Shannon Airport Discussion

[Macy]

I'd personally love to work in a basement.

So what was actually the agreement agreed by the union was more training, a review of staffing levels and a review of health and safety issues and implications. Also, not included in that report, was Aer Lingus agreeing to follow the IR procedures in future, something they didn't in that case iirc.

[Dotsy]

You can be guarenteed that if they shut down a branch and moved it north of the border, making everybody resign and then re-apply for their same job for less money/conditions, the unions would do something about it

The Aer Lingus pilots in Shannon are not losing their jobs. I haven't heard anything to suggest that. There is going to be a reduction in ground/support staff because the aircraft won't be located there anymore but AFAIK the pilots will still be employed but on different routes.


What is the difference between what Aer Lingus are doing and what many other private companies have done previously when shutting down here and moving facilities to other countries. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that in this case the workers can effectively hold the public to ransom.

[OneRedArmy]

I'd personally love to work in a basement.

Baggage handler effectively work in a basement anyway, or certainly in areas with limited space and light so it hardly makes a difference.

The point is that rather than trying to negotiate on H&S or working conditions they simply stuck their hands out like they usually do....

[Dodge]

What is the difference between what Aer Lingus are doing and what many other private companies have done previously when shutting down here and moving facilities to other countries

Nothing, and I'd support them too

[Lionel Ritchie]

What is the difference between what Aer Lingus are doing and what many other private companies have done previously when shutting down here and moving facilities to other countries. It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that in this case the workers can effectively hold the public to ransom.

Maybe the difference is something to do with the government holding, on all our behalf, 25% of the shares (which they were warned would not be enough) to ensure that the countries strategic infrastructural interests, national and regional, were protected after privatisation.

[Bald Student]

to ensure that the countries strategic infrastructural interests, national and regional, were protected after privatisation.

Did they, from what I remember of the news at the time the reason they held the 25% share was to stop a hostile takeover from another airline, like what happened to eircom?

[Dodge]

I thought it was the whole "in the national interest" thing myself

[Macy]

I see O'Dea is all over the place spreading the same lies about why they needed to Privatise in the first place. It was not illegal under EU Law for the Government to invest in Aer Lingus - it's illegal to give a subsidy or a loan that has no chance of being repaid, it's not illegal for a Government to invest/ loan to a state company in which realistically they could expect a return (i.e. a highly profitable airline!).

[pete]

I'd personally love to work in a basement.

So what was actually the agreement agreed by the union was more training, a review of staffing levels and a review of health and safety issues and implications. Also, not included in that report, was Aer Lingus agreeing to follow the IR procedures in future, something they didn't in that case iirc.

They are baggage handlers. How much training do you require to do load baggages from a different location? Why did they want E1,000 is they claimed it was H&S related?

BTW if rumours are true the baggage handlers in Dublin Airport probably earn more than the pilots.

No Health & Safety issues

[Dodge]

BTW if rumours are true the baggage handlers in Dublin Airport probably earn more than the pilots.

[OneRedArmy]

I see O'Dea is all over the place spreading the same lies about why they needed to Privatise in the first place. It was not illegal under EU Law for the Government to invest in Aer Lingus - it's illegal to give a subsidy or a loan that has no chance of being repaid, it's not illegal for a Government to invest/ loan to a state company in which realistically they could expect a return (i.e. a highly profitable airline!).

AFAIK no airline has ever been profitable over any sustained period in history.

They have usually been ridiculously loss-making.

Last few years may be a new dawn with Ryanair etc but....

[John83]

AFAIK no airline has ever been profitable over any sustained period in history.

They have usually been ridiculously loss-making.

Last few years may be a new dawn with Ryanair etc but....

It's anecdotal, but I've heard that AL made a profit 10 years in the last 11.

[Dodge]

Aer Lingus investor relations

[Dotsy]

Maybe the difference is something to do with the government holding, on all our behalf, 25% of the shares (which they were warned would not be enough) to ensure that the countries strategic infrastructural interests, national and regional, were protected after privatisation.

As you say a 25% shareholding cleary isn't enough to force a private company to pursue such a strategy when it is more profitable for them to move assets elsewhere.

The fact that they have a 25% shareholding doesn't make a difference in reality so again why is this situation different (as far as the unions are concerned) to other companys relocating out of Ireland.

[Dodge]

The fact that they have a 25% shareholding doesn't make a difference in reality so again why is this situation different (as far as the unions are concerned) to other companys relocating out of Ireland.

You realise this union only deals with pilots don't you?

[Dotsy]

You realise this union only deals with pilots don't you?

Yes I do. The pilots that are not actually be made redundant due to the ending of the LHR routes but will be re-rostered to other routes within the airline.

I don't recall other unions going down this route when other companies have relocated part of their operations outside the state. Where are the unions protesting/striking about the Shannon Airport staff other than the Aer Lingus pilots that are actaully going to loose their jobs because of this move.

Why is Aer LIngus and specifically their pilots such a special case. As you yourself said the Government's 25% shareholding doesn't give them enough influence to change what are business decisions made by a private company.

And as for the 70 FF councillors and TD's who had a meeting yesterday to show their opposition to this what the feck did they expect. It doesn't take a degree in business to see that this could happen and they are members of the party that effectively opened the door to this. A bunch of hippocrites the lot of them. But I bet you they will still get voted back in the next time around.

[Dodge]

Yes I do.

Then why say this

I don't recall other unions going down this route

If they're different unions they have different objectives. Why shouldn't the union fight to protect their members interests, even if other unions don't do it?

[Dotsy]

Then why say this


If they're different unions they have different objectives. Why shouldn't the union fight to protect their members interests, even if other unions don't do it?

Dodge

What I don't understand is what interests are the pilot's union protecting here. The Shannon pliots are not loosing their jobs over this. There is no change AFAIK in their terms and conditions, pension entitlements etc.

Aer Lingus is setting up an operation in another jurisdiction and paying their staff their differently, the same way companies that operate all over the world in different countries do. Pay and renumeration in each country is based on local conditions. Why do Aer Lingus pilots in the Republic have a problem with this.

I have sympathy for the ground workers at Shannon who will loose their jobs when the routes go to Belfast. THey are the ones who will suffer most from this decision not the pilots.

[pete]

If they're different unions they have different objectives. Why shouldn't the union fight to protect their members interests, even if other unions don't do it?

I think the AL unions are entitled to do whatever they want to do. However they deserve no more special treatment than any other group of workers in the State. The unions should remember that they have already benefited from privatisation (they now own part of AL) but their strikes will affect their profits & dividends.

I think the state may be retaining its share as part of the Open Skies agreement as AL have to stay in Irish ownership?

Aer Lingus is setting up an operation in another jurisdiction and paying their staff their differently, the same way companies that operate all over the world in different countries do. Pay and renumeration in each country is based on local conditions. Why do Aer Lingus pilots in the Republic have a problem with this.

Good point. This is a legal requirement of Multinationals. Employees must be employed by local companies e.g. Multinational Ireland Ltd. I would assume there is an Aer Lingus UK Company.

I would guess that the AL pilots are concerned that AL will expand across Europe with new hubs. New employees will be employed from those countries so they will therefore be on lower wages (e.g. European Hub in Poland.) I have experience of unofficial outsourcing myself.

[OneRedArmy]

The way I see it IMPACT see this as the thin end of the wedge. Start off with a few pilots in Belfast on a bit less money, before you know it you've a load of Eastern European pilots based at a true low cost hub on half the money and new Irish pilots can't get "decent" paid work. Ie similar to the Irish Ferries example mentioned earlier.

As for FF, I'm delighted to see them in another ridiculous, yet complete foreseeable quagmire. This is what happens when you let morons (O'Dea typifying them) into power.

Did they think AL were going to come over all benevolent and semi-state just because they still own a minority shareholding?