The Aer Lingus dispute has been as unnecessary as it appeared to be inevitable, writes Industry and Employment Correspondent Padraig Yeates
Perceptions lie at the root of the Aer Lingus pilots' strike with both sides grossly overestimating the willingness of the other to back down. It may even have been a case of familiarity breeding contempt because the current chief executive of Aer Lingus, Mr Willie Walsh, is himself a former senior member of the Irish Airline Pilots' Association, now the IALPA branch of IMPACT.
Ironically, Mr Walsh was one of the leaders of the 1985 strike by pilots and many of his colleagues were reluctant to take action at the time. He was even described pejoratively as "Boxcar Willie" because of his penchant for militant speeches. However, his colleagues also pay tribute to his efficiency.
Contemporaries who remember him from those days believe the hard line he has adopted in the current dispute was based partly on an outdated understanding of how pilots think. They say many of the younger pilots, the ones hardest hit by the survival plan cutbacks, "are less chary about going on strike" than some of the older staff.
Mr Walsh may also have been influenced by events at Ryanair. In November 2000, IMPACT pilots in the State's most profitable airline threatened to strike only to do an about-face with 24 hours to go and accept marginally better terms from the company. That may well have confirmed earlier experience.
He may also have wondered why IMPACT would take such a radically different approach in Aer Lingus when the national carrier, unlike Ryanair, was in serious financial difficulty. Aer Lingus could also argue that even with the job cuts being sought among pilots, it would still have a staffing ratio of 10 to 12 pilots per aircraft, compared with only eight for every Ryanair aircraft.
While overall duty hours for Ryanair pilots and Aer Lingus pilots are similar, Ryanair crews spend significantly longer in the air. IMPACT, however, appears to be arguing that members at Aer Lingus would face fatigue and safety problems, even though it accepted a tougher regime from its main rival. Aer Lingus company sources went so far as to leak a story to yesterday's Sunday Business Post that IALPA had offered to accept a reduced break between short-haul flights last December, which is now the immediate cause of the current dispute.
When IMPACT called its first one-day strike for last Thursday, after a pilot was suspended for refusing to fly a plane after less than the full 13-hour break, Mr Walsh may have felt he was on strong ground and the union would turn, as it had turned when faced with Ryanair's tough stance. He may have felt he had little choice.
A one-day stoppage with more to come at unspecified dates down the line was a worse prospect from a business point of view than a full strike.
He also had another problem. Other workers in Aer Lingus, ranging from IMPACT's cabin crew members to SIPTU's ground-handling staff and craftworkers had long made it clear they would demand renegotiation of their own survival plan cuts if high-flying, high-earning pilots did not make sacrifices too.
The problem was, if Mr Walsh saw the pilots as a soft target, they had a similar view of management. Although most other employees had been implementing the new work practices for months, the company had accepted the need for special arbitration for the pilots.
When management said the final outcome of that process was non-negotiable, the pilots didn't believe them. When the company suspended the first pilot, disbelief turned to outrage and defence of the 13-hour minimum break between flights became sacrosanct. Besides, Mr Walsh was not Michael O'Leary and the ultimate owner of the company, the Government, would intervene if the fleet was grounded.
It did intervene, but not in the person of the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, or the Minister for Public Enterprise Ms O'Rourke, with a bevy of Dublin northside TDs in tow. It was the more mundane National Implementation Body and Labour Court which became involved.
Hopefully, last night the Labour Court provided a solution that both the pilots and the company can live with. Both should be older and wiser by now.
The changes contained in the Labour Court recommendation take the edge off some of the more draconian measures proposed by the company, but leave the substance intact.
The court also explicitly accepts "that the survival plan must be implemented fully" and that should insure against knock-on claims by other unions.