Is Aer Lingus the new Irish Ferries

unit 1

OK so you make your staff redundant because there is no work for them, and then magically from nowhere you have work and lo and behold you can reemploy much of your old staff but on reduced terms.
Is this legal
Is this moral
Is this fair
Is this sensible
Why not do this to every worker in the country and get it all over with

the long lad

Legal? I'm sure they've gotten good advice, so presumably yes. Whatever the conditions, they're probably specific to their staff's contracts.
Moral? Fair? Well its sensible, so does it really matter about morality and fairness.

What would be even more sensible would be to allow ryanair to buy the government's 25% stake in aer lingus, but with serious conditions attached ie they must create and maintain a certain no. of IRISH jobs, perhaps the government might be able to take a small percentage of profits (assuming they'd return to profitability!). What benefit is it to the country and the taxpayer for us as a country to own 25% of an airline that's going down the tubes.

zootroid

unit 1 wrote: »

OK so you make your staff redundant because there is no work for them, and then magically from nowhere you have work and lo and behold you can reemploy much of your old staff but on reduced terms.
Is this legal
Is this moral
Is this fair
Is this sensible
Why not do this to every worker in the country and get it all over with

Is this legal - yes, the company would not try it otherwise

Is this moral - yes, the company is looking like it will go out of business unless wage costs are lowered and workers become more productive

Is this fair - yes, the company is unprofitable. When the government floated the company, investors bought shares with the expectation that it would be profitable, so they could see a return on there investment. Muller's main job is to increase shareholder value by increasing profitability, which is done by offering a service that your customers value, at a price that covers your costs. This is not happening at the moment, as shown in the operating loss of 81m euro

Is this sensible - yes, the company looks like it could go out of business within the next few years unless action is taken, which would result in redundancies for all

Why not do this to every worker in the country and get it all over with - have you not read the first thread on this page? 70% of private sector workers have seen their earnings fall. They have to become more productive, as the companies they work for need to be more competitive

WalterMitty

Aer lingus is losing money so not same as the profitable Irish Ferries. Aer Lingus will be gone in a year if these cuts arent made. Aer lingus is losing 6.50euro for every passenger it flies!

P. Breathnach

the long lad wrote: »

... What would be even more sensible would be to allow ryanair to buy the government's 25% stake in aer lingus, but with serious conditions attached ie they must create and maintain a certain no. of IRISH jobs, perhaps the government might be able to take a small percentage of profits (assuming they'd return to profitability!). What benefit is it to the country and the taxpayer for us as a country to own 25% of an airline that's going down the tubes.

And what about the holders of the other shares?

View

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And what about the holders of the other shares?

I am not certain of this but I think Ryanair, were they to buy the Government's shares, would have to make an offer for the outstanding shares at the same price.

P. Breathnach

View wrote: »

I am not certain of this but I think Ryanair, were they to buy the Government's shares, would have to make an offer for the outstanding shares at the same price.

I don't think that is so. And certainly not is a stitch-up kind of way.

Besides, we still have the competition issue to deal with: the EU is against any takeover of AL by Ryanair.

oppenheimer1

The attitudes on this forum consistently amaze and exasperate me. People want low fares, let would be happy to see Aerlingus either fold or be sold to Ryanair just to stick it to the unions. The reactionary short sightedness is a prime example of how the general public (assuming boards is a reasonable sample) should never ever be let make an important decision.

Should Aer Lingus fold or be sold, low fares from Ireland would end. AL is ryanairs only real competition in the Irish market. No other airline would step in as the cash reserves RA have behind them mean they could run prolonged offers to break the biggest competitors. Its one of the reasons Easy Jet doesn't operate in the republic. A company like ryanair would strip and break Aer Lingus. I would rather see AL fall into Air France-KLM hands than one that already plays a significant role in the irish market.

The unions have to get real though. The company won't survive for long at the rate its burning through its cash reserves, and if it goes to the wall, its staff and the population of Ireland in general will be the much poorer for it.

To will ill will on AL is to cut off your hand to spite your face...

dunsandin

Air France and KLM are in much the same position as AL - ie. clinging by their fingernails. Is what AL is doing fair - not really. Moral - doubtful. Nice -No. Neccessary - probably. As the saying goes, no mun no fun, so the good old days of working for AL and doing not that much for quite a lot are over. The future probably belongs to the Ryanairs of the world, which is a pity, as the low cost experience is crap. I used to fly to the Uk with AL in the '80's and while it was dear, it was nice. My wife loves ryanair, I love Mick o'leary, but I hate flying Ryanair and would miss(irrationally)Aer Fungus.

Victor

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't think that is so.

Any party (including their associates) that gains a 29% stake in a publicly listed company is obliged to bid for the company at a price not lower than the price they paid in the period immediately before breaking the 29% barrier.

djpbarry

the long lad wrote: »

What would be even more sensible would be to allow ryanair to buy the government's 25% stake in aer lingus...

Transatlantic flights with Ryanair? Shudder...

dunsandin

You'd have to shudder, to avoid the DVT.

unit 1

How can it be legal to "pretend "you have no work for staff. If you use this phoney excuse to deteriorate terms and conditions them it's based on a falsehood. How is it legal to alter a contract (employees t&c) using this method. Surely it's a breach of contract to knowingly decieve another party(pretending to have no work) for your own advantage (cut their pay)to their detriment(reduced t&cs).

Just because AL think something they hav'nt already done is legal does not make it so. This could possibly be brinkmanship and should it suceed what's to stop any employer from firing you at 5.30 and rehiring you at 5.45 with a 10-20% paycut or whatever he fancies.

Don't forget the taxpayer forks out 60% of this phoney redundancy bill so is in fact subsidising AL's race to the bottom.

The solution really is to ascertain the actual staff that are redundant and seek voluntary severance. Should this fail then apply compulsory but only to those who are surplus to requirements. Would this not be fairer than what they are doing.

P. Breathnach

Victor wrote: »

Any party (including their associates) that gains a 29% stake in a publicly listed company is obliged to bid for the company at a price not lower than the price they paid in the period immediately before breaking the 29% barrier.

I am aware of that. But (1) the other shareholders do not have to accept; (2) there is an expectation that the price be a true market price -- hence my mention of a possible stitch-up.

If Ryanair achieved a majority shareholding in AL, they cannot run it in a way that is contrived to disadvantage the minority shareholders. That means that the long lad's proposal that "they must create and maintain a certain no. of IRISH jobs, perhaps the government might be able to take a small percentage of profits" is not on.

Anyway, there is still the obstacle of the EU.

P. Breathnach

unit 1 wrote: »

... The solution really is to ascertain the actual staff that are redundant ...

By definition, no staff are redundant. A job can be redundant if there is longer a need for it to be done. [Yes, I know that people speak about people being redundant, but it's imprecise.] It makes no technical or legal sense for AL to declare all their cabin crew jobs redundant if they still fly planes carrying passengers. They cannot carry passengers without cabin crew -- not for serving lousy coffee, but to deal with emergencies.

dunsandin

Unfortunatly, it is "Legal" to do a lot of sh1t7y things, legality and morality are usually strange bedfellows. The letter of the law may be followed, but it does not follow that you or I would regard it as moral.

djpbarry

unit 1 wrote: »

The solution really is to ascertain the actual staff that are redundant and seek voluntary severance.

I believe voluntary redundancies were offered but the deal was rejected by the staff.

zootroid

unit 1 wrote: »

How can it be legal to "pretend "you have no work for staff. If you use this phoney excuse to deteriorate terms and conditions them it's based on a falsehood. How is it legal to alter a contract (employees t&c) using this method. Surely it's a breach of contract to knowingly decieve another party(pretending to have no work) for your own advantage (cut their pay)to their detriment(reduced t&cs).

As P. Breathnach pointed out, they are making the positions redundant. The new positions will have slightly different responsibilities and/or slightly different job titles. That is how they will force through the compulsory redundancies and fill the new positions without acting illegally. You may disagree with it, think it immoral etc, but they are operating within the law.

Just because AL think something they hav'nt already done is legal does not make it so. This could possibly be brinkmanship and should it suceed what's to stop any employer from firing you at 5.30 and rehiring you at 5.45 with a 10-20% paycut or whatever he fancies.

I suppose there is nothing to stop other employers from doing it, but most employers will be able to come to an agreement with their employees regarding decreasing pay rates should the company be in trouble. Obviously this didn't happen with AL. Employees also have a choice, they can leave and try to find work elsewhere if they think the market is offering a better rate for their skills.

Don't forget the taxpayer forks out 60% of this phoney redundancy bill so is in fact subsidising AL's race to the bottom.

I don't regard it as a race to the bottom, I regard it as a company trying improve its competitive position. Of course we would all like high wages, but we have to accept what the market pays. Should a position be overpaid, it is usually the consumer who ends up paying for it in the end, or else the company itself by going bust.

The solution really is to ascertain the actual staff that are redundant and seek voluntary severance. Should this fail then apply compulsory but only to those who are surplus to requirements. Would this not be fairer than what they are doing.

As stated, it is the position that becomes redundant, not the person. However, I expect that when AL carry out this activity, they will choose very carefully who they re-hire. I suspect the people who voted against the plan to have a slimmer chance of re-joining. It will also be interesting to see if what the unions are saying is true, whether they are "outraged". Surely if they are then they have no intention of re-joining a company they perceive to have treated them unjustly?

thebman

P. Breathnach wrote: »

By definition, no staff are redundant. A job can be redundant if there is longer a need for it to be done. [Yes, I know that people speak about people being redundant, but it's imprecise.] It makes no technical or legal sense for AL to declare all their cabin crew jobs redundant if they still fly planes carrying passengers. They cannot carry passengers without cabin crew -- not for serving lousy coffee, but to deal with emergencies.

if a company goes under if they don't reform contracts with employees it just redundancy in advance while they work out terms they can afford pay employee's.

If they keep employees on at current rates, everyone gets let go. If they regnegotiate they can save some jobs and the company.

The staff are redundant at current rates as there is no purpose or ability for the company to continue losing the money they are losing on wages.

Nody

unit 1 wrote: »

How can it be legal to "pretend "you have no work for staff. If you use this phoney excuse to deteriorate terms and conditions them it's based on a falsehood. How is it legal to alter a contract (employees t&c) using this method. Surely it's a breach of contract to knowingly decieve another party(pretending to have no work) for your own advantage (cut their pay)to their detriment(reduced t&cs).

This has been done for over 10 years, welcome to reality AL and unions. Personally I've gone through it three times in two years back during the boom years.

Just because AL think something they hav'nt already done is legal does not make it so. This could possibly be brinkmanship and should it suceed what's to stop any employer from firing you at 5.30 and rehiring you at 5.45 with a 10-20% paycut or whatever he fancies.

See above, just because you think it is wrong don't make it so. AL is a over priced and costly set up that NEEDS to be tore down to make the company survive.

Don't forget the taxpayer forks out 60% of this phoney redundancy bill so is in fact subsidising AL's race to the bottom.

Oh the union favorite "race to the bottom" card, you do realize that AL at the moment is either due for bankruptcy or reduce cost, those are the only two options right? It can't afford to pay the current benefits because people, you know the customers who actually pay for tickets and stuff, don't want to pay for it! Hence because the customer don't want to pay for it the company can't afford it, what a novel idea...

The solution really is to ascertain the actual staff that are redundant and seek voluntary severance. Should this fail then apply compulsory but only to those who are surplus to requirements. Would this not be fairer than what they are doing.

They did and it was a very generous package at that at 6 weeks per year and they turned it down. Now people get to experience the reality of things that actions has consequences and are crying their hearts out how it is unfair that they could not eat the cake and keep it at the same time.

The_Thing

Aer lingus is losing 6.50euro for every passenger it flies!

I would have no problem paying Aer Lingus an extra €6.50 if it meant that O'Leary wouldn't get his slimy hands on the company. I'm absolutely delighted he didn't get hangar 6.

Fighting Irish

WTF is with people giving out about business's that do stuff to better their business

Nody

Fighting Irish wrote: »

WTF is with people giving out about business's that do stuff to better their business

Clearly they have an unfair advantage doing things better/cheaper/as the customer wants it and should be forced by law to stop.

murphaph

unit 1 wrote: »

This could possibly be brinkmanship and should it suceed what's to stop any employer from firing you at 5.30 and rehiring you at 5.45 with a 10-20% paycut or whatever he fancies.

The market will stop him. If there is a shortage of the type of labour you provide then the emplyer will have a hard time finding someone to do it for less. If there are 400k people on the dole who are capable of your work, you should be worried, especially if your employer is losing money.

AL really will fold if costs aren't cut guys. AL need to remain competitive with Ryanair or people will simply fly with Ryanair. To remain competitive they have to have a similar cost base. If anyone believes it would be better to have AL fold or be sold to Ryanair they are sorely mistaken. Ryanair (like any well run company) seeks to maximise profits. They would (in the long run) see to higher average fares on most routes out of Ireland if they were the only show in town. I'd say the clever staff in AL know that even if Ryanair bought them out, there'd be massive redundancies to eliminate all duplication of services asap. The cabin crew are clearly not that bright tbh and could easily be replaced with cheaper labour from the dole queue. Time have changed...

shoegirl

unit 1 wrote: »

OK so you make your staff redundant because there is no work for them, and then magically from nowhere you have work and lo and behold you can reemploy much of your old staff but on reduced terms.
Is this legal

I don't think so, the job has to vanish for at least 3 months before it can be considered "redundant." Management playing hard ball with the union in question. It will be settled. You cannot run an airline without cabin crew!

shoegirl

murphaph wrote: »

AL really will fold if costs aren't cut guys. AL need to remain competitive with Ryanair or people will simply fly with Ryanair. To remain competitive they have to have a similar cost base.

Disagree completely. A lot of the Ryanair rivalry is PR gameplay by OLeery and it doesn't relate to areas of genuine competition.

Ryanair only compete with AL on a limited set of routes and not at all for long haul. As a result they are not always comparable.

Where they do compete, it doesn't necessarily follow that Ryanair are cheaper - I have been watching flights from Dublin to Gran Canaria lately, and bizarrely, AL are marginally cheaper on this route (though not cheap!)

AL have to remain competitive and part of their problem is fixed expectations as to services provided and locations serviced. They are haemorraging money on long haul and on Shannon. If they could remove both they could probably compete. They need a seriously massive rethink with regard to their entire model. Nobody seriously expects Ryanair to fly to Boston, but people would be very upset if AL pulled all its US flights tomorrow. Likewise Shannon - lets just not go there - its a big money hole for AL in recent years - and it hasn't done well for RA either.

shoegirl

The_Thing wrote: »

I would have no problem paying Aer Lingus an extra €6.50 if it meant that O'Leary wouldn't get his slimy hands on the company. I'm absolutely delighted he didn't get hangar 6.

Thats actually only a very tiny loss. If its true. I suspect however, the reality is that is an average figure and in reality AL are making a reasonable profit on "traditional" services to UK and Europe out of Dublin and possibly some Cork/Belfast routes. They are probably loosing massively on US/Shannon.

I'd suggest code sharing entirely on the US flights with a US or UK partner to share costs.

OMD

The_Thing wrote: »

I would have no problem paying Aer Lingus an extra €6.50 if it meant that O'Leary wouldn't get his slimy hands on the company. I'm absolutely delighted he didn't get hangar 6.

But it is not "an extra €6.50 to stop O'Leary getting his slimy hands on the company". It is an extra €6.50 to stop Aer Lingus workers taking pay cuts.

murphaph

shoegirl wrote: »

Disagree completely. A lot of the Ryanair rivalry is PR gameplay by OLeery and it doesn't relate to areas of genuine competition.

Ryanair only compete with AL on a limited set of routes and not at all for long haul. As a result they are not always comparable.

Where they do compete, it doesn't necessarily follow that Ryanair are cheaper - I have been watching flights from Dublin to Gran Canaria lately, and bizarrely, AL are marginally cheaper on this route (though not cheap!)

AL have to remain competitive and part of their problem is fixed expectations as to services provided and locations serviced. They are haemorraging money on long haul and on Shannon. If they could remove both they could probably compete. They need a seriously massive rethink with regard to their entire model. Nobody seriously expects Ryanair to fly to Boston, but people would be very upset if AL pulled all its US flights tomorrow. Likewise Shannon - lets just not go there - its a big money hole for AL in recent years - and it hasn't done well for RA either.

Disagree completely? Hardly! You seem to agree with me that AL must remain competitive with Ryanair in Europe. Ryanair don't fly transatlantic so it's sort of obvious I wasn't talking about being competitive there!

I live in Berlin. Both airlines fly here and I always opt for AL if it is comparable price wise. I would not pay more than 20% more to avoid Ryanair (and I would be avoiding Ryanair, not trying to fly with AL, which is just like any other carrier these days). I'm struggling to see where you disagree with me tbh!

Fighting Irish

Nody wrote: »

Clearly they have an unfair advantage doing things better/cheaper/as the customer wants it and should be forced by law to stop.

:rolleyes:

So you want everyone

Enigma'

shoegirl wrote: »

They are haemorraging money on long haul and on Shannon. If they could remove both they could probably compete. They need a seriously massive rethink with regard to their entire model. Nobody seriously expects Ryanair to fly to Boston, but people would be very upset if AL pulled all its US flights tomorrow. Likewise Shannon - lets just not go there - its a big money hole for AL in recent years - and it hasn't done well for RA either.

Ah, more Shannon bashing I see. No surprise there, but lets gets a couple of facts straight first.

On short-haul, EI operate a single route from Shannon to London Heathrow. The CEO has confirmed very recently that the airline is happy with the route and that the routes' performance is in line with it's other Heathrow routes. The route is profitable.

Aer Lingus makes money on Shannon long-haul over the summer months, May - August, with July and August being the most profitable. EI have no problem filling seats over these months and the yield is pretty good.

The winter is where the problem lies and since the Shannon market is highly seasonal, there's no quick fix for this. EI have addressed this problem over the last 2 years though and services have been cut quite significantly. To reduce losses, the airline merged one particular Dublin-JFK flight with the Shannon-JFK flight this winter. Shannon-Boston has been reduced to 4x weekly.

So make no mistake, despite the fact that EI loses money on long-haul at Shannon during the winter, these losses are now much reduced. Many other routes from other bases, including many short-haul routes, lose money during the winter. There's nothing unusual about it. In 2006, EI operated 3 daily transatlantic flights from Shannon, now they operate just 1. They are by no means "haemorraging" money on Shannon anymore.

Lets not be so fast to lay all the blame on Shannon. The big losses are being made elsewhere, but that's another discussion.

djpbarry

shoegirl wrote: »

Ryanair only compete with AL on a limited set of routes and not at all for long haul. As a result they are not always comparable.

Where they do compete, it doesn't necessarily follow that Ryanair are cheaper...

But the public perception (brilliantly constructed by RyanAir PR, it has to be said) is that RyanAir is dirt cheap, even though they are not. I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve had this discussion with people who absolutely refuse to accept that prices are often comparable between the two airlines, and that’s before we factor in the fact that RyanAir generally fly to a destination >20km away from where you actually want to go, have a smaller baggage allowance, have no automated check-in kiosks, no seat reservations, etc, etc. And of course people rarely factor in the additional charges that are often incurred when flying with RyanAir, such as the unavoidable €5 check-in fee, or the penalty for exceeding your baggage allowance. Without such fees, RyanAir’s fares would be substantially higher.

Sleepy

The thing is, djpbarry, if you're smart enough to avoid those fees, Ryanair is significantly cheaper. If some people are too slow to avoid the fees, I'm happy to let them subsidise my flight

Dacian

WalterMitty wrote: »

Aer lingus is losing money so not same as the profitable Irish Ferries. Aer Lingus will be gone in a year if these cuts arent made. Aer lingus is losing 6.50euro for every passenger it flies!

You really are Walter Mitty.
Have you read the published reports on Aer Lingus. They made a profit in the second half of 2009. Overall 2009 was 80M of a loss as stated last week in the media. They expect to make a profit for 2011. The new CEO dealt with the reasons for the 90M loss in the first half of 2009. The CEO says even if they continue to lose 100M per year they have enough cash reserve to last 4-5 years!

murphaph

Dacian wrote: »

You really are Walter Mitty.
Have you read the published reports on Aer Lingus. They made a profit in the second half of 2009. Overall 2009 was 80M of a loss as stated last week in the media. They expect to make a profit for 2011. The new CEO dealt with the reasons for the 90M loss in the first half of 2009. The CEO says even if they continue to lose 100M per year they have enough cash reserve to last 4-5 years!

Do they expect to make a profit even if the reforms (which they expected to go through as they were recommended by the Labour Court and endorsed by ALL the unions) don't go through? I don't think so! So after they keep losing this money and are out of cash in 4 years time, what then?

Dacian

murphaph wrote: »

Do they expect to make a profit even if the reforms (which they expected to go through as they were recommended by the Labour Court and endorsed by ALL the unions) don't go through? I don't think so! So after they keep losing this money and are out of cash in 4 years time, what then?

The current agreed cost cuts by the majority of the staff will make huge savings per year, the imposed cuts on cabin crew will deliver the rest of the EUR97M savings plan, the Aer Arann deal will deliver more passenger to their longhaul operation, thus increasing its revenue generation. That is how AL are planning to survive and prosper. Who knows what else the new CEO has planned for Aer Lingus in the next 2-3 years?

Cunsiderthis

murphaph wrote: »

Do they expect to make a profit even if the reforms (which they expected to go through as they were recommended by the Labour Court and endorsed by ALL the unions) don't go through? I don't think so! So after they keep losing this money and are out of cash in 4 years time, what then?

They are a private company and should be as free to dictate their own path to bankrupcy as they are to profitability.

the example which was given, irish ferrys, is an interesting one. having spent years on ferries from Ireland, they were dirty places, where the food was inedible, the conditions revolting and the staff often rude and unhelpful.

Nowadays, irish ferrys are clean, with a better choice and the staff are helpful and considerate, treating the passengers with courtesy and respect.

I dislike both ryan air and aer lingus because the staff are often bossy and treat their customers poorly. Roll on a change if it means the staff are no longer bossy little madams who speak in that awful monotone!

djpbarry

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I dislike both ryan air and aer lingus because the staff are often bossy and treat their customers poorly.

I generally find Aer Lingus staff courteous and polite - I’m not sure what level of customer service you expect when the fare you’re paying is often close to zero (or at least such fares are often available). I can’t comment on the RyanAir crew as I tend to avoid travelling with them.

Dont be at yourself

djpbarry wrote: »

Transatlantic flights with Ryanair? Shudder...

In fairness, AL aren't much better. I was on a flight from San Francisco to Dublin a couple of years ago and it was awful. No in-flight entertainment, no complimentary meals...

To the OP: they're doing what they have to do. Everybody has to live in the real world.

bladeruner

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

In fairness, AL aren't much better. I was on a flight from San Francisco to Dublin a couple of years ago and it was awful. No in-flight entertainment, no complimentary meals...
.

Im pretty sure the meals are complimentary and that if you have specific dietry requirements such as gluten free, veggie, vegan etc you will be accomodated.
All Ei long haul aircraft now have IFE and PTVs.
A couple of years ago , not many airlines did have all the bells and whistles.
I travelled with Emirates a few years ago and it was poor with no IFE , food so-so .
I know that they are all upgraded these days aswell.

97i9y3941

i do laugh way people complain about ryanair service,but have no hesitation flying with them though!.

donkey balls

Fred83 wrote: »

i do laugh way people complain about ryanair service,but have no hesitation flying with them though!.

about two years ago i checked flights to Glasgow with both FR&EI aerlingus was the cheaper of the two,personally flying to the uk i couldnt care who i fly with as most flights are about an hour long.

Dacian

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I dislike both ryan air and aer lingus because the staff are often bossy .........................bossy little madams who speak in that awful monotone!

Well the crew are generally trying to get you to do something (switch off phones,not smoke,stow bags,sit down etc) so yes they are bossy,its their job to be. And I assume they have to speak in the monotone to ensure the safety instructions/announcements are clearly heard and understood.

zootroid

Dacian wrote: »

Well the crew are generally trying to get you to do something (switch off phones,not smoke,stow bags,sit down etc) so yes they are bossy,its their job to be. And I assume they have to speak in the monotone to ensure the safety instructions/announcements are clearly heard and understood.

You could say it's their job to be nice also, seeing as they're the staff who are the face of the company and deal with customers. The staff of other airlines I've flown with (Etihad for example) are far nicer.

FreudianSlippers

bladeruner wrote: »

Im pretty sure the meals are complimentary and that if you have specific dietry requirements such as gluten free, veggie, vegan etc you will be accomodated.
All Ei long haul aircraft now have IFE and PTVs.
A couple of years ago , not many airlines did have all the bells and whistles.
I travelled with Emirates a few years ago and it was poor with no IFE , food so-so .
I know that they are all upgraded these days aswell.

This is totally accurate. Oh, and fly Continental to the US and you will never complain about EI ever again! The only thing worse than the trip to the US on Continental was thinking "FML I have to fly this crap back the other way!"

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/aerlingus.html

Aer Lingus cabin crew accept plan
Friday, 26 March 2010 18:23

Cabin crew at Aer Lingus have voted by 92% to 8% to accept the airline's €97m cost-saving plan.

This was their second ballot on the deal, which they rejected first time round by a margin of two to one.

Following that ballot, Aer Lingus announced it would make all 1,200 cabin crew redundant and rehire most on inferior terms and conditions and 230 would be made compulsorily redundant.

They had been the only group of workers at the airline to reject the plan.

Dacian

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

In fairness, AL aren't much better. I was on a flight from San Francisco to Dublin a couple of years ago and it was awful. No in-flight entertainment, no complimentary meals....

Think this poster may have slept through the entire flight with that experience........

galwaydude

Good news that the cabin crew accepted the deal. Better than loosing your job anyways. Maybe the government should take a note considering the recent crisis with the passport office fiasco.

I have flown dozens of times between the US and Ireland with AI. Always found them helpful and very friendly. Entertainment systems on the back of each seat, food is ok.

unit 1

Welcome to the new world of industrial relations. Sack first, renegotiate later. How will this go down with profitable companies "trying it on" to reduce their employees T&Cs. Bottom line is bullyboy tactics workded. Funnily enough in the budget before last when cancelling capital projects those already "contractually agreed" were not affected. Seems road making contracts cannot be broken but employees contracts can.

Nody

unit 1 wrote: »

Welcome to the new world of industrial relations. Sack first, renegotiate later. How will this go down with profitable companies "trying it on" to reduce their employees T&Cs. Bottom line is bullyboy tactics workded. Funnily enough in the budget before last when cancelling capital projects those already "contractually agreed" were not affected. Seems road making contracts cannot be broken but employees contracts can.

Oh BS; this has been done several times even during the boom years by private companies but because it is AL it is suddenly doom and gloom for Ireland. It is time the unions and the employees who think they are indispensable get a clue and stop living in lala land.