European airlines go ballistic over French air traffic controller strike
-
This post did not contain any content.
Wont somebody think of the profits
-
People still work during war time. I dont think it is a fair comparison.
The goal of strikes is to leverage the only collective mean that workers have by deciding to lay down their work.
Nothing is keeping airlines from routing around France. It just costs a bit more money. And frankly it is rich that Ryan Air is complaining here. They are probably one of the strongest price gougers and co-responsible for people striking in all aspects of aviation.
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.
-
People still work during war time. I dont think it is a fair comparison.
The goal of strikes is to leverage the only collective mean that workers have by deciding to lay down their work.
Nothing is keeping airlines from routing around France. It just costs a bit more money. And frankly it is rich that Ryan Air is complaining here. They are probably one of the strongest price gougers and co-responsible for people striking in all aspects of aviation.
People still work during war time. I dont think it is a fair comparison.
Airlines sometimes avoid a country at war. They decide if they do it or not. So it is not a relevant comparison at all.
Nothing is keeping airlines from routing around France. It just costs a bit more mone
....and it should be the normal thing to expect. Their complaining is ridiculous.
-
This post did not contain any content.
A company boss complaining about workers who strike.
Nothing really new here.
-
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.
Making air traffic control.subject to politics, which incudes strikes, makes them subject to misinformation which can be deadly.
I don't get it. Do you mean that the air traffic controllers become subject to misinformation because they are allowed, or do you mean the passengers? Either way i disagree. Striking is a fundamental right. The alternative is for the problems of the workers not to get awareness. The article quotes a near miss in France, where the tower was severely understaffed. We saw multiple deadly instance in the US right after Trump put the axe to Air Traffic controllers in the US.
Not addressing these issues and not allowing controllers to use all means of workers to challenge problems and make them public, is leading to people being killed.
Also the airlines knew in advance and can just reroute around.
Even if they did and were responsible,itâs a reasonable point. Bad actors can make a good point and be right.
The airlines put price pressure on ground operations, which lead to bad practices, which lead to problems with safety. This makes all airlines responsible, but the ones heavily lobbying like RyanAir more so than others.
-
Making air traffic control.subject to politics, which incudes strikes, makes them subject to misinformation which can be deadly.
I don't get it. Do you mean that the air traffic controllers become subject to misinformation because they are allowed, or do you mean the passengers? Either way i disagree. Striking is a fundamental right. The alternative is for the problems of the workers not to get awareness. The article quotes a near miss in France, where the tower was severely understaffed. We saw multiple deadly instance in the US right after Trump put the axe to Air Traffic controllers in the US.
Not addressing these issues and not allowing controllers to use all means of workers to challenge problems and make them public, is leading to people being killed.
Also the airlines knew in advance and can just reroute around.
Even if they did and were responsible,itâs a reasonable point. Bad actors can make a good point and be right.
The airlines put price pressure on ground operations, which lead to bad practices, which lead to problems with safety. This makes all airlines responsible, but the ones heavily lobbying like RyanAir more so than others.
If air traffic control is political, airplanes travel into territory and get purposely crashed. That's the point of keeping it apolititical and has been through many wars.
If Russia wanted to crash European planes, they could quickly pretend to be Ukrainian air traffic control. It's all based on trust. We shouldn't mess with that trust.
-
If air traffic control is political, airplanes travel into territory and get purposely crashed. That's the point of keeping it apolititical and has been through many wars.
If Russia wanted to crash European planes, they could quickly pretend to be Ukrainian air traffic control. It's all based on trust. We shouldn't mess with that trust.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
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).
-
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.
