Well done Aer Lingus

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.

end of the road

simplybam wrote: »

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.

oh go on

suicide_circus

union officials are essentially professional naysayers who have never created a job

ProfessorPlum

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.

I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick regarding what the issues really are. Probably a thread in after hours isn't the best place inform yourself.

bumper234

suicide_circus wrote: »

union officials are essentially professional naysayers who have never created a job

^^^^

i dare say they have lost more jobs than saved. They swoop in and cause ****e and when a % of the workforce end up unemployed the unions will claim "ah but we saved the rest of those jobs"

simplybam

end of the road wrote: »

oh go on

Since I am not a member of any union and don't have their more than dubious support I would have to invoice you for my help. My rate on this occasion would be €1 per spelling mistake pointed out by me. If you would like to advance €20 to my paypal account I shall point out the first 20 of your spelling mistakes. I am prepared to give a repeat customer discount, so the next 20 mistakes will be offered at a rate of €0.75 per mistake. Should there be less mistakes than you paid for I shall maintain your balance for future corrections. This quote includes the correct spelling of every misspelled word! So it's almost like a 2-4-1

Just on the side - you just proved that you have no argument to support your opinion by merely replying to that line of my last post!

I am pie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick regarding what the issues really are. Probably a thread in after hours isn't the best place inform yourself.

Well tell us!!..I have asked twice. List them out, all we hear is that company didn't listen. Give us something tangible?

What are the demands that are not being met??, all of them....

ProfessorPlum

I am pie wrote: »

Well tell us!!..I have asked twice. List them out, all we hear is that company didn't listen. Give us something tangible?

What are the demands that are not being met??, all of them....

You're asking After Hours - what do you expect? I've already wasted enough of my time explaining it elsewhere.

I am pie

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You're asking After Hours - what do you expect? I've already wasted enough of my time explaining it elsewhere.

I'm asking you, not after hours. Send us the link where you've explained it elsewhere.

Steppenwolfe

simplybam wrote: »

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!

Ironically, it's because of people like you and your attitudes that unions are still needed.

homerjay2005

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.

well no, its only since Mueller came in and transformed the company that are making profit.

a massive part of that was getting rid of the high earners off the payroll through multilple redundancies and aligning wages to more realistic ones.

simplybam

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

Ironically, it's because of people like you and your attitudes that unions are still needed.

Please elaborate.

end of the road

homerjay2005 wrote: »

well no, its only since Mueller came in and transformed the company that are making profit.

a massive part of that was getting rid of the high earners off the payroll through multilple redundancies and aligning wages to more realistic ones.

who says they are "realistic" ones realistic is anothers under payed

Hootanany

I will never fly Cunny lingus again until the next time.

Joey99

I'm generally more pro-employer than pro-union but I have to say that in this case the refusal by the company to give some assurances that workers won't get back to back rosters that would leave them absolutely wrecked seems a bit bloody-minded. I'm not accepting as gospel all that the union are saying but when you pair the rosters awkwardly you can make life almost impossible for someone. Cabin crew work unsociable hours, get loads of extra radiation from all that air travel and suffer all the same difficulties with sleep as night workers. If the company is saying it wants to be able to give them back to back rosters from hell (particularly if someone's 'face no longer fit') then I don't think that's tenable.

simplybam

end of the road wrote: »

who says they are "realistic" ones realistic is anothers under payed

What's up 'end of the road'? Given up on me?

And just to make you feel a little bit more useless and inept I would like to add that English is NOT my first language in fact, but I'll be more than happy to help you out anyway.

Especially since you have so much to add to this thread

bumper234

Joey99 wrote: »

I'm generally more pro-employer than pro-union but I have to say that in this case the refusal by the company to give some assurances that workers won't get back to back rosters that would leave them absolutely wrecked seems a bit bloody-minded. I'm not accepting as gospel all that the union are saying but when you pair the rosters awkwardly you can make life almost impossible for someone. Cabin crew work unsociable hours, get loads of extra radiation from all that air travel and suffer all the same difficulties with sleep as night workers. If the company is saying it wants to be able to give them back to back rosters from hell (particularly if someone's 'face no longer fit') then I don't think that's tenable.

Wait!!!!


What?????

Steppenwolfe

simplybam wrote: »

Please elaborate.

I thought it was self evident by your own words. Anyway, it's ironical because you say unions should have been abolished in the mid 80's, but your post is full of bile towards employees and their unions. You are dismissive of their right to fight for decent working conditions and feel they should go elsewhere if they're not happy. It's this attitude by some employers and management which makes it necessary for employees to join unions with paid officials who can collectively bargain for them.

shroom007

Irish governments and therefore the Irish taxpayer have been subsidizing this shower of Wa*kers for years, you'd swear they were doing a difficult highly skilled job.

I dont like my poxy shift pattern but I dont have a cosy little job free flights perks a nice social club/gym/sports club and a nice easy job pushing a trolley up and down a plane. its not like aer lingus is a top notch airline with gold standard service its bloody ryanair in disguise

miss no stars

bumper234 wrote: »

Wait!!!!


What?????

Exposed to as much as a nuclear power plant worker.

bumper234

miss no stars wrote: »

Exposed to as much as a nuclear power plant worker.

Evidence please?

Jawgap

simplybam wrote: »

Please elaborate.

Strikes me that the person in question would be a fan of zero hours contracts.......

miss no stars

bumper234 wrote: »

Evidence please?

Find it yourself

bumper234

miss no stars wrote: »

Find it yourself

You're the one making this ridiculous claim so the onus is on you to provide the proof.

miss no stars

Actually I've no obligation to you whatsoever. Cabin crew less affected than flight crew, though, who have very high incidences of unusual cancers.

simplybam

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

I thought it was self evident by your own words. Anyway, it's ironical because you say unions should have been abolished in the mid 80's, but your post is full of bile towards employees and their unions. You are dismissive of their right to fight for decent working conditions and feel they should go elsewhere if they're not happy. It's this attitude by some employers and management which makes it necessary for employees to join unions with paid officials who can collectively bargain for them.

There are other ways to achieve the goals of both employers and employees.

As long as the employees get rid of their entitlement complex and the unions stop trying to make people believe they actually still do anything for the workers (rather than just making up excuses to justify their completely unjustifiable existence and ridiculous salaries).

Here are a few examples on how it works in successful countries:

smurfjed

bumper234...... look at http://aircrewhealth.com/Topics/hazards/radiation.htm

bumper234

smurfjed wrote: »

bumper234...... look at http://aircrewhealth.com/Topics/hazards/radiation.htm

So no credible evidence then?

ProfessorPlum

bumper234 wrote: »

Wait!!!!


What?????

bumper234 wrote: »

So no credible evidence then?

Ah now, come on Bumper.

"Both the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officially consider aircrews to be occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation."

European directive essentially grounds all aircrew (cabin and cockpit) for the duration of pregnancy.
Regulations require airlines to quantify the exposure to ionising radiation of each individual crew member.

I'm sure the IAA have a policy document on it.

If there were no credible evidence do you think this would be going on without any fuss from the airlines?



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html

"While it may not be commonly known, airline flight crews are currently classified as "radiation workers," a federal designation that means they are consistently exposed to radiation. Flight crews on high-latitude routes, in fact, are exposed to more radiation on an annual basis than nuclear plant workers. "

smurfjed

Would you consider the European Union to be credible?

OPS 1.390
Cosmic radiation
(a) An operator shall take account of the in-flight exposure to cosmic radiation of all crew members while on duty (including
positioning) and shall take the following measures for those crew liable to be subject to exposure of more than
1 mSv per year:
1. assess their exposure;
2. take into account the assessed exposure when organising working schedules with a view to reduce the doses of
highly exposed crew members;
3. inform the crew members concerned of the health risks their work involves;
4. ensure that the working schedules for female crew members, once they have notified the operator that they are
pregnant, keep the equivalent dose to the foetus as low as can reasonably be achieved and in any case ensure that
the dose does not exceed 1 mSv for the remainder of the pregnancy;
5. ensure that individual records are kept for those crew members who are liable to high exposure. These exposures
are to be notified to the individual on an annual basis, and also upon leaving the operator.
(b) 1. an operator shall not operate an aeroplane above 15 000 m (49 000 ft) unless the equipment specified in
OPS 1.680(a)(1) is serviceable, or the procedure prescribed in OPS 1.680(a)(2) is complied with.
2. the commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall initiate a descent as soon as
practicable when the limit values of cosmic radiation dose rate specified in the Operations Manual are exceeded.

bumper234

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Ah now, come on Bumper.

"Both the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officially consider aircrews to be occupationally exposed to ionizing radiation."

European directive essentially grounds all aircrew (cabin and cockpit) for the duration of pregnancy.
Regulations require airlines to quantify the exposure to ionising radiation of each individual crew member.

I'm sure the IAA have a policy document on it.

If there were no credible evidence do you think this would be going on without any fuss from the airlines?



http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/AGU-NAIRAS.html

"While it may not be commonly known, airline flight crews are currently classified as "radiation workers," a federal designation that means they are consistently exposed to radiation. Flight crews on high-latitude routes, in fact, are exposed to more radiation on an annual basis than nuclear plant workers. "

Well i wouldn't know if the IAA have a document on this because i don't work in the safety environment. I personally have never heard of this before so will need to do some research tomorrow before i.make a full reply.

end of the road

shroom007 wrote: »

Irish governments and therefore the Irish taxpayer have been subsidizing this shower of Wa*kers for years, you'd swear they were doing a difficult highly skilled job.

I dont like my poxy shift pattern but I dont have a cosy little job free flights perks a nice social club/gym/sports club and a nice easy job pushing a trolley up and down a plane. its not like aer lingus is a top notch airline with gold standard service its bloody ryanair in disguise

they are doing a highly skilled job, i couldn't do it, the airline may not have gold standard service but i'd pick them over ryanair every time

end of the road

simplybam wrote: »

There are other ways to achieve the goals of both employers and employees.

no there isn't unless you have reasonable employers who recognize problems and wish to solve them in a way that suits all sides.

simplybam wrote: »

As long as the employees get rid of their entitlement complex

yes, the pesentry are only entitled to shut up and know their place and must be greatful for even being allowed to work and get some money, they must take whatever they are given and be greatful and be so greatful they will almost beg to keep the job, well that might be fine for some but i have pride myself and i'm worth more.

simplybam wrote: »

the unions stop trying to make people believe they actually still do anything for the workers (rather than just making up excuses to justify their completely unjustifiable existence and ridiculous salaries).

the unions do a lot for workers, they aren't perfect but while people like you exist they are needed, their existence is very justifiable and long may they do so to make things difficult for people like yourself.

bumper234

end of the road wrote: »

no there isn't unless you have reasonable employers who recognize problems and wish to solve them in a way that suits all sides.



yes, the pesentry are only entitled to shut up and know their place and must be greatful for even being allowed to work and get some money, they must take whatever they are given and be greatful and be so greatful they will almost beg to keep the job, well that might be fine for some but i have pride myself and i'm worth more.



the unions do a lot for workers, they aren't perfect but while people like you exist they are needed, their existence is very justifiable and long may they do so to make things difficult for people like yourself.

Oh look

Another wall of utter bolloxollogy :rolleyes:

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

they are doing a highly skilled job, i couldn't do it, the airline may not have gold standard service but i'd pick them over ryanair every time

I wouldn't regard it as 'high skilled' - according to Aer Lingus' own website flight attendants undergo......

Initial training takes approximately seven weeks and is based in Dublin. The first five weeks are mainly classroom based, after which you will put your learning into practice on board our aircraft. If you successfully pass our assessment at this stage, you will fly with more experienced crew members for another 3 months at which point you will be passed as fully qualified. You will also receive additional training at least once per year.

Any job that only requires 7 weeks training is not high skilled.

Jawgap

simplybam wrote: »

There are other ways to achieve the goals of both employers and employees.

As long as the employees get rid of their entitlement complex and the unions stop trying to make people believe they actually still do anything for the workers (rather than just making up excuses to justify their completely unjustifiable existence and ridiculous salaries).

Here are a few examples on how it works in successful countries:

No mention of the Marshall Plan, the mindblowingly massive bailout given to Germany after it tried to wreck western civilisation........and which they were allowed repay at their leisure?

It always amazes me how ze Germans overlook the favours that were done for them and the role that played in their prosperity........

shroom007

Originally Posted by end of the road

yes, the pesentry are only entitled to shut up and know their place and must be greatful for even being allowed to work and get some money, they must take whatever they are given and be greatful and be so greatful they will almost beg to keep the job, well that might be fine for some but i have pride myself and i'm worth more.


This is Aer Lingus staff we are talking about, everyone else is the peasantry in their minds ,**** us and everyone else as far as they are concerned.

Smug self entitled arrogant lets not try dress it up as some kind of poor workers rights fight. semi state jobsworths posing as a private company

323

Well done to Aer Lingus management, unions and staff still seem to think they are state owned taxpayer funded gravy train.

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.

If they are not prepared to try to compete, why should they be saved from extinction. Aer Lingus have already cost the taxpayer many hundreds of millions, for what? At best a second class service.

The idea of flag carrying national airlines has always been a huge burden on the taxpayer. Its a throwback idea that was fine for Britain, France, Belgium, Holland etc. for servicing their colonies in colonial days. Belgium Sabina is long gone (I got stuck in Africa when they went t*ts up) and the rest have merged with one nation or others airline to survive.

suicide_circus

^^^^The argument trotted out is that, as an island, ireland needs to keep some state control over an airline to ensure transport links ona and off the island. That argument loses some credibility however due to Aer lingus's ppropensity to strike and the fact that it is Ryanair who actually keep us in the air.

Jawgap

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^The argument trotted out is that, as an island, ireland needs to keep some state control over an airline to ensure transport links ona and off the island. That argument loses some credibility however due to Aer lingus's ppropensity to strike and the fact that it is Ryanair who actually keep us in the air.

I've heard this argument from numerous people and my response is usually to remind them that when Aer Lingus were predominantly responsible for air links and air transport, the service was pricey (beyond the means of most people), inefficient and extremely limited.

If anything, the country would be better served if Aer Lingus was left to the markets to sort out - either they would provide a service and survive or else perish.

.......and for info, I'm no fan of Ryanair and like everyone I have my share of horror stories but they do exactly what they promise - low(ish) fares, generally on time and safe. Generally, I fly Ryanair when I'm paying but Aer Lingus when the employer is!!

end of the road

suicide_circus wrote: »

^^^^The argument trotted out is that, as an island, ireland needs to keep some state control over an airline to ensure transport links ona and off the island. That argument loses some credibility however due to Aer lingus's ppropensity to strike and the fact that it is Ryanair who actually keep us in the air.

we must have a national airline, and the state must be the full owner of it, whatever the cost

shroom007

end of the road wrote: »

we must have a national airline, and the state must be tue full owner of it, whatever the cost

why, In case we need to evacuate and these *****rs would double the price on the spot like they did in the mass emigration in the 80's. screwing people leaving this country.

no doubt the cabin crew are still harking back to the good ole days when only rich people could afford to fly and they didn't have to serve us regular scum.

bumper234

end of the road wrote: »

we must have a national airline, and the state must be tue full owner of it, whatever the cost

But they're not so your tired argument is irrelevant.

Valetta

end of the road wrote: »

we must have a national airline, and the state must be tue full owner of it, whatever the cost

`

The state are free to open their own ariline any day of the week they like.

We could double the property tax to pay for it.

bumper234

Valetta wrote: »

`

The state are free to open their own ariline any day of the week they like.

We could double the property tax to pay for it.

**** that.

Just triple the cost of taxi registration plates.

gandalf

end of the road wrote: »

we must have a national airline, and the state must be tue full owner of it, whatever the cost

Why? As others have said when Aer Lingus were in a near monopoly situation people paid through the nose for flights. It is obvious that for a service like this normal commercial considerations have to be the drivers of the business.

It seems that Aer Lingus (and other such organisations) were skewed towards providing employees with a better service than their customers. That was and is always a recipe for disaster.

Where as in the past they would have been the first place I would check for flights they are now the last because they can't be relied on.

If the current lunacy continues then we'll have the same unions whinging in 18 months when mass redundancies are announced or the airline goes bust.

end of the road

shroom007 wrote: »

these *****rs would double the price on the spot like they did in the mass emigration in the 80's. screwing people leaving this country.

good on them, doing their bit for the country, stoping or making it difficult for the abandoners to abandon the country in its hour of need, they should have trippled the prices or more

suicide_circus

end of the road wrote: »

we must have a national airline, and the state must be the full owner of it, whatever the cost

Complete and utter bollox I'm afraid. Who's gonna pay for it? You? The evil rich? Union chiefs?

shroom007

end of the road wrote: »

good on them, doing their bit for the country, stoping or making it difficult for the abandoners to abandon the country in its hour of need, they should have trippled the prices or more

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Valetta

end of the road wrote: »

good on them, doing their bit for the country, stoping or making it difficult for the abandoners to abandon the country in its hour of need, they should have trippled the prices or more

I take it you want to destroy our tourist industry, as well as our transport.

What will you move on to next, I wonder?