IALPA settlement with Aer Lingus

[DaveM]

Just to clarify further - the Legal Limit for a two man crew is 14 hours. By Law. The requirement for a third crew member is to allow a delayed flight continue to operate up to 18 hours.
18 hours in the middle of the night!
Incidentally, the proper way to operate a crew relief system is to have 2 Captains and an F/O, so that there will always be a Captain on the Flight Deck. Aer Lingus use 2 F/O's, which means that if the Captain is relieved the a/c is sitting over the mid Atlantic with no Command Rated pilot on the Flight Deck. It saves money - but I wonder how passengers would feel about it if they knew there is no Captain up front on their trip?
That third crew member is a legal requirement under European JAA legislation, but is portrayed (and perceived by a naiive public) as being some kind of 'restrictive Union practice'. People with no idea about Aviation Legislation or JAR OPS are waffling, basically.

And the pilots are doing what? Sleeping? Picking their noses and staring out the window? An autopilot relieves the crew of the most basic function of having to pole the a/c around for 18 hours - it does not relieve them of the responsibility to navigate, to monitor systems, to monitor weather, to communicate with ATC, to manage fuel reserves, or to deal with in-flight emergencies - which more often than not these days are caused by passengers, and occur a lot more often than you imagine.

It's pretty evident from your own post that even on a round trip to Los Angeles (which it should be noted is the most extreme example and is strictly equivalent to short-haul operations which make up the majority of AL traffic) that the pilots are certainly not subjected to hugely excessive stress compared to most other professions. The tasks you listed as having to be carried out while on auto-pilot hardly chill the blood as they are predominantly monitoring that the auto-pilot is working correctly. I'm not saying the job is a walk in the park but the point I'm making is that flying a commercial airliner is not quite the Herculean task that many pilots would have us believe it is.

Well, if pilots only work 18 hours a week - as you suggest - then they can only earn 18 X ? (a sector payment is around 10 euro). That works out as another 9K per annum, but only if they actually fly. If they are grounded by illness they get no such payment.

Firstly I never stated that pilots only worked 18 hours a week. As I undertand it pilots receive a lump sum payment per flight completed with the lump sum in direct relation to the length of the flight. For starting pilots this made up the majority of their income, certainly up until a few years ago.

The bottom line is Aer Lingus pay above the industry norm and as such are at a disadvantage in competing with other airlines.

Prove that statement. Link please? (and not to an O'Learyism thanks).

Actually the basic salary for Ryanair pilots is marginally higher as far as I'm aware. However, do AL pilots deliver the same flexibility in work practices / productivity as Ryanair pilots? No they don't. AL pilots have defined benefit pensions. An industry norm? No it's not. And why can Ryanir afford to pay more? Because their ratio of passengers journeys per employee are vastly superior to AL (11,351 for Ryanair in 2006 as opposed to 2,386 for AL). Allowing for the discrpeancy for AL operating long haul services this is still a massive difference. Pilots in other airlines deliver more bang for buck, so in that context AL pay is above the industry norm. AL staff costs in 2006 were €270million. Ryanair's were €171million. At a glance that demonstrates a big problem for the company. More staff, less productivity. The case for curbing costs is self explanatory.

Your point about a pilot's office not being "bolted to the ground" is pointless. Pilots operate from an airline's commercial base and as such the terms and conditions of employment should reflect economic realities at that base.

Thats an interestring statement!
Aer Lingus' commercial base is Dublin! So you are saying all Aer Lingus pilots should be paid the same as Dublin? Even IALPA didn't demand that!

Anyhow, you're still missing the point. Try again.

I think you understood my point in the first place by let me clarify. My point is Belfast is a seperate base (and as such the terms and conditions of employment should reflect economic realities at that base) as is the case with other airlines who operate from multiple bases. The AL pilots have disputed this principle for reasons best known to them.

[Colada]

It's pretty evident from your own post that even on a round trip to Los Angeles (which it should be noted is the most extreme example and is strictly equivalent to short-haul operations which make up the majority of AL traffic) that the pilots are certainly not subjected to hugely excessive stress compared to most other professions.

Well Dave, you may not find it stressful stretching out in Business Class with a glass of fine wine, enjoying the movie, and having a little nap. But you are blissfully ignorant of the stresses your crew may be under - which is exactly what the airlines strive to achieve - for your comfort and peace of mind.
Most jobs don't involve the stress of responsibility for the lives of 300 people at 39,000 feet and 500mph on a mid-winter night over the frozen wastes of Canada or the North Atlantic. I guess you'd never get your head around that kind of stress, when the most stress you've had in your own job is what time to take your lunch break, and the most lives you'll ever be responsible for is when you drive the wife and kids down the road to the supermarket.

The tasks you listed as having to be carried out while on auto-pilot hardly chill the blood as they are predominantly monitoring that the auto-pilot is working correctly. I'm not saying the job is a walk in the park but the point I'm making is that flying a commercial airliner is not quite the Herculean task that many pilots would have us believe it is.

Funny choice of words that Dave - Herculean! It smacks of power and machismo. Strangely Freudian comment Dave.
Piloting a commercial jet is not a Herculean task at all, you naughty boy.
It is much more cerebral nowadays.
Take a cold shower immediately!

I never stated that pilots only worked 18 hours a week.

But your fellow PD 'Kal-El' did say it. I'm glad to see you disown such patent nonsense.

As I undertand it pilots receive a lump sum payment per flight completed with the lump sum in direct relation to the length of the flight. For starting pilots this made up the majority of their income, certainly up until a few years ago.

A 'lump sum'. Indeed!
Thats another great word Dave - you do pick 'em!
A 'lump sum' conjures up images of great wads of cash. Lumps of it. Fifties and Twenties, all bundled together with rubber bands. Perhaps in a metallised breifcase for good measure! You should be writing movies Dave.

Actually the basic salary for Ryanair pilots is marginally higher as far as I'm aware.

Dave, I'm sorry to be rude, but I just can't take you seriously if you insist on spouting nonsense. What are you getting at exactly? This is a load of baseless tripe you're handing us, and I don't see a point.

However, do AL pilots deliver the same flexibility in work practices / productivity as Ryanair pilots? No they don't.

Says WHO Dave? You keep making these baseless allegations. Parotting O'Learyisms is all you're doing Dave.

AL pilots have defined benefit pensions. An industry norm? No it's not.

Ah Ha! Now we get to the point!
Isn't this jealousy Dave?
Is a DBS pension a 'norm'? Well Dave, until just a few years ago 65% of the Irish population had DBS pension schemes. About 35% do now. Today the Government produced a Green Paper on methods to tackle the prospect of more and more workers falling on the State to support them in old age - thanks to the depridations of greedy employers who have abolished their Company pension schemes. The people who have fallen victim to these smash-and-grabs would no doubt say they wish they still had a decent pension, and they wish perhaps they'd joined a union and defended themselves better. It may be too late for them - and certainly its too late for the Ryanair guys. But it ain't too late for IALPA. Good luck to them.

And why can Ryanir afford to pay more? Because their ratio of passengers journeys per employee are vastly superior to AL (11,351 for Ryanair in 2006 as opposed to 2,386 for AL).

At last, a FACT! And even though you give no source or link, I'll take it at face value and explain something to you.
Ryanair has a penchant for propaganda of many kinds - and the myth of the missing employees is just another one of them.
The truth is that Ryanair employ thousands more people than they admit to - because they refuse to count Contract Staff as employees on their books. Of course they pay their salaries (through agencies) and of course they expect these people to do their jobs, year after year. But just don't call 'em 'Employees' - get it? Its called 'creative accounting Dave!Are you fooled?
There is hardly a single Ryanair Cabin Crew Member in Dublin who isn't working on a short-term contract.
Mostly East Europeans, easily exploited, used, and abused.

Thats the PD vision for the future of the Irish workforce then, eh?
No wonder you've been rejected by the electorate.

I think you understood my point in the first place by let me clarify. My point is Belfast is a seperate base (and as such the terms and conditions of employment should reflect economic realities at that base) as is the case with other airlines who operate from multiple bases. The AL pilots have disputed this principle for reasons best known to them.

Sadly, you've reverted to type Dave.
Just when you showed some promise, there you go again, spouting baseless and unfounded opinion.

The majority of EU airlines with bases in other countries use a standard contract for all bases. Not just the majors, but LoCo's like Easyjet too.

Even Aer Arann - who have a base in Paris - use standard terms and conditions.

The odd man out is Ryanair, and you, like many other half-informed individuals, take this to mean everyone must follow suit.
Not necessarily Dave.
Not necessarily.

[Kal-El]

Your exaggerations are bordering on amusing...you've taken the most extreme example and used it to further your argument. I said pilots in Aer Lingus do on average 18 hours a week...are you disputing that figure? What is the real figure? Even if it's 20, 22 or even 25 it's still ridiculously low. As for the "I've got hundreds of people's life in my hands at x thousand feet"...so what? The job is not as hard as you make out much the way teachers do. Working for Ryanair is the real world. Working the way most of us do is the real world. Working for the government or Aer Lingus is not the real world but the difference is AL has to change. It is no longer a state company and needs a little more Michael O'Leary and a little less union nonsense.

[Kal-El]

I think it is you who need to check your facts Coloda before you make statements about me or my views...here's a link to IALPA's own website.
Guess how many hours airline pilots do on average?

18.5

Hmmmm

http://www.ialpa.net/pressrelease/press ... 09-12.html

[Colada]

Your exaggerations are bordering on amusing...

Just bordering? I thought I was hilarious!
How better to counter a joker?

you've taken the most extreme example and used it to further your argument.

Yes, I know it must be difficult for you to accept that Aer Lingus is a long-haul carrier and operates in a different way to Ryanair. But there you are. They just insist on them thar darn flights to Amerikay.

I said pilots in Aer Lingus do on average 18 hours a week...are you disputing that figure?

Disputing it? Not at all. I'm trashing it. Rubbishing it. Calling it lies - and I've even proved it with an example.

What is the real figure? Even if it's 20, 22 or even 25 it's still ridiculously low.

Ah-Ha! Whats this? Doubt? Uncertainty? Feeling confused. Well, self knowledge is a good thing. Keep on exploring.

As for the "I've got hundreds of people's life in my hands at x thousand feet"...so what? The job is not as hard as you make out much the way teachers do.

Funny, I haven't heard of any classrooms crashing into mountains lately.
I wouldn't want to be a teacher either though.

Working for Ryanair is the real world. Working the way most of us do is the real world.

Lets all join hands and sing Kumbayaa!!

Working for the government or Aer Lingus is not the real world but the difference is AL has to change. It is no longer a state company and needs a little more Michael O'Leary and a little less union nonsense.

Good show old boy, wot wot! A taste of a horse-whip, thats what they need, eh!

[Kal-El]

You've obviously chosen to ignore my post just above yours...the one with the link to IALPA's own website...the one which says pilots do, on average, 18.5 hours?!!!

[DaveM]

You seem to demand almost academic levels of referencing for information provided so let me address some of your queries. Also, I am not parotting Michael O'Leary on these issues but merely using Ryanair as a benchmark as they Aer Lingus' most direct competitor and as such the comparions are most relevant in terms of AL's ability to compete.

It's pretty evident from your own post that even on a round trip to Los Angeles (which it should be noted is the most extreme example and is strictly equivalent to short-haul operations which make up the majority of AL traffic) that the pilots are certainly not subjected to hugely excessive stress compared to most other professions.

Well Dave, you may not find it stressful stretching out in Business Class with a glass of fine wine, enjoying the movie, and having a little nap. But you are blissfully ignorant of the stresses your crew may be under - which is exactly what the airlines strive to achieve - for your comfort and peace of mind.
Most jobs don't involve the stress of responsibility for the lives of 300 people at 39,000 feet and 500mph on a mid-winter night over the frozen wastes of Canada or the North Atlantic. I guess you'd never get your head around that kind of stress, when the most stress you've had in your own job is what time to take your lunch break, and the most lives you'll ever be responsible for is when you drive the wife and kids down the road to the supermarket.

I'm not the leisurely traveller you seem to think I am and have rarely flown anything but economy sipping on a horrible instant coffee! On the issue of stress many jobs entail that level of stress and the responsibility for the safety of others. Modern aircraft are sophisticated pieces of engineering which provide multiple safeguards against the hazards you listed. Statistically the are a range of other professions which involve greater risk to customers or those they come into contact with each day they go to work, e.g. GP's, bus drivers, gardai operators. Are pilots subjected to more stress than these people?

The tasks you listed as having to be carried out while on auto-pilot hardly chill the blood as they are predominantly monitoring that the auto-pilot is working correctly. I'm not saying the job is a walk in the park but the point I'm making is that flying a commercial airliner is not quite the Herculean task that many pilots would have us believe it is.

Funny choice of words that Dave - Herculean! It smacks of power and machismo. Strangely Freudian comment Dave.
Piloting a commercial jet is not a Herculean task at all, you naughty boy.
It is much more cerebral nowadays.
Take a cold shower immediately!

For the record I would like to state that I do not get my jollies dreaming of AL pilots (or Ryanair pilots for that matter)!

I never stated that pilots only worked 18 hours a week.

But your fellow PD 'Kal-El' did say it. I'm glad to see you disown such patent nonsense.

An incorrect assumption on his part calculated, I presume, as a weekly average based the limit of 900 flying hours per year. Even still, allowing for pre-flight prep, post-flight procedures and anti-social working hours it's still not a bad deal for pilots (of all airlines) in terms of the amount of time off they get. Anyway, this is not really relevant to the debate as it is a legal industry standard.

As I undertand it pilots receive a lump sum payment per flight completed with the lump sum in direct relation to the length of the flight. For starting pilots this made up the majority of their income, certainly up until a few years ago.

A 'lump sum'. Indeed!
Thats another great word Dave - you do pick 'em!
A 'lump sum' conjures up images of great wads of cash. Lumps of it. Fifties and Twenties, all bundled together with rubber bands. Perhaps in a metallised breifcase for good measure! You should be writing movies Dave.

A lump sum means a fixed figure sum regardless of amount. What imagery it conjures for you is a function of your own imagination. I'll leave the screenplays to you!

Actually the basic salary for Ryanair pilots is marginally higher as far as I'm aware.

Dave, I'm sorry to be rude, but I just can't take you seriously if you insist on spouting nonsense. What are you getting at exactly? This is a load of baseless tripe you're handing us, and I don't see a point.

However, do AL pilots deliver the same flexibility in work practices / productivity as Ryanair pilots? No they don't.

Says WHO Dave? You keep making these baseless allegations. Parotting O'Learyisms is all you're doing Dave.

AL pilots have defined benefit pensions. An industry norm? No it's not.

Ah Ha! Now we get to the point!
Isn't this jealousy Dave?
Is a DBS pension a 'norm'? Well Dave, until just a few years ago 65% of the Irish population had DBS pension schemes. About 35% do now. Today the Government produced a Green Paper on methods to tackle the prospect of more and more workers falling on the State to support them in old age - thanks to the depridations of greedy employers who have abolished their Company pension schemes. The people who have fallen victim to these smash-and-grabs would no doubt say they wish they still had a decent pension, and they wish perhaps they'd joined a union and defended themselves better. It may be too late for them - and certainly its too late for the Ryanair guys. But it ain't too late for IALPA. Good luck to them.

Ryanair do pay a better basic salary. The links below from RTE and the Irish Independent, which also quote trade union reaction, illustrate a recent example in the case of Northern Ireland.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0925/ryanair.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 88811.html

My point on defined benefit pensions is also substantiated in these articles. I have no personal axe to grind on this matter, I'm simply looking at AL practices in comparion to those of their industry competition.

As for work practice flexibility I think even IALPA would blush at the suggestion that there were not considerable differences between AL and Ryanair.

And why can Ryanir afford to pay more? Because their ratio of passengers journeys per employee are vastly superior to AL (11,351 for Ryanair in 2006 as opposed to 2,386 for AL).

At last, a FACT! And even though you give no source or link, I'll take it at face value and explain something to you.
Ryanair has a penchant for propaganda of many kinds - and the myth of the missing employees is just another one of them.
The truth is that Ryanair employ thousands more people than they admit to - because they refuse to count Contract Staff as employees on their books. Of course they pay their salaries (through agencies) and of course they expect these people to do their jobs, year after year. But just don't call 'em 'Employees' - get it? Its called 'creative accounting Dave!Are you fooled?
There is hardly a single Ryanair Cabin Crew Member in Dublin who isn't working on a short-term contract.
Mostly East Europeans, easily exploited, used, and abused.

Firstly the source of the figues are the respective annual reports of each company for 2006. One your point of employee numbers I'll concede that there would be descrepancies in the comparison for employees such as catering staff. However unless these categories account for well over 50% of AL staff the point remains valid.

Your point on cabin crew working at Ryanair is wrong. Ryanair cabin crew work on 3 year contracts and would legally have to be listed in the company's financial statement (which uses the average employee number for the fiscal year) as they are direct employees, not sub-contractors. It would be impossible to employ cabin crew as individual sub-contractors as it would not be permitted under employment legislation (which clearly establishes the manner in which sub-contractor relationships can be conducted) and would leave Ryanair exposed to a conisderable tax liability.

I think you understood my point in the first place by let me clarify. My point is Belfast is a seperate base (and as such the terms and conditions of employment should reflect economic realities at that base) as is the case with other airlines who operate from multiple bases. The AL pilots have disputed this principle for reasons best known to them.

Sadly, you've reverted to type Dave.
Just when you showed some promise, there you go again, spouting baseless and unfounded opinion.

The majority of EU airlines with bases in other countries use a standard contract for all bases. Not just the majors, but LoCo's like Easyjet too.

Even Aer Arann - who have a base in Paris - use standard terms and conditions.

The odd man out is Ryanair, and you, like many other half-informed individuals, take this to mean everyone must follow suit.
Not necessarily Dave.
Not necessarily.

Ryanair is AL's main competitor and as such is more relevant than the likes of easyJet or Aer Arann where there is limited direct competition. Would it be relevant to compare AL to Qantas? No. They are not direct competitors.

My argument is not based on some kind of right-wing ideology about how companies should be run. In the context of Aer Lingus you have to ask who is the main competition? Ryanair. Are Aer Lingus as lean and flexible as their main competitor? No. Therefore they are at an innate disadvanatge which they must address if they are to have a long term future. The unions need to realise this also and cannot attempt to frustrate efforts at expansion by trying to impose out of date work practices where they are not welcome. If not the company's future is in danger.

To paraphrase some other bloke, what shall the pilots profit if they gain the world yet lose their jobs?

Over to you Colada. And it might be nice if you quote an oul' source or two to back up your points!

[Colada]

You've obviously chosen to ignore my post just above yours...the one with the link to IALPA's own website...the one which says pilots do, on average, 18.5 hours?!!!

Nope, it doesn't say that - it says this:

To understand better what constitutes a pilot’s work, we will attempt to break the normal work patterns down into their constituent parts, and then reconstruct those parts into a broad overview of the demands that modern airline pilots must cope with in the course of their normal work.

To illustrate, let us examine how a pilots work could be distributed over a year long period. If we take a year of 365 days and from that subtract the legal minimum annual leave of 20 days (28 days in total- 5 days leave plus weekends) plus the allowance given to compensate for bank holidays- 9 days ( 13 days in total). This leaves 326 days available for work. Now subtract 8 days off per 28 days across the remaining year. 326-93=233 days available to work.

Finally reduce the available days by the average number of non-flying duties that a pilot must complete every year. 4 days simulator checks & training. 1 day groundschool, 1 day safety/security training. 233-6=227

This leaves an average daily flight total of 4 hours or 20 hours per week. Bear in mind that these are minimum figures. Average pilots employed for 5 years plus would expect annual leave of 35 – 40+ days (49-56 days free of duty) and average of 9 days of per 28 days. This increases the daily average to 4.19 or just shy of 21 flight hours per week. Of note the older, more senior a pilot is, the harder he must work to achieve his max productivity during his available period.

In order to achieve the approximate total of 4 hours of flight time per day, we can assume 4 flights of 1 hour duration (scheduled times) Add to this a minimum of 45 minutes pre-flight preparation time, a minimum of 25 minutes between flights (75 minutes total) and a minimum of 20 minutes to complete post duty paperwork, you get an average duty time of 6 hours and 20 minutes. If you work on 6 sectors of 50 minute duration, the total duty is 8 hours 10 minutes. Operations through busy hub airports such as Heathrow or Schiphol turnarounds can increase up to 1 hour, further extending the duty period. No allowance is included for breaks of any kind. It is normal for pilots to grab refreshments during quiet periods in flight or in their seat during turnarounds. So you can see that 5 days work an average can range from as little as 31 hours up to 40+hours. These calculations are also only to be compared to planned schedules. In reality pilots must regularly endure ground and air congestion which can result in delays, which can accumulate over a period of days to a significant sum.

These times are simply clock times and in no way reflect any effects that the time of day may have on the real impact of that duty. Studies such as the CAA Review of Aircrew Fatigue 2005 have shown that when a duty starts before a certain time, then it must be assumed that a certain amount of sleep has been missed, and consequently the effect of a duty on the body will feel longer by up to several hours. For example a 9 hour duty starting at 6am will have the equivalent effect on the body of approx 12 hours. Sleep value was observed to reduce by 30 minutes for every hour before 0900 report time. Similarly, studies have shown that the effect of consecutive early starts is to increase the duty period experienced. Each successive day was associated with an increase in fatigue which was equivalent to an extra 40 minutes of duty per day. Finally, in order to estimate the actual impact of a duty on a pilot’s body, you must also factor in an allowance to compensate for the effects of multi-sector flying. The increase from one to four sectors was equivalent to an additional 2.77 hours on duty.

What all that amounts to basically can be condensed into one sentence:
TIME ON DUTY is TIME AT WORK.

You prefer to disregard the time spent preparing the flight, all the flight planning paper work, and prepping the aircraft.
This is where the O'Learyish spin and distortion is applied.

What you (and O'Leary) cunningly aim to do is distort the facts, by ignoring the total time ON DUTY and quoting only FLIGHT TIME.

Much as you (and he) like to disregard TOTAL DUTY TIME - it is work, and is indeed one of the most important parts of the pilots responsibilities.
It is also required by Law.

The pilots are required to report to the operations Area in uniform and fit for duty 1 hour before departure, check the flight plans, check the weather reports and forecasts for destination airport and all required alternates, check NOTAMS, check aircraft serviceability and refer to the MEL, file ATC flight plans, decide on fuel load, communicate with Engineering on technical problems, calculate a/c performance limits for the flight, calculate operating speeds, read company bulletins for the day, check navigation charts are present and up to date, communicate with the cabin manager, communicate with the Load Controller, and many other functions which might arise in respect of the particular trip they are doing.

The time allowed for all this is about 20 minutes. Followed by a 10 or 15 minute walk to the aircraft, and then another 15 minutes spent prepping the cockpit systems for flight, checking Tech Log, re-checking weather reports, liasing with ATC, liasing with engineering and Load Control, making PA's to passengers, and completing checklists.

Piloting is a job concept so alien to most people that they easily swallow O'Learyisms like yours.

Like you - they can't fathom anything they can't see or understand about the job as being 'work'.

You probably imagine the crews just walk straight from the car park straight onto the aircraft - and as soon as the doors close press GO and the aircraft simply leaps off into the wide blue yonder without a moments forethought.

When it arrives at the destination, you imagine pasengers get off, the next bunch get on, the pilots press GO and off we go again.
Just like that. So simple.
Or should I say, simplistic.

Its equivalent to saying Robbie Keane is only 'working' when he has the ball at his feet.
All the running around, tackling, training etc - total waste of time, and not really 'work' at all, in the proper sense. What does he do? 60 minutes per year? I'll take his hourly rate any day!

[Colada]

You seem to demand almost academic levels of referencing for information provided...

Nope, I'm just demanding an end to unfounded opinion and biased spin.

Modern aircraft are sophisticated pieces of engineering which provide multiple safeguards against the hazards you listed.

Such aircraft equally require sophisticated comprehension of their complex systems, and they actually do 'break down' rather a lot.
As a passenger you won't be aware of it because there's usually 'one and a half' of every system at least. When part of a system malfunctions, you may not notice anything, or be told anything about it. Indeed the aircraft may be legally dispatched with multiple systems degraded.

But the fact that you know nothing about the fault doesn't mean there are no repercussions on the difficulty attached to the operation in a degraded mode. And a single additional failure could have extremely serious repercussions, which must be planned for carefully, and handled expertly by the pilots.

Statistically the are a range of other professions which involve greater risk to customers or those they come into contact with each day they go to work, e.g. GP's, bus drivers, gardai operators. Are pilots subjected to more stress than these people?

Oh come on! A GP can kill one person at a time in error, a pilot can kill hundreds! A bus driver can stop his vehicle and get out if the engine quits. You don't step out of a jet in mid Atlantic! This is getting laughable. Grow up!

Even still, allowing for pre-flight prep, post-flight procedures and anti-social working hours it's still not a bad deal for pilots (of all airlines) in terms of the amount of time off they get.

How much time off do they get then?
Yet more assertion without fact to back it up.
My pilot friends seem to spend most of their time off trying to recover from severe jetlag - then they're away again.

Ryanair do pay a better basic salary. The links below from RTE and the Irish Independent, which also quote trade union reaction, illustrate a recent example in the case of Northern Ireland.

Dave, I don't know what you're getting at here. You argue Aer Lingus pilots are overpaid, then you argue that Ryanair pilots are paid more.
Which is it?

My point on defined benefit pensions is also substantiated in these articles. I have no personal axe to grind on this matter, I'm simply looking at AL practices in comparion to those of their industry competition.

I don't understand Dave. Ryanair pilots are paid more, but Aer Lingus pilots have better pensions you say?
Sounds like a fair trade off to me then. Balances out perfectly I guess.

As for work practice flexibility I think even IALPA would blush at the suggestion that there were not considerable differences between AL and Ryanair.

Ryanair have no rules. Thats right Dave. Their Staff have miserable lives. If they charge their mobile phone in the office its a sacking offence. They won't give a pilot a drink of water in the cockpit for free. They must pay for it.
Pretty sick way to treat people - and actually potentially dangerous too. But you onviously admire that kind of 'Commercial Acumen' or whatever its called these days.

Firstly the source of the figues are the respective annual reports of each company for 2006. One your point of employee numbers I'll concede that there would be descrepancies in the comparison for employees such as catering staff. However unless these categories account for well over 50% of AL staff the point remains valid.

No Dave, there are probably too many Aer Lingus staff in many areas - management and admin would be prime examples. So we agree there. But this discussion was (I thought) related to pilots - and there is zero over-manning in that department.

Regarding catering. You hit on an interesting point. Ryanair has no catering division - because they don't 'do' catering. However Aer Lingus needs catering for its long haul services, and Mr.Mannion made the judgement that he wanted it 'in-house' for quality control reasons. This is yet another reason for the distortion of employee numbers between these two TOTALLY DIFFERENT ORGANISATIONS.

Your point on cabin crew working at Ryanair is wrong. Ryanair cabin crew work on 3 year contracts and would legally have to be listed in the company's financial statement (which uses the average employee number for the fiscal year) as they are direct employees, not sub-contractors.

The following is a direct quote from one of Ryanairs Cabin Crew Contractors, named 'Crewlink':

Ryanair work with a number of Contract Cabin Crew agencies and training organisations throughout Europe, such as Crewlink, to offer the right candidates a fantastic opportunity to begin a career in aviation.

All candidates who successfully complete the training course will be offered positions in the employment of Crewlink.

Crewlink have a three year contract to supply cabin crew to Ryanair, on a sub-contract basis, for placement at one of Ryanair’s 19 exciting bases.

http://www.crewlink.ie/about.asp

Note the bold text Dave.
Now wind your neck in.

Ryanair is AL's main competitor and as such is more relevant than the likes of easyJet or Aer Arann where there is limited direct competition. Would it be relevant to compare AL to Qantas? No. They are not direct competitors.

Aer Lingus competes with numerous airlines on short-haul, and NOT AT ALL with Ryanair on long haul. So no, Ryanair is not the best comparator, by any measure (as already demonstrated).

The unions need to realise this also and cannot attempt to frustrate efforts at expansion by trying to impose out of date work practices where they are not welcome. If not the company's future is in danger.

Dave you are dreaming! The concessions Aer Lingus is demanding are not because 'its future is in danger'! They are demanded to increase profits...and to guarentee management get their annual bonus.
Aer Lingus is a profitable company, with 790 MILLION EURO sitting in the bank!

[tunnel vision]

A very well argued case Colada, facts before feelings, you win hands down.