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 not anti worker rights. It’s about keeping air travel safe, which often requires travel over disputed territory, conflicts etc.
It doesn’t have to makes strikes ineffective. Essential services, like air traffic control, could have a basic overflight service where striking workers are paid overtime rates and all fees collected go to the union rather than agency, or general taxation. Internal flights have already been banned in France for environmental reasons, where there is a train route. Requiring flights to travel around them would upend that progress. International flights originating and ending in France would still be affected, so those most affected would be those that benefit the french economy, therefore more targeting those that the strikers wish to pressure.
Keeping travelers safe and keeping the concept of apolitical travel cooperation safe is beneficial to workers and people from all countries. Take for instance Russian sanctions. One case where politics has been allowed to affect flight travel. Western flights no longer use their airspace based on the sanctions, but Chinese companies do. Chinese companies can now offer cheaper flights and so European airlines are less able to compete, eroding competition. Do you think Chinese companies care about french workers?
Are you unaware of the purposeful downing of passenger planes? America did so for Iranian planes, Russia did so for a Malaysian plane, near Crimea. Are you unware of Russia testing giving GPS misinformation on commercial (not military) GPS.
I don’t think it is reasonable for strikes in one country to affect travel from other countries. Ireland or Iceland striking, for instance could interrupt most transatlantic flights. Saying to go around is not good from an environmental or safety point of view. It’s not just company profits, but passenger safety. Longer flights also lead to cancellations as there would be inadequate supply of planes and staffing.
The eu should not be making secret deals with anyone. I believe Ryanair has had to change their operating procedures and advertising based on hefty fines from Spain. Not quite the cosy relationship you’re portraying.
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.
Every part of your life is subject to politics. Always has been.
Yep, I agree. Yet some things can be kept apolitical when there’s a will to do so.
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.
It’s not anti worker rights. It’s about keeping air travel safe, which often requires travel over disputed territory, conflicts etc.
It doesn’t have to makes strikes ineffective. Essential services, like air traffic control, could have a basic overflight service where striking workers are paid overtime rates and all fees collected go to the union rather than agency, or general taxation. Internal flights have already been banned in France for environmental reasons, where there is a train route. Requiring flights to travel around them would upend that progress. International flights originating and ending in France would still be affected, so those most affected would be those that benefit the french economy, therefore more targeting those that the strikers wish to pressure.
Keeping travelers safe and keeping the concept of apolitical travel cooperation safe is beneficial to workers and people from all countries. Take for instance Russian sanctions. One case where politics has been allowed to affect flight travel. Western flights no longer use their airspace based on the sanctions, but Chinese companies do. Chinese companies can now offer cheaper flights and so European airlines are less able to compete, eroding competition. Do you think Chinese companies care about french workers?
Are you unaware of the purposeful downing of passenger planes? America did so for Iranian planes, Russia did so for a Malaysian plane, near Crimea. Are you unware of Russia testing giving GPS misinformation on commercial (not military) GPS.
I don’t think it is reasonable for strikes in one country to affect travel from other countries. Ireland or Iceland striking, for instance could interrupt most transatlantic flights. Saying to go around is not good from an environmental or safety point of view. It’s not just company profits, but passenger safety. Longer flights also lead to cancellations as there would be inadequate supply of planes and staffing.
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.
The eu should not be making secret deals with anyone. I believe Ryanair has had to change their operating procedures and advertising based on hefty fines from Spain. Not quite the cosy relationship you’re portraying.