European airlines go ballistic over French air traffic controller strike
-
Yes but you have to balance passenger safety. Making air traffic control.subject to politics, which incudes strikes, makes them subject to misinformation which can be deadly. Airline passengers should not be pawns.
Flyover operating is a reasonable compromise. Ryanair have cut airfares, which depends on cheap staff and cheap destination airports. However, I don't think they've ever had a fatal crash.
If you think France striking is due to Ryanair, who operate there but not hugely, then lol. Even if they did and were responsible,it's a reasonable point. Bad actors can make a good point and be right. Your goalpost shifting is quite clear.
Striking workers, you call it "politics", but it is not the same kind of politics as when the EU makes secret deals with Ryanair for example.
It is a very different kind, and no reasonable comparison.
-
Our attitude should be that anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded or get a new fancy job & forced to start the career over.
Basically what we (apparently) do to people protesting against funding genocides & climate change we should be doing to people oppressing workers bcs they want profits to be higher.
Just deal with the strike, make it work without a stick or accept your business isn't viable (or at least not with you in it).
anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded
But in reality, such people get new fancy boss positions
-
My point is that French always strike when is really sucks. Summer, Christmas, etc. Because that's what "works".
You don't hear about protests and strikes during low seasons.
The French know how to do it
-
From the article:
O'Leary said that of Ryanairâs 400 cancellations caused by the strike, â360, or 90 percent of those flights, would operate if the Commission protected the overflights as Spain, Italy and Greece do during air traffic control strikes.ââVon der Leyen and the Commission made a big song and dance during Brexit about: 'We must protect the single market, the single market is sacrosanct, nothing would be allowed to disrupt the single market,'â he said. âUnless you're a French air traffic controller and you can shut down the sky over France.â
From me:
I don't think it's unreasonable to require strike actions to not affect non french traffic. In wartime, air traffic control continues. Countries in conflict wills till communicate with air traffic control. It makes sense for it to be an apolitical system and strikes are effectively political.That needs to be balanced with the right to strike which is quite strong in France! Frances central location in Europe would affect quite a number of flights.
It's entirely unreasonable to compromise on striking rights for the mere convenience of international travellers and the pockets of airline owners. I don't see how forcing people to work could be apolitical.
-
The French know how to do it
Of course. Not like 20% of their economy is based on tourism. Or that normal people then prefer driving their car than taking the train.
And you know what? Anyone who can paralyze the country should strike, just because.
Train drivers? Airport personnel? Truck drivers? Hey! If you can freeze the economy, go for it!
The number of people I know, who have a car just because they need a solution when people strike...
-
Of course. Not like 20% of their economy is based on tourism. Or that normal people then prefer driving their car than taking the train.
And you know what? Anyone who can paralyze the country should strike, just because.
Train drivers? Airport personnel? Truck drivers? Hey! If you can freeze the economy, go for it!
The number of people I know, who have a car just because they need a solution when people strike...
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not like 20% of their economy is based on tourism.
So you think the purpose of their strike should be to pamper the economy?
I can't help feeling like there are 2 or 3 things that you still need to learn...
-
Not like 20% of their economy is based on tourism.
So you think the purpose of their strike should be to pamper the economy?
I can't help feeling like there are 2 or 3 things that you still need to learn...
Lol. Being born in France, I know a few things about strikes
I also understand that they are a sign and a reason for the current social climate in the country. Some strikes are meaningful. Most are just ridiculous.
-
Our attitude should be that anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded or get a new fancy job & forced to start the career over.
Basically what we (apparently) do to people protesting against funding genocides & climate change we should be doing to people oppressing workers bcs they want profits to be higher.
Just deal with the strike, make it work without a stick or accept your business isn't viable (or at least not with you in it).
People should be allowed to complain most of the time the complaining helps bring attention to the protest. Otherwise most wouldn't be known to the public.
-
People should be allowed to complain most of the time the complaining helps bring attention to the protest. Otherwise most wouldn't be known to the public.
Yes, but ads work on all our brains & most of the time the public opinions form in regards to articles such at these (ie anti-strike without knowing the reasons, and in turn in support to political parties holding such views).
-
anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded
But in reality, such people get new fancy boss positions
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, true.
And in return held in higher regard even by average workers (perhaps not in that one specific company tho). -
Yes, but ads work on all our brains & most of the time the public opinions form in regards to articles such at these (ie anti-strike without knowing the reasons, and in turn in support to political parties holding such views).
Still itâs human af to complain just let people do it. It is annoying that you get into trouble because of something somebody else did or didnât.
Especially if your power is limited for whatever way.Personally I feel that if you enoy people to much they will side against you not for you. You kinda wanna get that balance going so the people with a lot of power are affected and those with little power arenât.
-
Still itâs human af to complain just let people do it. It is annoying that you get into trouble because of something somebody else did or didnât.
Especially if your power is limited for whatever way.Personally I feel that if you enoy people to much they will side against you not for you. You kinda wanna get that balance going so the people with a lot of power are affected and those with little power arenât.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Oh, no, no - that's not what I meant at all!
Not literally any complaining (actual free speech & law protections apply), with the article as context - these are professionals acting from/on behalf of the company amplified by the money & media relations that company has (& possible political party relations).
So if I use my corp assets & relations to push out
"well"precisely written points about how strikes are bad that is not at all comparable to a random person just being a bit frustrated & bitch about it. It's deliberate, amplified, and solely for profit. And it leads to shit like when in developed countries govs/parlaments/presidents literally outlaw strikes (eg per sector even when it's uncalled for), and the public doesn't care. -
Equating the right to strike with purposely crashing planes has to be the most absurd anti worker rights take i have heard in a long while.
It's not anti worker rights. It's about keeping air travel safe, which often requires travel over disputed territory, conflicts etc.
It doesn't have to makes strikes ineffective. Essential services, like air traffic control, could have a basic overflight service where striking workers are paid overtime rates and all fees collected go to the union rather than agency, or general taxation. Internal flights have already been banned in France for environmental reasons, where there is a train route. Requiring flights to travel around them would upend that progress. International flights originating and ending in France would still be affected, so those most affected would be those that benefit the french economy, therefore more targeting those that the strikers wish to pressure.
Keeping travelers safe and keeping the concept of apolitical travel cooperation safe is beneficial to workers and people from all countries. Take for instance Russian sanctions. One case where politics has been allowed to affect flight travel. Western flights no longer use their airspace based on the sanctions, but Chinese companies do. Chinese companies can now offer cheaper flights and so European airlines are less able to compete, eroding competition. Do you think Chinese companies care about french workers?
Are you unaware of the purposeful downing of passenger planes? America did so for Iranian planes, Russia did so for a Malaysian plane, near Crimea. Are you unware of Russia testing giving GPS misinformation on commercial (not military) GPS.
I don't think it is reasonable for strikes in one country to affect travel from other countries. Ireland or Iceland striking, for instance could interrupt most transatlantic flights. Saying to go around is not good from an environmental or safety point of view. It's not just company profits, but passenger safety. Longer flights also lead to cancellations as there would be inadequate supply of planes and staffing.
-
Striking workers, you call it "politics", but it is not the same kind of politics as when the EU makes secret deals with Ryanair for example.
It is a very different kind, and no reasonable comparison.
The eu should not be making secret deals with anyone. I believe Ryanair has had to change their operating procedures and advertising based on hefty fines from Spain. Not quite the cosy relationship you're portraying.
-
It's entirely unreasonable to compromise on striking rights for the mere convenience of international travellers and the pockets of airline owners. I don't see how forcing people to work could be apolitical.
And screw the environment and passenger safety.
People should not be forced to work. However, having an agreement with the union that when striking, certain activities are protected is not a bad outcome for workers.
It could be at overtime rates (or triple time), fees collected could go to the union or workers instead of the agency and flights originating or terminated in France would remain affected.
-
âIt is indefensible that today that I'm canceling flights from Ireland to Italy, from Germany to Spain, from Portugal to Poland,â O'Leary said.
The budget airline chief blamed the European Union, and specifically European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, for the situation.
looks puzzled
Is the European Commission responsible for mediating union disputes?
The strike, which took place on Thursday and Friday, was over disputes between two unions and the French directorate general for civil aviation
I mean, this sounds like it's between the French government and French unions.
I mean, this sounds like it's between the French government and French unions
If it's causing issues with flights in other countries, which it sounds like it is, then it is the EU's business...but ideally, they'd just pressure the French government to cave to the unions' demands. Fat chance though, lol
-
Our attitude should be that anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded or get a new fancy job & forced to start the career over.
Basically what we (apparently) do to people protesting against funding genocides & climate change we should be doing to people oppressing workers bcs they want profits to be higher.
Just deal with the strike, make it work without a stick or accept your business isn't viable (or at least not with you in it).
There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don't collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn't work for air travel, but it works for other services.
-
There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don't collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn't work for air travel, but it works for other services.
wrote last edited by [email protected]There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can't strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public's lives aren't at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn't wasn't to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
-
There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can't strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public's lives aren't at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn't wasn't to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
wrote last edited by [email protected]But why should the user feel the strike, what is the use in that? The strike is against the employer, not the user. It happens to hinder the user as a side effect, but ideally you'd have fare strikes that only hurt the company and not the users.
PS: ok, if it is to show users how useful you are to them (but that is just an indirect way to pressure employers), besides, that could just be used as an excuse for the employer to raise the fares in order to pay workers (and management) more.
-
There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.
Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can't strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.
But where public's lives aren't at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn't wasn't to do.
But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).
Eg basic infrastructure workers (workers, bus drivers, etc)
Bus drivers strike all the time.
