Ship of Fools: I want happy, well rested, well paid pilots.

Thread: I want happy, well rested, well paid pilots. Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020304

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Do you?

Here is the story.

If I were a pilot at Ryanair and I wasn't already looking for alternative employment, I would be now. O'Leary is just a hopeless manager - the Irish Trump imo.

I suppose he'll simply run away with a massive payoff?

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Ryanair suck for this. They have let people down, and are not coughing up proper compensation. And it has come about because they are incompetant at basic people management.

I mean, how do you mess up basic holiday rotas? If they can't do that, how on earth can they be trusted to run an airline? I mean, what else have they forgotten that is not so obvious?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There is obviously more to this than bollixing up the holiday rota.

RyanAir find themselves in this position because, in the vast majority of cases, the pilots who fly their planes don't actually work for them. They work for various agencies and whatnot and count (in that technically-but-are-really-employees, gig economy way) as self-employed.

Which is fine until they lose a plane-load of pilots to other airlines and the ones who are still working for them are all bumping up against their mandatory maximum flight hours.

Now, as far as I know, there is simply no way around this. The pilots cannot exceed their maximum. Neither can RyanAir, since they do not employ the pilots directly, 'make' them take their holidays later, or not at all, to fill the gaps.

RyanAir are simply victims of their own business model. If they'd employed the pilots, they wouldn't be in this mess. If they think they do, then pretty sure various tax authorities will be chasing them for back-taxes and fines. If they stick to their line that they don't, the pilots can just say they're taking statutory breaks.

Sucks if you've got a flight with them, but then again, customers are colluding in some incredibly dodgy business practices and the open exploitation of workers.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Passengers have overwhelmingly voted for very low prices. The result of that is that RyanAir, and other low cost airlines, have adopted practices that cut their costs to the bone. That means no slack in the system. If happy, well rested, well paid pilots are important then it will need a change in the practices of the low-cost airlines, and an end to very low cost flights.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

As with many things, there doesn't seem to be any guarantee that pilots are paid better on other more expensive airlines. Indeed, according to something I heard in the media earlier, the practices at RA have been replicated across the industry.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sucks if you've got a flight with them, but then again, customers are colluding in some incredibly dodgy business practices and the open exploitation of workers.

What worries me, and I add myself to the top of the queue, is this isn't just flights. Not being fashion-conscious, a $19.95 shirt seems to do me just as well as a $79.95 one - yet I am contributing to another Rana Plaza?

I did wonder how RyanAir offered such low fights...and the subsequent whinging and whining from people I know who lived in Europe and complained it was "so expensive" to fly here. I had foolishly thought it was market-size and pay-for-extras alone.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I freaking loathe the gig economy. It's just the latest way to get around legislated protection of employees, except this sounds much better than the labor hire rort. If you can't pay your employees properly, GTFO.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

oh, sorry, didn't realise I was still ranting. I want happy, well rested, well paid workers in childcare, teaching, health care, aged care, disability care, customer service, construction, transport and other stuff I haven't thought of in my blind rage. (I recognise and respect the intent of the OP, however)

The only employees I don't want happy are the Richmond footballers who will be running out to play in the AFL preliminary final on Saturday night. I want them hungry for victory and willing to do anything to win, just as long as they don't injure themselves or get reported because next week they've got to do it all again for the big one. GO TIGERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

It's not just RyanAir. In the U.S. the big national airlines do it and get around the union protections by having code sharing flights that are part or all on captive regional airlines. You may book a flight on United, but some of it to smaller cities will be on United Express. The regionals have had the same problems of working their employees to the maximun and paying them very poorly. There have been directly attributed accidents to pilots who had to drive betwen airports betwwen putting in maximum allowed flight time.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sucks if you've got a flight with them, but then again, customers are colluding in some incredibly dodgy business practices and the open exploitation of workers.
What worries me, and I add myself to the top of the queue, is this isn't just flights. Not being fashion-conscious, a $19.95 shirt seems to do me just as well as a $79.95 one - yet I am contributing to another Rana Plaza?

Yes. Most definitely yes. Though probably also if you are buying the $79.95 one, cost of goods is not always based strictly on cost of manufacture.*
People die every day because we want shit cheap.

*It isn't how much it costs as much as it is who makes it and how.

[ 22. September 2017, 04:25: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Are My Hands Clean by Sweet Honey in the Rock This song said it all in 1985.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I freaking loathe the gig economy. It's just the latest way to get around legislated protection of employees, except this sounds much better than the labor hire rort. If you can't pay your employees properly, GTFO.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

To quote Charlie Chaplin's Great Dictator: 'I don't want dissatisfied people working in my factories. Have them all shot.'

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
oh, sorry, didn't realise I was still ranting. I want happy, well rested, well paid workers in childcare, teaching, health care, aged care, disability care, customer service, construction, transport and other stuff I haven't thought of in my blind rage.

And how much more are you prepared to pay for those things in order to make that possible?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

As much as I have to. That's part of what being a Christian means to me. Lucky me that having a better paid husband means I'll be able to afford paying more, but if I do have to cut luxuries to be a decent person, fine.

What gets me is that in this economy we can't get scale costs on ethical goods, so I literally can't afford to be ethical. It's not a matter of cutting luxuries either.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
As much as I have to. That's part of what being a Christian means to me. Lucky me that having a better paid husband means I'll be able to afford paying more, but if I do have to cut luxuries to be a decent person, fine.

Lucky you indeed. But in the world where cheap goods don't exist because the reasons for them being cheap have been eradicated, what are those who don't have better paid husbands (or wives) going to do?

quote:
What gets me is that in this economy we can't get scale costs on ethical goods, so I literally can't afford to be ethical. It's not a matter of cutting luxuries either.

Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about. It's all very well to call for ethical goods when you know you'll still be able to afford them, but for the less well off it will mean no longer having access to those goods at all. I mean, $80 for a single t-shirt? That's a lot of people who aren't going to be able to dress themselves in the Brave New World.

It's true that people die every day because we want shit cheap (lilBuddah). But how many people would die for lack of food, heat, care or clothing because they could no longer afford to pay the elevated prices that would be needed to stop the first set of people dying?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My son is 32 and he's still wearing some clothes he had when he was 16.

He only possesses one pair of shoes apart from the work pair he leaves at work.

That's an extreme example but we don't need anything like the number of clothes/shoes/stuff we have.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Newsflash: the actual cost of production bears very little relation to the retail price, and a great deal of relation to the company profits.

We could double the amount we paid tea pickers or garment manufacturers, and the cost per unit would increase by about 5p.

T shirts made from fair trade cotton and by people in factories with ethical standards don't cost £80 now. So I'm going to call your argument bogus.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Doc Tor is right. It's possible to buy quality goods and by careful selection wear them for years. I haven't bought any shirts or shoes for years now. (I did buy a pair of chinos last year.) But that's because all these items are good quality and made to last. The shoes and shirts were bought secondhand on eBay. They cost about the same as disposable, fashionable items would, had I bought them on the high street. And if I had done that I would have had to replace them several times over already. The shoes will see me out as they can be mended if sent back to the factory, and they won't need that doing any time soon.

Throwaway fashion has huge hidden costs attached.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We could double the amount we paid tea pickers or garment manufacturers, and the cost per unit would increase by about 5p.

We could triple the amount we pay them, and people would still be saying it's not enough.

quote:
T shirts made from fair trade cotton and by people in factories with ethical standards don't cost £80 now. So I'm going to call your argument bogus.

The $80 figure was taken from LilBuddha's post.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
T shirts made from fair trade cotton and by people in factories with ethical standards don't cost £80 now. So I'm going to call your argument bogus.
The $80 figure was taken from LilBuddha's post.

Who took it from a post by Ian Climacus - so that $80 would be about £47 (I'm assuming Australian dollars). And, that was a post only about price - there was nothing there to suggest that the expensive shirt was expensive because it was ethically produced, it could be expensive because it has the right label and still be produced unethically.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

So how does one choose?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There's this thing called the internet, which you can ask questions of, like "buying ethically made clothing" and it comes up with answers that might help you choose stuff that isn't made in exploitative sweatshops.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We could double the amount we paid tea pickers or garment manufacturers, and the cost per unit would increase by about 5p.
We could triple the amount we pay them, and people would still be saying it's not enough.

Your point here?

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Marvin, I think your questions have been answered by others. Your skepticism about the possibility of a fairer world is not well founded.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's this thing called the internet, which you can ask questions of, like "buying ethically made clothing" and it comes up with answers that might help you choose stuff that isn't made in exploitative sweatshops.

The problem is that this is easy to say but fiendishly difficult to actually do.

The reality is that clothing is probably one of the least ethical products that it is possible to buy, and one of the most difficult to prove is ethical. Because it is a multi-stage process with many stages and many people involved, often in many different countries.

And the problem is that even a t-shirt has had, in total, more than an hour of skilled labour to get to you - because although mechanised, the many stages still require semi-skilled* work - so if you are buying a t-shirt for less than £10.. well do the maths.

There are certainly various efforts that are better than the huge multinational factories and cotton farms - however it is a struggle to ever call these things ethical if the people working in the supply chain never earn enough to get proper sanitation, proper healthcare or education. In those circumstances, they might be better off than they would otherwise be, but "ethical clothing" is a phrase without any real meaning.

It seems to me that the only possible definition which makes any moral sense would be to buy clothing where everyone in the supply chain lived at the minimum level that we'd accept in our own country. Which is pretty hard to imagine would cost less than the minimum we'd pay in this country.

Which is a lot more than we're paying currently for any so-called ethical product from anywhere.

* "semi-skilled" in relation to making clothing is ridiculous - I'd like to see anyone from the street try sewing together hundreds of t-shirts an hour, the most basic of operations

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's this thing called the internet, which you can ask questions of, like "buying ethically made clothing" and it comes up with answers that might help you choose stuff that isn't made in exploitative sweatshops.
The problem is that this is easy to say but fiendishly difficult to actually do.

Well, I've just done it. Tbf, the search autocompleted to "buying ethically made clothes", but the first page of results was very informative, and on the basis of doing something is better than doing nothing, anyone interested in how their clothes are made will be able to choose better in future.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
As much as I have to. That's part of what being a Christian means to me. Lucky me that having a better paid husband means I'll be able to afford paying more, but if I do have to cut luxuries to be a decent person, fine.
Lucky you indeed. But in the world where cheap goods don't exist because the reasons for them being cheap have been eradicated, what are those who don't have better paid husbands (or wives) going to do?

Live like the rest of us do now! I don't want to boast of how thrifty I am, but honestly I'm pretty damn thrifty. If costs go up, some people will have to skip their holidays to go sit on the beach. Well guess what some of us don't go on holidays. Also, though I know we disagree on economics, I tend to believe paying the bottom more would trickle up much more successfully than thigns ever trickled down.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Increasing the income of poorer people has a much bigger effect on economic activity than so-called 'trickle-down' economics.

First, because there are far more poor people than there are rich people.

Second, because poor people tend to spend any extra money they have (on clothes, new kitchen appliances, holidays, etc; some of it might even go to charity) and the money goes back into the economy. Rich people might spend some of it (At last we can afford that third yacht!) but are more likely to keep it. That is how they stay rich.

Trickle-down economics has been very thoroughly discredited, but you will still find rich people defending it, for obvious reasons.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Lucky you indeed. But in the world where cheap goods don't exist because the reasons for them being cheap have been eradicated, what are those who don't have better paid husbands (or wives) going to do?
Live like the rest of us do now! I don't want to boast of how thrifty I am, but honestly I'm pretty damn thrifty.

The prospect of having to live a thrifty, watching-every-penny life doesn't exactly enthuse me. Do you have anything else to offer?

quote:
If costs go up, some people will have to skip their holidays to go sit on the beach. Well guess what some of us don't go on holidays.

I'm sorry about that. But just because you can't have a fortnight at the beach doesn't mean nobody should.

quote:
Also, though I know we disagree on economics, I tend to believe paying the bottom more would trickle up much more successfully than thigns ever trickled down.

Probably not, given that the poor in question are on the other side of the world and thus unlikely to spend their increased wealth in areas that will benefit me.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

Hmmm, I thought Jane R had a pretty good argument about where the State should direct monies if it wants to stimulate the economy and increase wealth. I suppose if you are more interested in engaging in class warfare, reducing taxes on the wealthy and using those you do collect to subsidise their enterprises is a brilliant way to go about it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0