Ryanair Strike, Industrial relations discussion Mod note in post 1

L1011

Mebuntu wrote: »

It would be interesting to know what airlines the Past Presidents listed on that IALPA page flew for.

If there was only one large airline with IALPA members when they were president, you know well what airline they flew for and it is still completely irrelevant.

We had this argument trotted out before - it is senseless and if you spend ten seconds thinking about it that becomes obvious. If IALPA wanted to unionise Ryanair to benefit Aer Lingus it would be self-defeating basically immediately as the larger cohort of Ryanair pilots would be able to outvote them on everything.

Unions change. IALPA clearly has.

Mebuntu

L1011 wrote: »

If there was only one large airline with IALPA members when they were president, you know well what airline they flew for and it is still completely irrelevant.

Apart from Mr. Cullen I have no idea who the others were or who they flew for. If you are suggesting that all of them were from Aer Lingus then that tells its own story.

If IALPA wanted to unionise Ryanair to benefit Aer Lingus

I never suggested that at all, at all.

Danielvarian1

Lucky for me I booked 2 single tickets for Aer Lingus to Rome on the 24th, and can use our Ryanair return on the way. Thinking ahead always works out.

Bob24

Mebuntu wrote: »

I never suggested that at all, at all.

This was pretty close to suggesting it to be fair:

Mebuntu wrote: »

This problem may be unique in that IALPA was formed by and for the benefit of Aer Lingus pilots and, therefore, can never be seen as "neutral" where a dispute with another airline is involved.

If you were not suggesting that the union is being used to benefit Aer Lingus in this case, then why can they not be seen as neutral to represent Ryanair pilots?

L1011

Mebuntu wrote: »

that tells its own story.

Of irrelevance.

Mebuntu wrote: »

I never suggested that at all, at all.

What were you implying then?

Topgear on Dave

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/RuthCoppingerTD/videos/1762350617188905/

Theyve got Solidarity in their corner so they’re really fecked.

Clare Daly now on Primetime.

Not a good look alright.


Isnt she ex-aer-lingus too?

Topgear on Dave

Are the captains on 156k? wow

Brendan Bendar

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Clare Daly now on Primetime.

Not a good look alright.


Isnt she ex-aer-lingus too?

Yes she is, probably on leave of absence, like Coppinger.

L1011

She was in Catering as far as I know. The price of the breakfast went down by 2 quid after she left...

I would hope they don't have a structure like the teachers do for indefinite leave for this purpose.

CoisFharraige

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Are the captains on 156k? wow

No, the majority wouldn’t be. Ryanair’s way of quoting salaries is of their very very top-earning captains, of which there are only a handful, and using that as ‘this is what our captains earn’, when in reality it is much lower (100K lower based on recent figures they published). Also, they take into account PRSI etc and other expenses they pay for pilots as employers and astutely say ‘we pay X for our pilots’ when that figure isn’t what they earn.

ted1

CoisFharraige wrote: »

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

Are the captains on 156k? wow

No, the majority wouldn’t be. Ryanair’s way of quoting salaries is of their very very top-earning captains, of which there are only a handful, and using that as ‘this is what our captains earn’, when in reality it is much lower (100K lower based on recent figures they published). Also, they take into account PRSI etc and other expenses they pay for pilots as employers and astutely say ‘we pay X for our pilots’ when that figure isn’t what they earn.

Those striking would be on the top tier. And well above the newer staff who couldn’t get full contracts

Mebuntu

Bob24 wrote: »

This was pretty close to suggesting it to be fair:

I would respectfully suggest you are putting words in my mouth.

If you were not suggesting that the union is being used to benefit Aer Lingus in this case, then why can they not be seen as neutral to represent Ryanair pilots?

For the same reason I could not see Aer Lingus negotiating with anyone from Ryanair in the vicinity. If you are unable to see that then we must agree to disagree.

IALPA represents pilots from small airlines with their largest representation from an airline with one base. Ryanair is too big for them to understand an operation of that size and the best way to run it to make it work successfully.

L1011

Mebuntu wrote: »

IALPA represents pilots from small airlines with their largest representation from an airline with one base. Ryanair is too big for them to understand an operation of that size and the best way to run it to make it work successfully.

Exceptionally patronising and in no way based in fact.

Can you actually make an argument that is factual and without innuendo? You haven't yet, by the way, lest you think you had.

Mebuntu

L1011 wrote: »

Of irrelevance.

Well, that is just your opinion which, of course, you are fully entitled to air. It does not make it fact.

If, and I'm not entirely clear if that's what you actually were saying above, an aviation union purports to represent pilots from many airlines but the Presidentship (not sure if that's a word) has over all the years been held by a rep from only one airline that tells me that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. If that is not what you meant then, of course, I take it back.

Mebuntu

L1011 wrote: »

Can you actually make an argument that is factual and without innuendo?

Hmm, I thought personal insults were not allowed on Boards - only attack the opinion not the poster but, not to worry, water off a duck's back .

billy few mates

ted1 wrote: »

billy few mates wrote: »

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Bill, it’s always about money if you drill down.

Now you can put seniority issues, base changes on promotion an other stuff in there, but it’s money, Bill, always money.

What money are they looking for in this dispute...?
This is about a seniority system...

It’s to test the Union and build their numbers if they win the next strike will be about money

But they’re not looking for money in the case of this strike...?

ted1

billy few mates wrote: »

ted1 wrote: »

billy few mates wrote: »

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Bill, it’s always about money if you drill down.

Now you can put seniority issues, base changes on promotion an other stuff in there, but it’s money, Bill, always money.

What money are they looking for in this dispute...?
This is about a seniority system...

It’s to test the Union and build their numbers if they win the next strike will be about money

But they’re not looking for money in the case of this strike...?

Did you not read what I said. The next one will be. This is a pissing competition.

L1011

Mebuntu wrote: »

Hmm, I thought personal insults were not allowed on Boards - only attack the opinion not the poster but, not to worry, water off a duck's back .

That *is* dealing with the posts. They've been fact-free and full of implication

L1011

Mebuntu wrote: »

Well, that is just your opinion which, of course, you are fully entitled to air. It does not make it fact.

If, and I'm not entirely clear if that's what you actually were saying above, an aviation union purports to represent pilots from many airlines but the Presidentship (not sure if that's a word) has over all the years been held by a rep from only one airline that tells me that something is rotten in the state of Denmark. If that is not what you meant then, of course, I take it back.

Your attempts at stirring here just look pathetic.

jaxxx

I respect everyone's right to strike, and maybe I'm alone in this but in an area where so many thousands of people are affected, I don't think striking should be allowed if it causes disruption to so many people on such a large scale. The same thing here not too long ago with the bus strikes. Almost grinded the country to a halt. I know what I'm saying is contradictory "respect right to strike, don't think X should strike", and I know it kinda defeats the purpose of a strike or any form of industrial action, but it's not something as simple as say workers of a retail chain for example striking. Customers have plenty other options to choose from and more importantly, they are not out of pocket. How many people during these strikes are gonna be out of pocket from air fares, hotel costs, etc? I just think there's better ways to go about it where the oprdinary average Joe and Jane doesn't have to suffer, while at the same time enabling workers to voice their opinions on a level that they will get listened to.

ted1

jaxxx wrote: »

I respect everyone's right to strike, and maybe I'm alone in this but in an area where so many thousands of people are affected, I don't think striking should be allowed if it causes disruption to so many people on such a large scale. The same thing here not too long ago with the bus strikes. Almost grinded the country to a halt. I know what I'm saying is contradictory "respect right to strike, don't think X should strike", and I know it kinda defeats the purpose of a strike or any form of industrial action, but it's not something as simple as say workers of a retail chain for example striking. Customers have plenty other options to choose from and more importantly, they are not out of pocket. How many people during these strikes are gonna be out of pocket from air fares, hotel costs, etc? I just think there's better ways to go about it where the oprdinary average Joe and Jane doesn't have to suffer, while at the same time enabling workers to voice their opinions on a level that they will get listened to.

And fair play to Ryanair mgmt they covered the holiday destinations so families didn’t lose out.

Mebuntu

L1011 wrote: »

Your attempts at stirring here just look pathetic.

I'm not stirring anything. I'm a debater. I'm just giving my opinions on the subject under discussion as they arise which do happen to differ somewhat from yours. The major difference between us appears to be that, even if I don't agree with it, I accept that what you have to say is your honest opinion of the situation as you see it, nothing more nothing less, whereas you don't appear to be able to accept mine in the same manner and have now resorted to insulting my character.

Bob24

Mebuntu wrote: »

I would respectfully suggest you are putting words in my mouth.

I quoted your exact post with no alteration to put it in perspective with another of your newer statements.

Mebuntu wrote: »

For the same reason I could not see Aer Lingus negotiating with anyone from Ryanair in the vicinity. If you are unable to see that then we must agree to disagree.

What do you mean by “in the vicinity”. The union now has a mix of Aer Lingus pilots and Ryanair pilots as its members. Why would that same mixity be ok for negotiating with Aer Lingus but make the union not “neutral” when dealing with Ryanair.


PS: I am not cheering for the union or anything, but this background noise initiated by Ryanair insinuating the union is not legitimate/neutral to negociate because it originally is a union for Aer Lingus pilots is getting very tiring. It is no less ridiculous than if Aer Lingus was starting to claim the union is not legitimate anymore to negotiate with because it is now controlled by Ryanair pilots.

L1011

L1011 wrote: »

She was in Catering as far as I know. The price of the breakfast went down by 2 quid after she left...

I would hope they don't have a structure like the teachers do for indefinite leave for this purpose.

She always did remind me of a certain priests housekeeper! Ah, go on, go on, go on......

Bob24

jaxxx wrote: »

I respect everyone's right to strike, and maybe I'm alone in this but in an area where so many thousands of people are affected, I don't think striking should be allowed if it causes disruption to so many people on such a large scale. The same thing here not too long ago with the bus strikes. Almost grinded the country to a halt. I know what I'm saying is contradictory "respect right to strike, don't think X should strike", and I know it kinda defeats the purpose of a strike or any form of industrial action, but it's not something as simple as say workers of a retail chain for example striking. Customers have plenty other options to choose from and more importantly, they are not out of pocket. How many people during these strikes are gonna be out of pocket from air fares, hotel costs, etc? I just think there's better ways to go about it where the oprdinary average Joe and Jane doesn't have to suffer, while at the same time enabling workers to voice their opinions on a level that they will get listened to.

This is an old debate: should people working in high public impact sectors be allowed to strike?

Usually the answer has to be a 2 ways deal and involve government intervention: you are not legally allowed to strike due to the large public impact, but in exchange and to compensate for that lack of right compared to other workers, you get a special employement status guaranteed by the law which gives your better than normal employee protections and bargaining power.

Thing is, in the case of Ryanair this type of deal would probably increase operational costs quite significantly.

Essentially, people have do decide if they want to designate air transport as a cheap commodity with low prices but sometimes questionable employment practices requiring the right to strike, or as a mission critical service which is more regulated to make it more reliable, but will consequently cost more.

LuckyLloyd

Ryanair brutally used their leverage on staff over the years. I have no problem with key staff using their leverage on them. One party will break first, they always do. Buy Aer Lingus or one of the many other options in the meantime and see what happens.

devnull

300 Flights to be cancelled next Thursday and Friday due to Cabin Crew Strike

https://twitter.com/Ryanair/status/1019575833709694976

Bob24

Interesting. If pilots and cabin crew from different locations are able to “take turns” and ensure there are strikes/cancellations somewheee every couple of weeks, it could really hurt the reputation of the company in terms of reliability (even if the number of cancellations is no massive each time, if people start reading about Ryanair cancellations in the media on a regular basis many will eventually see it as an unreliable airline).

Brendan Bendar

Hmmmm...... will be interesting to see if the Solidarity crowd continue their support given that their supporters might be amongst the worst affected.

Interesting speculation, I would suggest.

Mebuntu

On the RTE1 9pm News tonight it was claimed that 2,400 flights were cancelled next week. Fake news even on RTE .

They later issued a correction to 600 before signing off.