Aer Lingus Fleet/ Routes Discussion Pt 2 (ALL possible routes included)

trellheim

ref the LCYs could EI not just paint some of the BA Embraers green ( or is that what was said above ? )

goingnowhere

trellheim wrote: »

ref the LCYs could EI not just paint some of the BA Embraers green ( or is that what was said above ? )

The question is do you run it mainline or regional?

If its mainline its not what EI want to be in, Stobart's AOC already covers E jets.

Lapmo_Dancer

Two JFKs operating the last few days.

MickeyLeari

Anyone have any idea what Are Lingus is planning.

Flights to some of the holiday destinations (Naples, Gran Canaria, Athens, Rhodes) in July/August are showing as sold out, while there are cheap as chips flights available to the likes of Rome...

Are these really sold out, not running, or is Aer Lingus waiting to get certainty on these routes and then maximise revenues?

basill

You asking for your employer?

IngazZagni

Typically at the moment airlines are listing flights as sold out as they are earmarked for cancellation however they are not officially cancelled. This helps spread out the cancellations and thus the refunds owed. They can also change their minds on the proposed cancellation if conditions improve rapidly.

MickeyLeari

basill wrote: »

You asking for your employer?

No a personal trip. My employer will discourage travel for the immediate future.

MickeyLeari

IngazZagni wrote: »

Typically at the moment airlines are listing flights as sold out as they are earmarked for cancellation however they are not officially cancelled. This helps spread out the cancellations and thus the refunds owed. They can also change their minds on the proposed cancellation if conditions improve rapidly.

Thanks. Although I am unsure - these were high yielding routes where flights were already quite pricey while other flights are open.

Tenger

Lapmo_Dancer wrote: »

Two JFKs operating the last few days.

Cargo only flights being operated under the old (ancient?) Aer Turas DC-8 flight number of 2109.

goingnowhere

Lapmo_Dancer wrote: »

Two JFKs operating the last few days.

1 passenger, 1 freight only

EchoIndia

Tenger wrote: »

Cargo only flights being operated under the old (ancient?) Aer Turas DC-8 flight number of 2109.

It's EIN9109/9108 - previous to Aer Turas those cargo flights were operated by Aer Lingus Boeing 707s, routeing DUB-SNN-JFK. EI9107 was the number I remember from that time.

Tenger

EchoIndia wrote: »

It's EIN9109/9108 - previous to Aer Turas those cargo flights were operated by Aer Lingus Boeing 707s, routeing DUB-SNN-JFK. EI9107 was the number I remember from that time.

I got sent duff gen on that so.

(I remember the old 107 via SNN)

EchoIndia

Tenger wrote: »

I got sent duff gen on that so.

(I remember the old 107 via SNN)

The digit "9" is the prefiix for a cargo service. When the convertible 737-200s were operated, there were night-time cargo services to LHR, CDG, FRA and MAN that I can recall, all using this numbering system.

Tenger

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0609/1146442-aer-lingus/

I've seen some details of "proposal" that Aer Lingus are putting in place without union involvement. (the CCO was on PrimeTime this evening and looked uncomfortable when asked about this point)

MickeyLeari

If the Union is considering this seriously then the company really is in very serious difficulties. How severe is the current situation in terms of the survival of the airline? Could IAG decide to let it go while BA and Iberia are saved?

California Dreamer

MickeyLeari wrote: »

If the Union is considering this seriously then the company really is in very serious difficulties. How severe is the current situation in terms of the survival of the airline? Could IAG decide to let it go while BA and Iberia are saved?

Sure just close it, probably better off! :rolleyes:

Mc Love

Would anyone really take 80% pay to do 100% of the job? EI executive are for the lunatic asylum. Oh and on the other hand if you get paid 50% of your salary and only 30% you have to pay back the 20%

Madness

Nijmegen

Mc Love wrote: »

Would anyone really take 80% pay to do 100% of the job? EI executive are for the lunatic asylum. Oh and on the other hand if you get paid 50% of your salary and only 30% you have to pay back the 20%

Madness

Given the financial state of the airline, it could be that or 0% pay to do 0% of the job.

It's difficult to tell given the fraught history of airline/union relations where the current need ends and management opportunism begins, but you'd have to imagine that the actual need is significant.

The question really is: Do you want a similar headcount airline where everyone earns less, but we have the people in place to expand rapidly once the market rebounds... Or do you want a smaller headcount airline where those left earn about the same?

And what is "earns less" or "smaller headcount" that actually fits the market rather than market+long term management opportunism.

Really sorry for anyone caught up in all of this.

kona

Nijmegen wrote: »

Given the financial state of the airline, it could be that or 0% pay to do 0% of the job.

It's difficult to tell given the fraught history of airline/union relations where the current need ends and management opportunism begins, but you'd have to imagine that the actual need is significant.

The question really is: Do you want a similar headcount airline where everyone earns less, but we have the people in place to expand rapidly once the market rebounds... Or do you want a smaller headcount airline where those left earn about the same?

And what is "earns less" or "smaller headcount" that actually fits the market rather than market+long term management opportunism.

Really sorry for anyone caught up in all of this.

Sure why not skip all the nonsnese and just go back to straight up slavery.

Absoloute load of ****e is what it is. A game being played to either avoid paying massive redundancy or to force the government to continue subsidising their staff.

Anybody with any sort of self respect wouldnt be having any of it and I can see it backfiring on them, they will lose alot good people.

Graham

MickeyLeari wrote: »

How severe is the current situation in terms of the survival of the airline?

Most airlines currently have no passengers or as near as damn it. I don't see how it could get much more severe.

I can't see how anyone can kid themselves that there won't have to be swift and dramatic changes for any airline to survive. All this at a time where industrial action could actually work in an airlines favour.

sherology

When you consider that EI have 4-months of cancelled flight 'money' in their coffers in the form of vouchers or moved flights, even when they start flying again, the people on their planes may not necessarily be 'buying' tickets, but instead using up credits or already paid for flights... EI (and all airlines) are going to be cash poor for some time. I have rebooked for autumn/winter, but don't plan to book any more flights or hotels or holidays after I have used my already paid-for/re-scheduled flights and hotels. A lot of the rescheduled flights made in the last few months may also not fly, so that another round of rebooking or vouchers etc.

So... Terrible news but their is no real solution apart from redundancy - and where is the money for that going to come from when the airline owes its passengers +++millions - there will be no 'package' apart from state severence as there is no fund to draw from. Paying 50% of salaries for 30% of hours and asking for that overpayment back later is creative in terms of keeping people's incomes up at some kind of subsistence level and putting money in pockets... Better than 30% and perhaps no job in 6-months? It's a pseudo-loan at 0% interest and I think it's very supportive (considering).

It's not normal times... Passengers money is still 'at the airline' and has to come before redundancy payouts... We're not shareholders.. we're customers.

Feel free to tear me a new one... But come on!!! Terrible but isn't it keeping some level of money flowing to staff in a 25% unemployment level scenario.

Tenger

MickeyLeari wrote: »

How severe is the current situation in terms of the survival of the airline? Could IAG decide to let it go while BA and Iberia are saved?

It certainly is the worst economic situation since 1974 at least.

EI are a lot more efficient than either BA or IB.
Last year IAG results showed a 23% return on investment, when the IAG target is 15%.
They weren't bought by IAG as a "fixer upper", they were bought as a profitable, efficient airline with huge growth potential.




Regarding the current 50% salary level to most EI staff (soon to be 30%) it is certainly a lot better than being furloughed as has happened to Virgin Staff.
But at 50% the Govt Covid-19 fund is paying those salaries, NOT the airline.

kona

sherology wrote: »

When you consider that EI have 4-months of cancelled flight 'money' in their coffers in the form of vouchers or moved flights, even when they start flying again, the people on their planes may not necessarily be 'buying' tickets, but instead using up credits or already paid for flights... EI (and all airlines) are going to be cash poor for some time. I have rebooked for autumn/winter, but don't plan to book any more flights or hotels or holidays after I have used my already paid-for/re-scheduled flights and hotels. A lot of the rescheduled flights made in the last few months may also not fly, so that another round of rebooking or vouchers etc.

So... Terrible news but their is no real solution apart from redundancy - and where is the money for that going to come from when the airline owes its passengers +++millions - there will be no 'package' apart from state severence as there is no fund to draw from. Paying 50% of salaries for 30% of hours and asking for that overpayment back later is creative in terms of keeping people's incomes up at some kind of subsistence level and putting money in pockets... Better than 30% and perhaps no job in 6-months? It's a pseudo-loan at 0% interest and I think it's very supportive (considering).

It's not normal times... Passengers money is still 'at the airline' and has to come before redundancy payouts... We're not shareholders.. we're customers.

Feel free to tear me a new one... But come on!!! Terrible but isn't it keeping some level of money flowing to staff in a 25% unemployment level scenario.

Aer lingus have just come off 3 years of massive growth and record profits. IAG bought them when they had 1bn in CASH, IAG had 9.8bn in cash before all this happened.

Customers should get their money and staff should be treated with respect, as in either given redundency or kept on as these people made their profits happen.

People obviously have other commitments in life which are based around having a job, not half a job which might be a full job in 2 years if they return to record growth. Complete nonsense.

sherology

On a fleet/route topic... It'll be interesting to see how stobart flying (again) to the UK regionals will affect the loads on EI transatlantic network in late summer... How many will fly... How many will connect now that direct routes are much fewer... How many will visit Ireland etc.

Nijmegen

kona wrote: »

Aer lingus have just come off 3 years of massive growth and record profits. IAG bought them when they had 1bn in CASH, IAG had 9.8bn in cash before all this happened.

Customers should get their money and staff should be treated with respect, as in either given redundency or kept on as these people made their profits happen.

People obviously have other commitments in life which are based around having a job, not half a job which might be a full job in 2 years if they return to record growth. Complete nonsense.

IAG as a group, operating as normal, had costs just shy of €23bn (€22,893m to be precise) in 2019. That's about €440.25m per week. 22 weeks of operation and the cash pile is gone.

Profits made in the past do not pay the bills when your demand goes up in smoke. IAG and Aer Lingus are trying to offer non-standard solutions that allow staff to remain attached to the airlines, which in turn allows them to rebound in growth faster if the market comes back. If that doesn't suit individuals they're welcome to leave, but simply saying everyone should get paid begs the question... By whom?

kona

Nijmegen wrote: »

IAG as a group, operating as normal, had costs just shy of €23bn (€22,893m to be precise) in 2019. That's about €440.25m per week. 22 weeks of operation and the cash pile is gone.

Profits made in the past do not pay the bills when your demand goes up in smoke. IAG and Aer Lingus are trying to offer non-standard solutions that allow staff to remain attached to the airlines, which in turn allows them to rebound in growth faster if the market comes back. If that doesn't suit individuals they're welcome to leave, but simply saying everyone should get paid begs the question... By whom?

Aer lingus have been enjoying subsidised labour since march, they have been operating a fairly busy operation for the HSE and are operating cargo flights to the USA.

If their operation now doesnt match their staff either pay redundency to people who are not required and let them make plans for their future Or keep them on their current terms. This absoloute nonsense of half a job and them loaning you money to be paid back in hours worked next year is demeaning to be fair.

To say they are taking in a fat zero is not true.

cson

sherology wrote: »

On a fleet/route topic... It'll be interesting to see how stobart flying (again) to the UK regionals will affect the loads on EI transatlantic network in late summer... How many will fly... How many will connect now that direct routes are much fewer... How many will visit Ireland etc.

Big assumption that the US will be open to travellers from Europe & vice versa. Likely closure to US citizens in the latter precipitates the former to EU citizens as I'm sure we're all aware how partial Agent Orange in An Teach Ban is to retaliatory measures.

Graham

kona wrote: »

If their operation now doesnt match their staff either pay redundency to people who are not required and let them make plans for their future

That would be the obvious response.

I'm not convinced it's the solution a large chunk of the existing staff are looking for.

kona

Graham wrote: »

That would be the obvious response.

I'm not convinced it's the solution a large chunk of the existing staff are looking for.

Nobody wants that at all.

Graham

I'm sure they don't but pretending drastic changes aren't necessary isn't a solution either.