Aer Lingus Flight Crew Industrial relations thread 2024

[Removed by mod]

It will be interesting to see if the Ialpa/FORSA recommend the recommendation.

Someone mentioned the length of time taking to make a recommendation. I’d suggest that’s prudent as there needs to be no ambiguity in any of the document before making a recommendation on those to vote.

Over the winter just past, Aer Lingus were unable to attract the number of FOs they wanted during their recruitment campaign. The cost of living anywhere close to Dublin cited as one of the main reasons in comparison to the FO salaries on offer. Likely contributes to why the work-to-rule has had such an impact on cancellations.

It proposed the scrapping of a crewing agreement on rostering and summer leave and the termination of a debt owed by pilots to the company as part of that agreement.

WHat is the crewing agreement on rostering and summer leave?

nevermind, i skipped a page, i see it discussed here yesterday

While there may be some who cite the cost of living in Dublin as the reason why they didn't move to EI, this is the same for every person in the economy yet over a 1.5 million people make it work in the Greater Dublin Area. And the vast majority of them on wages way less than even a FO and with no guaranteed income increases into the future like that of a pilot.

Pilots are also restricted with the number of hours they can fly per month (90) and per annum (900). It is quite normal for airlines to make use of their crews to get to over 95% of their hours annually. EI is very seasonal compared to other airlines. It is normal in workplace practices that you have to work harder "in season" when working in a seasonal business. This is normal for professionals, all the way to retail and service industries. The pilots can't have it all ways, there has to be some give and take.

The labour court is very experienced in these matters and knows what is out there. Pilots should thread carefully with how they vote in this.

Yes!

Nothing wrong with seeking clarification on some aspects of the deal. It's fairly standard for any questions to be clarified before going to the membership.

Once the labour court respond on the queries then IALPA will be able to issue a recommendation, need to be 100% correct on all the T&Cs before going to the members.

This regularly happens with unions and the labour court and IALPA had flagged after the LC issued the recommendation that they'd have to seek some clarifications on certain aspects of the LC proposal.

What you are saying is what I am saying Mr S.

You are contradicting yourself in your last line there 😃

If this wasn't being played out in the full glare of 24-hour media attention (and boards.ie discussion!), going back to the LC for clarifications would not merit comment at all. It is very much standard and reflects care being taken to have a full and unambiguous understanding of what has been recommended. I wouldn't rule out the LC issuing clarification to the parties for the avoidance of doubt, if this is deemed appropriate in relation to any element.

It's not quite that simple. My understanding is that AL pilots have not seen an increase in their salaries since 2019. In the meantime, there have been three public sector pay deals, including one that included the reversal of FEMPI measures.

Their deal seemingly is only to match existing and projected inflation but give up conditions at the same time. I suspect it will be contentious in the union if they decide to back it

why are public sector or FEMPI deals relevant? Lots of private sector (where Awr Lingus operates) have not had inflation matching increases. The pilots have An incremental scale (capping at 26 years which affects the senior ones) which is common in airlines apparently but not in private sector generally. That incremental scale has meant that their pay has increased. The strike does not seem to have delivered much above the 12.25% - 1.5% at most.

Anyone can demand more pay, imposing problems on the passengers is my only gripe. It all seems to have been so unnecessary when the proposed outcome (from a panel weighted equally between employer and trade union representatives) have come out with little more than was already on the table.

If the work practice and scale capping are truly impactful then it may be the case that the pilots have lost out entirely.

Not sure about staffing levels etc but I'd assume AL and their parent have more people who are employed full time in legal/HR/finance etc to go through an agreement such as this where as IALPA may be reliant on less secure resources to review.

That said, I was surprised that AL came up with that statement as fast.

It's relevant because the public sector pay deals are seen as the benchmark for the private sector, as the minimum viable increase usually to just keep pace with inflation. Fempi reversal is important because public sector workers have seen both conditions and pay improve - they didn't have to trade one for the other to match inflation.

It's important to recognise that the scale comes with the job and reflects increased experience. If someone in 2019 with 10 years experience was getting paid X five years ago, and another pilot who has just got his 10 years today is also paid X, then the pilot today is getting paid less in real terms. Substantially less.

Inflation erodes terms silently.

Because it was written for Aer Lingus …via the direct intervention of a quango giving the illusion of impartiality all the while serving the interests of those who really run the show.
From what I could see this recommendation does not represent a good deal for pilots. IALPA should take time to carefully consider the finer details of the LC document and not feel pressured and harassed by Peter Burke, Aer Lingus Management et al into accepting something that pilots may regret long after the current AL management team have departed.
I think I smell more shares and bonuses 🤔

“There is none so blind as those who will not see”

just wondering, Aer Lingus accepted the 17.5 %. But IALPA consider it and then recommend a vote. Why when the offer is there isn’t there just a vote? Why do IALPA make a decision on whether it’s good enough and then go for a vote?

Because the offer isn't black and white and people will have queries about the detail.

I would assume the union have an existing mandate from members, if the offer isn't within this mandate there's not much point going for a vote either. They need to establish whether it is or not.