Aer Lingus is dealing with what can only be described as a very strange dispute between management, the union representing pilots, and some non-union flight attendants, as reported by The Irish Times (thanks to Jim__Douglas for flagging this).
In this post:
Aer Lingus captain refuses to seat crew in business class
This incident transpired last week on an Aer Lingus Airbus A330 flight from Barbados (BGI) to Manchester (MAN). The aircraft was just being repositioned back to Manchester empty, so the only people onboard were the pilots flying the plane, plus a crew of flight attendants who were being positioned back to their base.
Many Aer Lingus flight attendants based in Manchester are currently engaged in industrial action, as we’ve seen repeated strikes. However, the flight attendants who were being positioning back to Manchester on this flight weren’t union members (as flight attendants don’t have to be members of the union).
The captain reportedly assigned these flight attendants economy class seats, even though the cabin was completely empty. Their manager complained to Aer Lingus in Dublin, since ordinarily crews would be able to sit in business class on a space available basis.
During the flight, Aer Lingus Chief Operations Officer Adrian Dunne (no relation to… nevermind) reportedly contacted the pilots, to inform them that the positioning crew could sit in business class. The captain did not comply with this request, but filed a safety report upon landing.
Management suspended the pilot following the flight. The Irish Air Line Pilots’ Association (IALPA), which represents Aer Lingus pilots, claims that the company’s executive had no authority to interfere with the captain on the crew’s seating, as it had implications for the aircraft’s balance and safety. The union also said that they should not have contacted the pilots during the flight.
The captain has been suspended pending an investigation, and this is causing much bigger issues. The union also denies any suggestion that the pilot was bringing industrial relations issues onboard the aircraft.
Pilot suspension causes internal drama at Aer Lingus
After Aer Lingus suspended a pilot over this incident, two Aer Lingus pilots based in Manchester have resigned from their roles as managers in operations and safety, in support of their colleague. However, they remain employed as pilots at the airline.
IALPA has voted no confidence in Aer Lingus’ top executives, including the one who sent the message to pilots, asking them to upgrade the crew to business class. However, they insist that’s unrelated to this particular incident, but rather due to the overall situation at the airline. As IALPA President Mark Tighe describes this:
“The processes referred to by Aer Lingus are in regard to an individual pilot and are not the subject of the no-confidence motion. The motion was solely brought about due to executive management’s interference in an operational flight and the chief executive’s indifference to that issue.”
There’s no denying that relations between Aer Lingus management and pilots is really bad, after their last round of contract negotiations.
Now, regarding this particular situation, I can’t speak with any authority, but I find it hard to imagine that the captain’s decision to seat the crew in economy was anything but “punishment” for them choosing not to unionize. Yes, weight and balance absolutely is a consideration, but I struggle to believe that an otherwise empty plane would be in a situation where under a dozen flight attendants would cause operational issues.
Every time I’ve seen a crew reposition on an empty aircraft, they’ve been seated in premium cabins, so it seems to work every other time.
Again, I wasn’t there, so I can’t say for sure. At the same time, I imagine these operational decisions are technically up to the captain, which is why the captain wasn’t happy when his decision was second guessed by management. I can’t imagine how tense relations onboard must’ve been, between the pilots and the non-union flight attendants.
Bottom line
An Aer Lingus captain has been suspended after he reportedly refused to seat a crew in business class on an otherwise empty flight. The captain was angry after management tried to interfere, arguing that he has control over safety and weight and balance.
The interesting detail here is that these were non-union flight attendants, and other flight attendants at the carrier’s Manchester base are currently on strike. Given that Aer Lingus pilots are unionized, and there’s a lot of bad blood between management and the pilots, one certainly wonders…
What do you make of this strange Aer Lingus situation?
Most commentators miss the important and relevant points. This is a much more serious matter than reduction to accusations of pettiness and personality accusations.
Say what you will about the Captain and his decision, seemingly without all the facts. That’s in fact irrelevant.
He had no obligation to upgrade anyone, and, at most, he can be accused of being petty. But without understanding all the circumstances, even that is merely speculation, and with...
Most commentators miss the important and relevant points. This is a much more serious matter than reduction to accusations of pettiness and personality accusations.
Say what you will about the Captain and his decision, seemingly without all the facts. That’s in fact irrelevant.
He had no obligation to upgrade anyone, and, at most, he can be accused of being petty. But without understanding all the circumstances, even that is merely speculation, and with what facts are present, even unlikely.
Probably his actions and decision were STRICTLY, by the letter in accordance & complying with policy (even if you suspect or don't like his reasons/motives and influenced by some other factors as suggested); and (in the absence of proof otherwise) he was strictly speaking NOT "bending" a rule or company regulation, one that had become common practice to bend or strictly enforce for the benefit of flying staff-members .... i.e. complying with a rule which had become common practice to routinely "ignore" and thus had resulted in an expectation that it BE ignored.
However he never broke any rule or regulation. And in military terms, he never ignored any LAWFUL order. He is absolutely legally within his right to ignore any instruction given to him inflight by the COO. Non- aviation people might not understand that. Just because an instruction comes from a more senior manager does not make it valid, much less appropriate. A banker cannot just give a loan against bank policy to the manager’s friend just because the manager tells him to do it.
At most the COO could have REQUESTED the positioning crew to be upgraded. Technically speaking, the actions of the COO were probably illegal, certainly against aviation regulations, and probably (mootly) against company policy.
Even though he might be executive management in the company, with regards this COO management position, he strictly had no right to instruct the Captain accordingly. That is not an opinion, it is a legal fact - one hard to grasp when the assumption is ... "but he is the boss, so what he says goes". No, he actually cannot. His management authority does not extend so far in this particular circumstance. The actions and decision of the Capt possibly (though probably not so) could be called anything from petty to ill-advised, but almost certainly had nothing to do with EGO. And was not either illegal, nor, as will probably be determined, in contravention with company policy or aviation regulations. And aviation regulations trump company policy.
HOWEVER the actions of the COO to try and impose action on the Capt while in flight is not acceptable under aviation regulations. At most, once the aircraft was in-flight, he could have REQUESTED the Captain to upgrade. If the Captain did not comply, it ends there. One might not like it, one might take personal offence. One expects ones managers to on their big pants when they are an executive manager’s.
All have probably heard the term "give an inch and they'll take a yard"!
Aviation crew are constantly battling non-crew managers (and even crew managers) interfering in operational aspects, and degrading the authority of the Captain invested in him by Aviation Regulations and the relevant legal Aviation Authority, i.e. THE LAW. There is VERY good reason so much authority resides in the Captain, by international treaty and by every aviation authority, in every country.
It starts with subtle interference and when unchecked, increases. Just as a bank robber might start out shoplifting a candy bar and getting away with it. This is a real phenomenon. With all the apparent facts, regardless with what one might think about motives actions or what you think should have happened, the most egregious part of this story is that despite the Captain having exercised his legally invested authority, the company's actions have sought to erode that authority. Which has very detrimental safety implications. Another inch to the yard - where more serious captain decisions in the future impact negatively on safety due to erosion of Captain Authority, future bowing to company commercial and other pressures, and fear of company retaliation.
I have personally seen this effect many times. At one of the world's most famous National Carriers I was “instructed" not "requested” to take a senior manager on a cockpit jumpseat. It is strictly the Captain's decision in most airlines whether they accept someone on a cockpit jumpseat (if policy allows anyone at all). Even an aviation regulator/inspector/official can be denied access if the Capt feels it is in the interests of safety to do so. I refused to comply with the instruction, reminding that no-one had requested of me to use the jumpseat. In fact, I had other valid specific safety-related reasons I would not accept anyone on the jumpseat on that particular occasion, but did communicate that as it was irrelevant. The applicable department's response was that they don't "beg" for jumpseats, which seemed to reflect their mindset, entitlement to disregard regulations, and disregard for the authority of the Captain. Nevertheless, I never heard anything more about it, certainly not from Operational Management.
This is the first inch of the yard denied. Seems petty to the outsider, but is real and it is serious.
Written like tabloid rag garbage by someone with very little understanding of the greater LEGAL issues involved in this event.
There is a requirement to have crew throughout the cabin on longer flights to monitor the status of the cabin incase of fire etc.
There was no other crew assigned to perform this duty on this 9 hour flight.
Go and actually find out some detail before accusing pilots of wrongdoing. Your article is...
Written like tabloid rag garbage by someone with very little understanding of the greater LEGAL issues involved in this event.
There is a requirement to have crew throughout the cabin on longer flights to monitor the status of the cabin incase of fire etc.
There was no other crew assigned to perform this duty on this 9 hour flight.
Go and actually find out some detail before accusing pilots of wrongdoing. Your article is libelous to the crewmember involved.
Absolute ignorance.
So you're telling me I was illegal to ferry a flight without inflight because there was no one to "monitor" throughout the flight?
I better get busy writing those ASAPs
And who is ignorant.
Four stripe JERK, acting like a Nazi towards fellow crew members! What goes around...
I'm hoping he'll be served cold coffee from now on when this gets around!
A hot headed Irish Pilot Irish Pilot was horrible during an SAS Connect flight towards the crew. When we landed in Scandinavia,he was walking through the terminal with a red face and as if he will combust. What Irish Aviation needs is Instagram's Irishpilotpete to run things. I won't use words, that I feel apply to Captain Barbados in the story.
Whether you thibk the guy is a duck or not, Pilot in command has the final say, period. That authority overrides ATC and certainly overrides some rando at the office.
Call the pilot's bluff and make it a SOP that when passengering, to comply with W&B, crew on empty aircraft must be seated in economy class seats and will be fired if not complied with. Watch his support dwindle then....
This isn't complicated. That pilot is a power-tripping pig.
Aer lingus pilots are spoiled brats.they simply dont accept any management orders without a big deal ....no wonder ordinary people cant afford to fly aer lingus as these pompus pilots are destroying the airline business......I'd sack them all and start again.
Leave it to the inbred arrogant Irish who think the global commercial aviation sun rises and sets on their pathetic island. So, it stands to reason this guy thinks he’s part of that exclusive group of those arrogant a$$es that reside/work in SNN and DUB. Every time you have a conversation with anyone in the Irish leasing/finance community or at Aer Lingus/Ryanair they are the center of the universe.
Wow, xenophobic much?
The question of whether having a full row of coach is as good as business is a clear red herring. W&B is also a red herring. The union guy wanted to scr€w the non-union folks. There exists no other plausible explanation. Give me evidence I'm wrong (I fly in planes, I don’t fly planes), and I will apologize.
Pure speculation on your party; and prejudice against unions and members. No ‘evidence’ needed; your comment was disingenuous.
In other words you don't have a clue and the pilot was being a jerk.
Cant imagine being such a jerk and can't imagine like you trying to defend them.
Having suffered in Aer lingus economy from Dublin to Lax, I can say that is cruel punishment for anyone.
I get that the heart of the issue is the pilot (allegedly) power-tripping over seat assignments. But, after takeoff, couldn’t the FAs simply move themselves up to the business cabin? Especially if they were the only people onboard besides the flight crew. What’s the captain gonna do, turn the car(plane) around if they don’t do as they’re told?
Okay so there in economy a row to themselves which would act as buisness class seats.
Its not as if they are going to get the champagne and lunch service in buisness class as well they would need to serve themselves. Personally i see no issue. I had a buisness class seat downgraded due to over booking i had a row at the back in economy 3 seats to myself more spacious than my...
Okay so there in economy a row to themselves which would act as buisness class seats.
Its not as if they are going to get the champagne and lunch service in buisness class as well they would need to serve themselves. Personally i see no issue. I had a buisness class seat downgraded due to over booking i had a row at the back in economy 3 seats to myself more spacious than my lie flat seat a nice pillow and blanket and i had all 3 seatback tvs playing same movie it was like my own cinema plus the crew left me a botyle of champagne on ice. These flight frew sound like brats good on the captain. Theres certainley nothing wrong with having a full row of economy to yourself never mind a full economy cabin.
Gosh.
That was so good!!
I'm surprised this flight even got off the ground - surely these issues should be resolved before departure if it's going to affect the focus of the flight crew.
Couldn't the cabin crew refuse whilst on the ground and get management to intervene then.
Also intrigued why they're positioning an empty aircraft so far, but I guess just IRROPS
IMHO, he was being a jerk. Anyone that has worked in OP's know W&B might be an issue for take off, but if it was, there would be no problem for the FA moving up front after they were in the air. Oops! I should have typed JERK! Wish I could enlarge the font!
Good possibility they were scabs.
Interrupt the pilot during a flight to tell him where to sit pax?
Was that a smart move? very cunning,Lingus!
The pilot was being a dick. Period. There was no safety issues with W&B. But let's play his game and say there was a W&B issue. This would only be relevant for take off. Once the aircraft is at cruising altitude, it will trim accordingly.
I don't understand the attitude towards fellow colleagues. The guy should be reprimanded.
Fire that pilot for insubordination and poor judgment.
> Adrian Dunne (no relation to… nevermind)
Can someone explain the joke to me please?
Jesus Mary, Joseph and the wee donkey. Not explaining it....
Tim!
Dumb question but would the same flight attendants relegated back to coach have to serve the pilot and first officer food and drinks during the flight and also post in the cockpit during bathroom breaks? That must have been awkward...
Has he been consistent in his decision? Doubtful. Sounds retaliatory. Just check the manifests.
Didn't you-know-who run on RETRIBUTION?
Uh oh.. it's spreading.. to Irish air carriers..
Ohhhhh so the self-entitled flight attendants don’t like the taste of their own medicine?!
I’m with the pilot. On both the issue of weight and safety policies, and even in the case regarding their non-union status. Flight attendants want privileges… but only if they don’t have to personally sacrifice to get them.
Lol, what BS from a clueless commenter.
There is no normal scenario that even 6-8 people would cause a W&B issue to go out of allowed operating envelope on a near empty flight of an A330, and the pilot was using it as an excuse to insert union tactics into the flight.
The pilot is the one who should be questioned for allowing non-flight-related considerations to influence his job, as well as the union for mindlessly backing him up.
The issue of W&B is not under your personal consideration and control, it is at the ultimate discretion of the pilot (and you don’t know the details anyways to dismiss the issue).
You just like being a brown nose to management and owners. As if they won’t hesitate to separate you from your paycheck.
Only because the word is triggering to some of our right-wing regulars, I just wanna remind the rest of us that unions are good for society. So are progressive taxes and a robust social safety net.
Oh, and tariffs are an import/consumption tax on us, Americans. Those are bad. And only Congress is supposed to levy tariffs and taxes, not rogue authoritarians.
Has anyone else seen "The dog that hasn't barked"?
They are not - in industries like this they just result in job gatekeeping and inflated fares for the traveling public.
Citation needed
So the crew are scabs , whilst there collegues are fighting for better pay ,(which 'they' will get if it comes through) but nowhere near Dublin crew wages....They should be made to sit in Economy and not given no comforts....Captain was spot on
If the plane is empty they would have gotten a row in coach to themselves so what's the big deal?
'Poor man's lie-flat' is not the same as actual lie-flat.
@1990 You do realize they are deadheading? They are on duty and being paid (deadheading) even though they don't have passengers. Does your employer allow you to crawl under your desk during the day and take a nap?
Hey! I love those naps! They're the best! Haha.
@George perhaps a terrible example on your part as most flight attendants on overseas flights are allowed a nap/rest period. Maybe wouldn’t apply to this flight from BGI-MAN (and I haven’t a clue if EI has crew rest areas on their A330s). Either way, many flight attendants are indeed accustomed to a nap during their workday…
If it was a W & B issue it would pertain to the envelope of the flight which is most restrictive at take off & landing. This is easy to prove.
This is definitely not a cruise issue.
The reason this is an issue is the Capt is held to a higher standard.
Certification for the ATP states:
Subpart G—Airline Transport Pilots
§ 61.151 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the requirements...
If it was a W & B issue it would pertain to the envelope of the flight which is most restrictive at take off & landing. This is easy to prove.
This is definitely not a cruise issue.
The reason this is an issue is the Capt is held to a higher standard.
Certification for the ATP states:
Subpart G—Airline Transport Pilots
§ 61.151 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes the requirements for the issuance of airline transport pilot certificates and ratings, the conditions under which those certificates and ratings are necessary, and the general operating rules for persons who hold those certificates and ratings.
§ 61.153 Eligibility requirements: General.
To be eligible for an airline transport pilot certificate, a person must:
(a) Meet the following age requirements:
(1) For an airline transport pilot certificate obtained under the aeronautical experience requirements of §§ 61.159, 61.161, or 61.163, be at least 23 years of age; or
(2) For an airline transport pilot certificate obtained under the aeronautical experience requirements of § 61.160, be at least 21 years of age.
(b) Be able to read, speak, write, and understand the English language. If the applicant is unable to meet one of these requirements due to medical reasons, then the Administrator may place such operating limitations on that applicant's pilot certificate as are necessary for the safe operation of the aircraft;
(c) Be of good moral character;
If one is willing to lie over a legal consideration such as weight & balance who's to say what else he's willing to lie about.
The Capt gets paid a serious amount of money.
If you want to be a Capt, act like it.