Aer Lingus Fleet/ Routes Discussion Pt 2 (ALL possible routes included)

sailing

California Dreamer wrote: »

On the one hand you can see the anger by some people but who is more important to running of a company, the CEO or the cabin crew selling a can of coke?

We obviously don't know but would IAG be in a worse position if WW had not been there to steer the ship and make the very difficult decisions. Lets ground the A380s, lets scrap the 747 fleet, lets ground level, lets lay off workers and slash wages. I am no WW fan but I feel a lesser person might be more lax in their approach to what had to be done to ensure survival.

On the other hand the wages he got may have been well deserved.

It’s not the payment, it’s the optics. It’s very difficult for people to buy in when you see a leader creaming off the top while the minnows feed off the scraps.

California Dreamer

sailing wrote: »

It’s not the payment, it’s the optics. It’s very difficult for people to buy in when you see a leader creaming off the top while the minnows feed off the scraps.

Oh I know and the even sadder part is that is has been like that for decades by all sorts of companies.

Tenger

sailing wrote: »

It’s not the payment, it’s the optics. It’s very difficult for people to buy in when you see a leader creaming off the top while the minnows feed off the scraps.

100%.

Easyjet got huge negative press 3-4 months ago. Laying off staff while awarding generous share dividends to investors.


I used the example of the Qantas CEO forgoing the rest of his annual salary back in March. The guy was already the highest paid airline CEO and his previous annual bonuses made WWs 3million look like pocket money.

Mc Love

California Dreamer wrote: »

On the one hand you can see the anger by some people but who is more important to running of a company, the CEO or the cabin crew selling a can of coke?

Cabin crew selling a can of coke?? Are you actually having a laugh

kona wrote: »

Most staff couldnt give a rats about what ww got, what they do care about is how the **** they are going to support a family on in some cases less than what youd get on the scratch.

Not only that, what about the single crew members that dont have a partner that can look after them financially. Living in rented accomodation in Dublin or wherever and having to fend for themselves on pittance. The company is a joke.

Graham

Mc Love wrote: »

]Not only that, what about the single crew members that dont have a partner that can look after them financially. Living in rented accomodation in Dublin or wherever and having to fend for themselves on pittance. The company is a joke.

What would you suggest given than pretty much every airline in the world has currently lost an enormous amount of its revenue?

jucylucy

California Dreamer wrote: »

On the one hand you can see the anger by some people but who is more important to running of a company, the CEO or the cabin crew selling a can of coke?

Hmm...is that their most important job as you see it, you forget...front of company...brand sellers....security, health and safety in flight.....including using defibrillators, etc......
I know many of these “coke sellers” and they are living below the bread line since the pandemic and Aer Lingus has delayed allowing them access to their basic social welfare to the point many are desperate to put it mildly!


Coke sellers please feel free to added to this to highlight your discrimination!

Mc Love

Graham wrote: »

What would you suggest given than pretty much every airline in the world has currently lost an enormous amount of its revenue?

They're still carrying Cargo no?

Just fecking offer the redundancy instead of stringing people along.

Graham

Mc Love wrote: »

They're still carrying Cargo no?

Awesome but not particularly relevant.

Mc Love wrote: »

Just fecking offer the redundancy instead of stringing people along.

Aren't EI already in discussion with unions about redundancies?

How do you know staff would prefer redundancy?

EI have mentioned compulsory redundancies if necessary, wouldn't that suggest there may not be enough staff seeking voluntary redundancy?

Mc Love

Graham wrote: »

Awesome but not particularly relevant.

Glad you agree

Graham wrote: »

Aren't EI already in discussion with unions about redundancies?

With what staff are you referring to?

Graham wrote: »

How do you know staff would prefer redundancy?

I dont and I think they would prefer to keep their jobs but if they are being strung along on pittance, the fair thing would be to be straight up with them

Graham wrote: »

EI have mentioned compulsory redundancies if necessary, wouldn't that suggest there may not be enough staff seeking voluntary redundancy?

Have they?

Graham

I'm not privy to EI/Union discussions so I couldn't tell you which staff. Discussions have been reported in the news over the last week or so.

While you make think it's fair to volunteer staff for redundancy, I suspect most staff would prefer to make that decision for themselves.

California Dreamer

JuicyLucy

Absolutely I was belittling cabin crew in that instance but that was not my intent, and if you are offended I apologise. My point could have been made better.

I totally see how cabin crew are treated by EI. When things are great they are been asked to work days off, all standby days are called etc and then when things are bad they are the first to have the piss taken.

From a very negative point of view, you can see why they are doing what they are doing. EI management are spinning the roulette wheel in the hope that it will land they way they want. Sure there is a worldwide glut of pilots, cabin crew, engineers, ground staff etc but it is easier to string these people along banking on the fact that operations will return so they have their perfectly trained staff than have to hire all new people and start from scratch. Despicable and all that it is....someone is playing a dangerous game and it is the worker that ultimately suffers.

Tenger

Graham wrote: »

.......
Aren't EI already in discussion with unions about redundancies?

How do you know staff would prefer redundancy?

EI have mentioned compulsory redundancies if necessary, wouldn't that suggest there may not be enough staff seeking voluntary redundancy?

As mentioned above there is an element of "stringing people along" going on here.
I have no doubt that mgmt in EI assumed (hoped) that their flights ops would be above 50% by this point. If this was the case then salary levels would have risen in line with work increasing. But the Irish entry restrictions and travel advice are stopping that happening.

Financially many staff would be better off to have been laid off back in June. That's a terrible situation. They would be eligible for PUP and now the dole, if they hadn't already gotten some other work. The staff on 30% salary are being held in limbo with no info on an end date.
EI may be "in talks" regarding a redundancy offer but "the end of the year" isn't a very concrete timeline.
I personally know of two EI staff who took on casual work in a shop.

I've been reliably informed that EI were refusing to stamp documents for staff that would allow them to claim jobseekers benefit for staff having hours reduced.

kona

Graham wrote: »

Awesome but not particularly relevant.



Aren't EI already in discussion with unions about redundancies?

How do you know staff would prefer redundancy?

EI have menti7oned compulsory redundancies if necessary, wouldn't that suggest there may not be enough staff seeking voluntary redundancy?

You need to realise that your engaging with people who are involved in all of this who are posting here , it would seem as you say your not privy to the information, so obviously are not.
Your entitled to you opinion but your miles off whats actually happening.

Jack1985

Tenger wrote: »

I've been reliably informed that EI were refusing to stamp documents for staff that would allow them to claim jobseekers benefit for staff having hours refused.

This is correct and desperation has now set in - People have been pushed into poverty. You may note 30% of pre-Covid pay, automatically deducted at source from that is pensions, credit union, vhi etc you walk away with nothing.

It's disgusting and EI have no excuse they have deliberately made life hell for people seeking to claim what they as tax payers are entitled to. DEASP are engaging with them on their conduct.

Graham

kona wrote: »

You need to realise that your engaging with people who are involved in all of this who are posting here , it would seem as you say your not privy to the information, so obviously are not.
Your entitled to you opinion but your miles off whats actually happening.

Out of curiosity, which of the points I posted was incorrect?

duskyjoe

Graham wrote: »

Out of curiosity, which of the points I posted was incorrect?

Graham with respect there’s a lot of people here directly involved in what’s going on and seeing their careers evaporating. People are sensitive , confused and hurt. Digging your oar in doesn’t help.

Jack1985

Aer Lingus spokeswoman, Ingrid Miley confirms latest from Shamrock House;

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0911/1164647-lingus-welfare/

sailing

Jack1985 wrote: »

Aer Lingus spokeswoman, Ingrid Miley confirms latest from Shamrock House;

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0911/1164647-lingus-welfare/

You may be correct. It’s quite funny. The internal staff update was issued at 19.11 to all staff. Ingrid had the above update on the RTE site at 19.48, quoting the update, editing the content and publishing it in the 30 or so minutes in between.

A neighbour asked for an update about the industry earlier. I said if you read RTE you’ll be more aware of my employment than I am myself.

Jack1985

sailing wrote: »

You may be correct. It’s quite funny. The internal staff update was issued at 19.11 to all staff. Ingrid had the above update on the RTE site at 19.48, quoting the update, editing the content and publishing it in the 30 or so minutes in between.

A neighbour asked for an update about the industry earlier. I said if you read RTE you’ll be more aware of my employment than I am myself.

She's even quicker than that, 7:15pm

https://twitter.com/ingridmileyRTE/status/1304483652852748288

kona

Jack1985 wrote: »

Aer Lingus spokeswoman, Ingrid Miley confirms latest from Shamrock House;

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0911/1164647-lingus-welfare/

What the **** have aer lingus gotten to do with their employees social welfare which they are entitled to after paying 1000s in prsi over the years.

There must have been something dodgey!

Jack1985

kona wrote: »

What the **** have aer lingus gotten to do with their employees social welfare which they are entitled to after paying 1000s in prsi over the years.

There must have been something dodgey!

Do you remember Push Factors late '04 ish? That repugnant behaviour never left EI Management, it must be passed like a baton.

Bussywussy

kona wrote: »

There must have been something dodgey!

Definitely.

Graham

duskyjoe wrote: »

Graham with respect there’s a lot of people here directly involved in what’s going on and seeing their careers evaporating. People are sensitive , confused and hurt. Digging your oar in doesn’t help.

If my comments have upset any EI staff I apologise, that was not my intent.

My opinion that EI staff should not have redundancy imposed where other options are available was not intended to be remotely contentious. It comes from a strong belief that the staff should have as much say into their future as possible while accepting that EI faces unprecedented challenges.

Let me try and do a better job of explaining

There was mention earlier of two staff who had to take casual work in a shop. Should they be given the option of redundancy, absolutely unequivocally yes and right now.

Might those staff prefer to remain essentially furloughed and be straight back on board as soon as demand returns, I don't know but I do think they should be given that option and allowed to make that decision for themselves.

I'm suggesting EI staff should be given as many options as possible not that any redundancy (or other) rights should be changed/diminished/removed/delayed.

kona

Graham wrote: »

If my comments have upset any EI staff I apologise, that was not my intent.

My opinion that EI staff should not have redundancy imposed where other options are available was not intended to be remotely contentious. It comes from a strong belief that the staff should have as much say into their future as possible while accepting that EI faces unprecedented challenges.

Let me try and do a better job of explaining

There was mention earlier of two staff who had to take casual work in a shop. Should they be given the option of redundancy, absolutely unequivocally yes and right now.

Might those staff prefer to remain essentially furloughed and be straight back on board as soon as demand returns, I don't know but I do think they should be given that option and allowed to make that decision for themselves.

I'm suggesting EI staff should be given as many options as possible not that any redundancy (or other) rights should be changed/diminished/removed/delayed.

Have you not even read what has been in the news and the summary posted above?
You dont have a clue whats going on. What your saying is what would happen normally , whats happening in ei is abnormal.
What you say is what should happen, their redundency rights etc have been abused for the last 3 months.
All your going to do is annoy people who read this.

billy few mates

Jack1985 wrote: »

Do you remember Push Factors late '04 ish? That repugnant behaviour never left EI Management, it must be passed like a baton.

No, what was that..?

Graham

kona wrote: »

Have you not even read what has been in the news and the summary posted above?
You dont have a clue whats going on. What your saying is what would happen normally , whats happening in ei is abnormal.
What you say is what should happen, their redundency rights etc have been abused for the last 3 months.
All your going to do is annoy people who read this.

Did you actually read my post?

Should they be given the option of redundancy, absolutely unequivocally yes and right now.

I'm suggesting EI staff should be given as many options as possible not that any redundancy (or other) rights should be changed/diminished/removed/delayed.

I'll add;

If any EI staff have been denied access to the same government supports/protections as everyone else, that is absolutely inexcusable. It should be addressed immediately, any payments backdated, and those responsible held to account.

Why you persist in trying to suggest that is somehow unsupportive is not clear but I would be grateful if you would stop.

Jack1985

billy few mates wrote: »

No, what was that..?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-aer-lingus-quit-or-be-pushed-plan-25976375.html

billy few mates

Jack1985 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-aer-lingus-quit-or-be-pushed-plan-25976375.html

Wow!
I was completely unaware of this.

Jack1985

billy few mates wrote: »

Wow!
I was completely unaware of this.

It's hard to forget that behaviour and the last few weeks have shown a deliberate dragging of the heels so to speak which is seeing their own workforce suffer severely financially but also mentally.

It's utterly despicable.

Bussywussy

Jack1985 wrote: »

It's hard to forget that behaviour and the last few weeks have shown a deliberate dragging of the heels so to speak which is seeing their own workforce suffer severely financially but also mentally.

It's utterly despicable.

Handy way of forcing lower paid staff to leave without having to pay redundancy