There may be some bewilderment that a group of employees as seemingly affluent as Aer Lingus pilots should be on the verge of going on strike for higher pay. And yet unless there is a radical change of mind or some last minute intervention, Aer Lingus will cease operating from midnight on Sunday. If so, it will be a catastrophe for the travelling public, for the company and for its employees including the pilots.
Aer Lingus has been bedevilled by industrial relations disputes ever since imminent bankruptcy prevented it from continuing to throw money at trouble spots, as it did at TEAM Aer Lingus for years. The Cahill rescue plan ushered in an era of cost reduction allied to industrial peace such a combination rarely co-exists for long, and it didn't. The management has been at loggerheads with its cabin crew for two years and now the pilots are threatening to walk off the job unless they receive a 17 per cent pay rise.
Such an increase seems generous when inflation is running at a puny 1.5 per cent. But 17 per cent was the majority recommendation of the Pilot Pay Review carried out by a tribunal which consisted of two pilots, two Aer Lingus management and an independent chairman. The tribunal found that the "overall salary of Aer Lingus pilots is too low" and recommended a 17 per cent hike over a 19 month period. The independent chairman made it clear, however, that the decision was a recommendation only and should not be binding on either side. The pilots accepted it but Aer Lingus felt the Tribunal process was flawed and rejected the recommendation.
The Aer Lingus pilots are not a militant lot but the vote for this strike was carried by 309 votes to 13. Such a majority suggests the mood of the pilots is angry and frustrated, convinced that strike action is their only course. Their action is understandable and regrettable but it is also incautious. They have made their case to a tribunal eloquently and persuasively and the tribunal, by a majority, came down on their side. But to refuse to discuss the tribunal's recommendation with the company's management and insist on discussing only the implementation of the recommendation is adopting an approach which is less than positive.
Aer Lingus says it cannot afford to pay the 17 per cent award it would cost some £3 million a year. There is also, it says, the risk of a knock on effect with other groups of employees seeking equivalent increases. To the taxpayer, of course, it may seem anomalous that a company can be in receipt of £175 million in State aid and then proceed to disburse multi million pound pay increases to staff it will seem anomalous also to the European Commission which reluctantly approved the State aid.
There can be little doubt that there is right on both sides in the dispute and some considerable blame must attach to Aer Lingus management for the manner in which the dispute has been allowed to escalate so dangerously in such a short space of time. It is time for all concerned to step back from the brink and seek out a middle ground. It is less than eight weeks since the tribunal announced its recommendation for a strike with very serious consequences this seems somewhat hasty. It is imperative now that both sides come together for dialogue, under the auspices of a third party if necessary. Once the strike has started talks will occur anyway. Why leave talking to when damage has already been done?