Aer Lingus Flight Crew Industrial relations thread 2024

That's a good point. The LC recommendation is that an existing narrowbody cap for captains be kept. But what is in place is a short haul cap. Huge difference between the two terms. I wonder if Aer Lingus were looking for a narrowbody pay scale as part of their submission, perhaps that's where the confusion arose. Also might explain why Aer Lingus were so eager to accept the recommendation!

Wow, what a dog’s breakfast this will turn out to be if there is a misunderstanding of what the LC thought it was recommending. At this point I tend to side with the view that they knew exactly what they were recommending.

Wow, where do you start with that.

I hope all sides can come to an agreement. I am very much guided by what Kieran Mulvey had to say about the dispute last week…….in the end, all industrial disputes are settled. Nobody gets everything they want, and in some instances have to accept things that are unpalatable. I say this and I’m looking at both parties to the dispute.

I am not a pilot and have no clue what it is to walk in a pilot’s shoes. Certainly some of the working conditions re weekend work and summer leave etc. I would find unpalatable. But the money is decent when you have 4 stripes. The career sometimes seems to me as more a vocation. You put up with a lot for the love of the job. You guys and gals accept a big loss to your personal lives. I used to think I would fancy it, but now I am not so sure.

Personally I believe that IAG will turn out to be quite a formidable foe. Pilots will need to think long and hard about their next moves.

Makes a mockery of the sound bites coming from the Taoiseach and Ministers Burke, Donohoe et al.

I would be surprised if they did…

EDIT

In fairness to the pilots I think to end the WTR now would cause a lot of extra work for them when they need to concentrate on an complicated ruling to get full understanding

of the ramifications now and into the future .

They don't need the distraction and logistics an ending of the WTR would be ant this point in time.

A formidable foe indeed! I find it so ironic to hear Government Ministers weighing in on a PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY’S dispute! This has nothing to do with the Irish Government anymore! It’s not the national airline now-Aer LingusIAG is wholly owned by IAG-the shamrock logo only serves to confuse the Irish public.

Let’s not forget that the reason “Aer Lingus” was SOLD is because the Ministers’ predecessors-the successive Irish governments of the 1990’s and 2000’s couldn’t sell it off fast enough! Even though it was a profitable company and we’re an island nation!! Shame on them all for selling a national treasure for 30 pieces of silver.

Whether the company is pharma, tech etc or in this case an airline the simple facts are that unions are a product of bad management and huge profits are generated by underpaying wages and undermining working conditions. IALPA seem to be doing a fine job so far but should take their time to study- in great detail- the minutiae of the LC document. They should not feel pressured and harassed into accepting something that is less than they deserve. As a nervous flyer myself😥 I’m always cognisant of the responsibility pilots carry. Every time I travel I always hope and pray that the cockpit crew are content and well rested-it goes without hoping that they should be well paid too. The Aer LingusIAG management’s acceptance of the LC document 5 minutes after it was issued should be of serious concern to the pilot body.

As for long term “brand and reputational damage” to Aer LingusIAG -it won’t be an issue because as soon as the dispute is resolved and the industrial action ceases most people will have short memories and will vote with their wallets- especially those who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Calm down Jeff!

of course the government should weigh in and encourage dialogue and resolution. If Stena line or EIR or go ahead bus service or any other company providing an important public and national service goes on strike and caused material interruption the government should and would also comment.

What does that even mean, sounds like jargon to me??

Are you saying that if the company involved isnt government owned then government keep their mouth shut? If so thats really silly commentary.

Even with Tara mines a private company not providing a public service in anyway outside the roll of an employer had government trying to help out and resolve.

Really impossible to say, the work to rule is unpredictable. It's unlikely we'll see another work stoppage by tomorrow week so if the SNN-JFK has been running fine under the work to rule I think you should be safe enough.

Good call FQ,some folk can forget that the ramifications of this dispute spread far beyond the parties involved.

One of our biggest earners is the tourist industry. The bus companies, the restaurants, the tourist

attractions and the many other ancillary businesses are huge employers and are being hard hit.

The Government is quit right to acknowledge all this and work to try to bring an end to it.

The attitude of ‘nothing to do with me guv’ is just not a runner.

That should be obvious, I would suggest.

I’ll assume this is directed at me, so I address it accordingly.

I am not trying to undermine the LRC. I am trying to inject some facts into a discussion which has, up until this point, been largely based off hypothesis and opinion. What worth is any discussion here is we ignore the facts in front of us.

This is the first LRC recommendation. Other you speak of was an interim pay award which would have done little else other than to stall and move the current dispute/WTR/stoppage into the Christmas period or into beginning of next summer. Better to get these things sorted sooner?

I do agree, should this be rejected by IALPA, and I have stated that I believe it will, it will get a lot messier before it gets resolved.
As for other carriers, I agree again that more competition can only be good for consumers. However as the DAA have recently stated, it’s Fingal Co Council that are putting a stop to that, not Aer Lingus, not IALPA, not Ryanair etc.

No doubt there are many complexities, especially around rostering, but the bottom line is that the Labour Court has increased its recommendation substantially, and primarily (it seems from media reports) on the grounds of past and future inflation. Other unions are watching carefully and, if they don't have convincing explanations for their members, they will be back in the Labour Court without delay.

Here is a speech last month about inflation by Philip Lane, a member of the Executive Board of the ECB (i.e. the most influential Irish economist in modern times)

https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2024/html/ecb.sp240611~caf9681480.en.html

He is reasonably optimistic:

This negatively-sloped profile for wage growth helps to underpin the projected decline in inflation in 2025, with less pressure from labour costs next year. Over time, disinflation will also continue to be supported by the restrictive monetary policy stance and the fading impact of past inflation on ongoing price pressures, while the countervailing impact from the reversal of fiscal support measures will fall out of the inflation data.

While wage growth is set to be a primary driver of inflation in 2024, the net impact of labour cost increases on prices is being buffered by a lower contribution from profits.

In other words, wage increases are the main driver of inflation this year but their trend is downward while profits are contributing less to inflation and the ECB is keeping a tight rein on the banks.

But if 17.5% (multi-annual) becomes a new standard for the public service pay deals in the Euro Area, that "negatively-sloped profile" will turn positive i.e. we will have a wage/price spiral and Philip Lane's inflation projections will no longer allow further rate-cuts. Of course, this won't happen next week but let's see what happens in October, during our post-Budget election.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2024/0524/1451032-aer-lingus-pilots-pay-dispute/

This is the point I am trying to make. It is far from hyperbole. Your comments demonstrate that the issue is not being understood.
These 2 terms are not interchangeable. They are 2 very different things. And, as I have stated it will make or break the chances of this being accepted.

There is currently a short haul pay cap for Captains on the A320. This was introduced as Aer Lingus emerged from COVID in 2022. Any First Officer who has been promoted to Captain since then, is restricted to short haul. They cannot fly transatlantic routes. Clearly this has operational problems and limitations for EI, but that is what they wanted, and that is what they got. Ironically, this restriction is for the Captains only, so barring new low hour hires in their first year, they are essentially the only pilots in EI who don’t fly transatlantic.

The proposed narrowbody pay cap, is in essence a return to fleet pay. Despite what the LRC included in their Recommendation, it does not currently exist. It is one of the changes to T+C’s which EI management have asked for. It would prevent any Captain flying any narrowbody aircraft from accessing the top 6 years of the current pay scale.

EI have for several years now, stated that the see the future of the company as flying many narrowbody aircraft (LRs, XLRs, XXLRs …etc) on multiple daily arrivals into much of the US. There is no current wide body order in place for EI. In this scenario, their stated vision of the future, there is no need for a wide body fleet as big as they have currently. As a consequence, a narrowbody pay cap is a de facto pay cut by stealth for those who would not make it into the left hand seat of an A330. Additionally you would assume there would also be knock effects to pensions as well.

As you can see, these are 2 very different things. A narrowbody pay cap would represent a huge loss of terms and conditions. A loss of career income in the hundreds of thousands of euros. Not something I believe is offset by a couple of extra % now.

This is why I have said the LRC have made a factual error. This is why I have stated I don’t believe the pilots will accept the recommendation in its current form.

Well said DalRiata and thank you for elaborating I don’t fully understand the complexities of this dispute but I do understand unions and aggressive management strategies.

As a proud ROI citizen born and bred with no allegiance to any religious or political organisations I resent the suggestion by OP that I used “DUP” sounding language- I merely tagged IAG on the end to differentiate between Aer Lingus of old and the private company they are now.

In my senior years, with regard to my opinions I say it like I see it and I usually don’t explain myself because as Dr. Seuss would say “those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind”

Good luck to the pilots sounds like they will need it.