Aer Lingus talked yesterday about the "proposed investment by FLS" while SIPTU bluntly referred to "the sale of the TEAM facility". A casual observer might wonder whether they were talking about the same thing. Hardly has the decision been announced and the war of words has commenced. Aer Lingus, in wanting TEAM to be taken over by FLS Aerospace, will have a job on its hands winning over the hearts and minds of TEAM's 1,500 employees, many of whom might not be kindly disposed to Aer Lingus management in the first place. The job for SIPTU is to analyse the options deeply, establish what is best for its members and advise them accordingly. It did not get off to an auspicious start yesterday with its dismissal of the proposal and its peremptory assumption that its members interests would be best served by maintaining the status quo.
In fairness, it came as a surprise to most people that Aer Lingus chose FLS. It was thought the TEAM purchaser would be one of the major players in the overhaul or components industries. Aer Lingus, it must be presumed, had other offers but decided that TEAM's future would be best assured under the ownership of FLS. And this is the crux of the matter - what is best for the TEAM employees?
TEAM has managed to improve its performance greatly in recent years. It has gone from enormous losses and bankruptcy to a break-even situation. Part of the reason is that demand for aircraft maintenance has increased greatly but the employees deserve much credit. They have adopted more efficient work practices, improved relations with management and accepted pay restraint of real consequence. They have brought the company from a position where it had no future to one of certain future, depending on what happens next.
Aer Lingus is adamant, despite all the improvements, that TEAM has an uncertain future under its umbrella. The company maintains that the aircraft maintenance industry is heading into a period of consolidation which means that surplus capacity will be closed down; the big will get bigger and the small will disappear. TEAM is one of the smaller independent operators. FLS is about the same size but it has invested heavily in aerospace. It certainly has blue chip clients but like TEAM, overcapacity in the business has denied it profits. Together, FLS and TEAM might be stronger than the sum of their parts.
Industry observers predict a bloodbath for aircraft maintenance. If TEAM was destined to flourish within Aer Lingus, then the company would wish to retain it. But if, in boom times, TEAM cannot make significant profit, then what happens to it in a downturn? And when the downturn comes - as it will - there can be no wishful thinking of another rescue. It received £65 million in State aid and there will be no coming back to the well a second time, even in the unlikely event that Brussels would allow it.
What TEAM employees need is sound analysis of their industry's prospects. SIPTU played an honourable role in putting TEAM back on track during the rescue; it can do so again. It may be that the FLS offer will be rejected. It offers opportunity but it carries risk. But doing nothing carries even greater risk. The proposal deserves detailed examination in calm and positive deliberations.