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.
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.