Aer Lingus Flight Crew Industrial relations thread 2024

Tenger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122338718#Comment_122338718

Indeed. The wording is usually "industrial action up to and including strike action"
Unfortunately no union can credibly state that "we have voted for industrial action, if we want to escalate to a strike we will vote again in 2 weeks".

Captain_Crash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122343914#Comment_122343914

You can judge from my posting history if I know what I’m talking about or not, but I’m not going to disclose that on a public forum, for obvious reasons. I hope you understand that.

Max for that time of day is 12hrs 30mins, the extra hour for reporting etc is included as part of the FDP, the extra few mins after isn’t. It’s more than an 11hr duty for crew as scheduled, any issues and and your into discretion. Which isn’t a big deal tbf! Crew want to get home as much as pax.

Tenger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122343737#Comment_122343737

I think Aer Lingus made a statement about that last week. Cancelling more flights that needed to create extra standby flight crew to cope with WTR related disruption.

EG. That Dalaman-Dublin flight that was cancelled. The crew on that would be unavailable to operate the next day.
Thus needed to be replaced on the 3rd.

Regarding that flight, the aircraft for it must have gotten in very late to Dublin from its previous flight that day. (or as mentioned above been subject to some vicious ATC restrictions)
FR24 shows it leaving 3 1/2 hours late, and 4 1/2 hours late on the 29th June;
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ei790

Marcusm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122344054#Comment_122344054

Thanks; I understand that. What I meant was that it is conceivable that not all of the pilots necessarily understood that an 8 hour strike would shortly occur, ie the report that a pilot was unhappy is not inconceivable which some posters asserted was the case.

Tenger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122344319#Comment_122344319

Fully agree. I'm sure many (if not most) voted for industrial action as the first stage rather than definitely hoping for a strike.*
The strike was called after the company ignored existing internal sick leave policies.

*(personally I voted twice for such action, only once did it end up with a strike….thankfully a long time ago)

CoisFharraige

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122344076#Comment_122344076

Makes sense, my maths after a day in the office failed me. Thanks for the explanation.

Captain_Crash

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122344609#Comment_122344609

All good..! it’s Friday dude, we’re all fried 😂

plodder

If a crew can decide to fly (or not) at their own discretion, presumably it's not a safety issue and it makes you wonder who is in charge here. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but that's how it comes across to me.

knobtasticus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345339#Comment_122345339

It is solely a safety issue. That’s why the decision to use discretion to work beyond normal flight duty period (FDP) limits legally rests with the captain. Each crew member must be polled on their alertness levels and if they are fit to operate beyond their duty limits. Based on that feedback, the captain makes a decision for the entire crew. Any crew member reporting unfit will not be expected to operate.

The responsibility of any decision to do with safety in a live environment rests solely with the captain. Therefore, there’s also no obligation to work up to legal FTL limits - if crew fatigue is a concern, a captain can also reduce that day’s max FDP to below the limits set by the Authority. A captain can also refuse to depart home base if it is expected that discretion will be needed to get back to base later.

While I’ve no doubt there are certain atmospheres in certain airlines in Europe where there’s an implicit (and explicit!) pressure on crews to operate into discretion, I’ve never heard it said that EI is one of them.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345531#Comment_122345531

Thanks for the explanation. Then, the implication of post #1131 seems to be that pilots are effectively claiming to be fatigued when they aren't, as part of this work to rule.

ProfessorPlum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345878#Comment_122345878

You've sort of got that backwards. Commanders discretion should be used only in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. It’s not a case that if a crew is not fatigued that they should use discretion. There’s a whole host of factors that a captain must take into account before deciding to exercise discretion. The default should be to operate to FTLs, and only in exceptional circumstances, to extend the duty.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122345935#Comment_122345935

The point is that the pilots have discretion to fly or not, in certain circumstances. In normal times they might say yes, assuming the criteria are met, but during this dispute they are saying no, regardless of whether the criteria are met. I appreciate it only applies in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances. Though, presumably because of that it will cause serious disruption when it does happen

ProfessorPlum

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122346055#Comment_122346055

The point you made was "that pilots are effectively claiming to be fatigued when they aren't" - this is not true, and is nothing to do with discretion. Fatigue protocols are a different mechanism. If a pilot reports fatigue, it sets in train an investigation, and it's not something that a pilot will do unless absolutely necessary.

lintdrummer

It's a tough position for the Labour Court to be in. If this recommendation is not to the liking of one or both sides of the dispute it's going to end up in further escalation of industrial action. I don't envy them.

I was also thinking that if the labour court recommends an increase that is less than cumulative inflation over the period in question, and I expect that they will, it's a bit of a dodgy statement for a court to make is it not? That private sector companies making good profits should not be expected to increase their employee wage rates in line with inflation and the cost of living, but should instead prioritise maximum profit.

I know it's more complex than that, but at it's core, that would be one major take away from such a recommendation. We can argue about investability, precedents and the like but the reality is that a company that is healthy and making substantial profit will be given a mandate from a government court to allow it's employee's wage value to decrease despite earning a multi million euro profit. Regardless of how well pilots are paid, something about that doesn't sit well with me.

knobtasticus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122349418#Comment_122349418

You’re right. And it’d be guaranteed there’d be editorials/op-eds written in the days following such a recommendation questioning that very suggestion.

Easily avoidable though. It’s almost certain that any % pay rise recommendation from the court will be qualified by the caveat that further discussions should take place between the parties at a later date. Same as the first recommendation. Allows them to suggest a lower-than-demanded % without setting it as a limit and avoiding the quagmire you’re describing.

StakeholderValue

Yesterday’s 123 DUB-ORD was due to be operated by the Privilege 777. The 777 went tech so it was replaced by an EI 330 with an EI 330 standby crew.

This sort of thing along with bringing in Ryanair to do ACMI next week on EI routes raises some very concerning questions around EI management competency.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122350360#Comment_122350360

What would those “very concerning questions around management competency” be , do you mind me asking?

I would see it as doing what they are paid to do, that is accommodate as many of their booked customers as they can?

StakeholderValue

In the case of 123 - Hiring in aircraft when there is already redundancy with Aer Lingus 330 aircraft and crew available.

in the case of Ryanair ACMI - sending customers to your rivals. Short sighted in the extreme.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122350786#Comment_122350786

If I may be so bold to say Mr S, the 'guests' wouldn't think so on the issue with ACMIs

I would suggest that hire ins in this situation would be not be just one offs, so it made sense (to me anyway) to

use the hire in wherever possible, and hold their own metal for situations like what happened and save a cancellation

'at the gate'.

Good planning in my opinion in this situation.

EchoIndia

The Privilege B777 is back in action today on EI123 so it wasn't a major issue with the aircraft.

emmamonkey

Looks like the lanzarote flight at 2.30 has just been cancelled

I'M Due on it tomorrow

FiFingers crossed it operates

StakeholderValue

The customers on the cancelled EI122 ORD-DUB (a direct result of the 777 Privilege hire in tech) last night would say otherwise.

Lockheed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122351761#Comment_122351761

Flights are cancelled due to technical reasons all the time. It's a pain but it happens… Does it raise questions for you around management competency for every single other airline in the world?

Bringing in the PVG 777 to free up a cockpit crew for standby duties was a solid decision to make. Planes break down all the time… sadly in this case it was the plane hired-in to protect the schedule during industrial action.

StakeholderValue

Piss poor decision when there are multiple spare EI 330 frames sitting on DUB ramp and EI 330 crews sat at home.

The management as always have been overly conservative in their planning and have pissed money away that they could have just paid to the pilots in the first place, thus avoiding the whole dispute.

At this stage the Aer Lingus management team do not strike me as rational actors. Look at Embleton’s €300k share cash in as an example. It appears to me that they run the airline in a feudal manner for the betterment of their own personal financial security. Consequences on passengers and employees seem to be of little concern to them. Likewise the long term consequences both intended and unintended of their short term decision making on the business. Sending customers to Ryanair who’ve booked an Aer Lingus ticket is frankly insanity. Did BA send any of their passengers with Virgin during the 2019 BA pilot strike?

i expect many passengers will chose to fly Ryanair on SH and US legacy carrier on LH going forward. And they won’t return.

Lockheed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122351835#Comment_122351835

How would it look if management just bowed down to the demands and gave pilots what they wanted from day one? That would strike me as them not being rational actors whatsoever.

These decisions, while you may consider them to be "piss poor" have so far saved the holidays and stress of thousands of pax - opens up the opportunity to consolidate two European 320 flights onto the one 330, this has been done numerous times since the action has begun. Where the extent of the industrial action is not known, it pays to be conservative and has also greatly reduced the amount of flights that had to be cancelled on the day, knock on of course massively reducing potential disruption at the airport and damage to brand from that perspective. Standby crews, with sickness, VISA issues, now WTR concerns are bled off incredibly quickly on the day of operation and being too conservative here is not a bad thing. You'd probably be surprised if you actually saw the figures.

Brendan Bendar

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122351907#Comment_122351907

Good call Mr L.

I’m quite amazed with the amount of folk on here who seem to think management should not manage.

If I was a customer on some form of transport my priority would be be to get safely to my destination.

StakeholderValue

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122351907#Comment_122351907

Spoken like a truly competent Aer Lingus Manager.

EchoIndia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122351835#Comment_122351835

In relation to the recent shares story, the IT reported:

"A statement from IAG showed that Ms Embleton received 149,271 shares in London-listed IAG worth £244,580 sterling (€288,720) on June 26th. and Aer Lingus confirmed on Tuesday that the award, given in 2021, vested on Wednesday following IAG board approval. “These awards form part of IAG’s overall executive remuneration mechanisms and are in line with market practice,” said the airline."

That doesn't sound to me like cashing-in shares but the headline is all that most people seem to take in.

lintdrummer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122352028#Comment_122352028

On that note, it would be nice to see the actual Responsible Person, the CEO Lynne Embleton, showing some signs of trying to manage the current situation. I may be wrong, but it looks outwardly that she has delegated that responsibility to Mr. Moriarty and Mr. Dunne. Surely the head honcho should at least be at the table in the discussions that have been ongoing, but apart from one appearance at the Labour Court, on a day when the two parties were not meeting face to face, she has been completely AWOL.

This is a major crisis for Aer Lingus and the CEO has thus far not sat at a table and had a discussion with the pilot representatives? That is inexcusable.

So while some of you applaud the management team for fighting fires through tactical cancellations, it seems to me that they have failed at the most basic level to try and prevent any of this from happening in the first place. Get the CEO in a room with IALPA, it's outrageous that this has not happened yet.

lintdrummer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122352129#Comment_122352129

They were given in 2021 according to that quote. Whilst the airline was loss making and most staff had not had their wages restored post covid. I'll say no more.