In a detailed press briefing yesterday, IMPACT assistant general secretary Ms Christina Carney repeatedly referred to the stress the company's "family unfriendly" environment was placing on cabin crew. The Labour Court award would make things even worse.
A longer working day, faster turnaround time for aircraft, reduced access to time off in lieu of overtime and more intensive working on longer routes are what she means. The response of the company's group director of corporate affairs, Mr Dan Loughrey, was simple. "This isn't what the company wants; this is what customers want," he says. "We would never apologise for changing our operations to meet whatever the market demands."
Across Europe the same issues are arising. A European Foundation report found that one of the biggest factors of discontent in the workplace was changes in work patterns caused by "market constraints such as external demands from clients, passengers or users". Another major study, by the Danish Cancer Society, showed that women who worked unsocial shift patterns were up to 70 per cent more likely to develop breast cancer than women the same age in regular daytime jobs.
IMPACT has yet to make a major issue of the health aspects of cabin crew work but the strain it engenders is one of the driving forces behind today's strike. Ms Carney is well aware of the demands of modern women workers. She represented IMPACT nurses during their protracted fight for better pay and status.
The similarities with cabin crew are, to coin a phrase, striking. The dispute is as much about improving the career structures and pecking order of this overwhelmingly female workforce in the aviation business as it is about money.
In fact it is becoming increasingly difficult for IMPACT to argue that cabin crew are low paid. True, the starting rate on offer from the Labour Court starts at £13,000 and takes 15 years to reach £22,500. It takes another 20 years to reach £25,000. But this is a substantial improvement on the current pay scale of £10,866 to £21,223, spread over 24 years. Plus, the company says, most cabin crew earn about £3,200 overtime.
At least a third of cabin crew are in promotional grades and would enjoy pay scales of between £25,000 and £31,000 a year under the Labour Court recommendation. IMPACT sought a top basic rate of £28,000 after 15 years' service. It says this can still be achieved through the introduction of a "mentoring" grade to recognise the informal advisory role of long-service crew members. But it also wants relativities for higher grades adjusted, which could push basic salaries for these groups towards £35,000 a year.
Mr Loughrey's response is that Aer Lingus does not need mentors and a new grade only adds to the cost and inflexibilities in the system. He believes the union has not woken up to the need for rapid change at a reasonable price. Aer Lingus is also worried about knock-on claims from other groups, such as clerical staff who have already settled for similar packages to the Labour Court award.
The company has offered to set up a working group to address outstanding issues if IMPACT will buy into the Labour Court award. The cabin crews say Aer Lingus has failed to honour similar past commitments and trust is non-existent.
As with the nurses' dispute, there are no obvious, easy solutions.