what i said above, we can't have the workers looking for better pay, yada yada. so well done

simplybam wrote: »

If you don't like the change - go find another job - there are other people out there who will take yours;

the words of the typical "the pesentry must know their place" and must not stand up for themselves or improve themselves supporter, no, there are very few people who would take such jobs as they are beneeth them

simplybam wrote: »

On a final note - and I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned this before - it was Michael O'Leary who first called for sanctions for cabin crew on strike - specifically to withdraw their travel concessions.

i think it was very obvious Michael O'Leary called for it, mind you someone should have told him to shut up and stick to running ryanair where he can do what he likes.

end of the road

simplybam wrote: »

You can never make everybody happy! And especially in an industry like that it is simply impossible to work the same shift all the time. I don't wanna be offensive now, but did you actually engage your grey matter before writing your post? There are numerous variables to take into account - late passengers being the most frequent - but also technical issues either with the plane or at the airport, even crew being late (as happened on a flight I was on very recently) and lots of others. And once you miss you take-off slot you'll have to wait till there's another one available.

you mentioned technical issues not me, irrelevant to the greevence

VinLieger

end of the road wrote: »

they shouldn't have to quit, they should be able to discuss any problems with management, good management will listen and come up with a solution that meets the needs of all. the current scheduling system isn't the problem, its the changes, one should be able to work the same shift all the time as having one work a day shift then a night another time and so on is bad for the body clock and means the staff are less productive

Well unfortunately that is what they signed up for. I work shift work as well which at sometimes is annoying but you know what? Its what I signed up for so I got used to it and am damn happy to have a job right now.

simplybam

end of the road wrote: »

ah yes, the perfect employment law that all employers are so lovely to obey at all times so no need for anyone to police it, the only reason your types believe the unions should have been abolished or even abolished around the 80s is because once the slave labour conditions were more or less removed you knew improvement in pay would be next and the employers or at least people like you don't want that



ah yes, slag off the union and make up rabel rabel gibberish to try and fail to discredit them and bleet on about "da poor businesses" you have just admitted what i said above, we can't have the workers looking for better pay, yada yada. so well done



the words of the typical "the pesentry must know their place" and must not stand up for themselves or improve themselves supporter, no, there are very few people who would take such jobs as they are beneeth them



i think it was very obvious Michael O'Leary called for it, mind you someone should have told him to shut up and stick to running ryanair where he can do what he likes.

LMAO, you're not Jerry King by any chance, trying desperately to defend your €100K+ salary, are ye?

Because all your posts in this thread are rather 'Yellow Journalism' like in the way you pick'n'choose parts of statements of posters you don't agree with to just make general opposite statements without any substance whatsoever in order to make yourself look important and knowledgeable when you're rather obviously neither.

So, sorry, I won't bother to get into this with you until you offer something substantial to make it worth my while to get into a discussion with you. I won't even bother to point out the amount of hideous spelling mistakes since it would simply require too much of my valuable time.