From the article:
O’Leary said that of Ryanair’s 400 cancellations caused by the strike, “360, 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.”
“Von 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,’” he said. “Unless you’re a French air traffic controller and you can shut down the sky over France.”
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.
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.
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,it’s 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.
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.
looks puzzled
Is the European Commission responsible for mediating union disputes?
I mean, this sounds like it’s between the French government and French unions.
From the article: O’Leary said that of Ryanair’s 400 cancellations caused by the strike, “360, 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.”
“Von 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,’” he said. “Unless you’re a French air traffic controller and you can shut down the sky over France.”
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.
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.
Airlines sometimes avoid a country at war. They decide if they do it or not. So it is not a relevant comparison at all.
…and it should be the normal thing to expect. Their complaining is ridiculous.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.