Staff are fearful that outside bases will undermine their position, writes Martin Wall, Industry Correspondent
In a report earlier this year, the industrial relations consultant Phil Flynn pointed to a "deep distrust" between Aer Lingus management and its pilots as one of the principal reasons why the parties had failed to reach agreement between themselves on work practice reform at the company.
The lack of trust highlighted in the report, which goes far wider than the rows over the Shannon-Heathrow service or the establishment of a new base in Belfast, is central to explaining how the company and the pilots' union Impact have reached the brink of a 48-hour national strike that would cause disruption to tens of thousands of passengers.
Staff in the company - and not just pilots - have argued that Aer Lingus has shown an insatiable demand for change in recent times. They contend that every time they made concessions, management has simply accepted them and within a short period returned seeking more reform.
Staff have also maintained that management's position seemed to be that anything short of achieving its full agenda would be unacceptable, a point also noted in the Flynn report.
However the company, for its part, argues that times have changed. The airline is no longer a semi-State but rather a publicly quoted company with obligations to maximise profits for its shareholders (including the staff, with a 12.5 per cent shareholding).
Management has contended that it is critical for the airline to reduce its costs and review work practices that have grown up over the years. It believes this is essential to allow it to match the flexibility shown by its competitors.
Shortly after its flotation last year, the company commissioned external consultants to benchmark its entire operation against best practices in the aviation industry.
This resulted in an initiative to curtail costs and improve efficiencies across the board that aimed to save €20 million in the first year.
The company has argued that although staff costs per passenger on average have been decreasing in recent years, without action this figure would rise again, a trend which would be unacceptable to shareholders.
That this cost containment plan was put forward by management just as it was seeking to fight off an aggressive takeover bid for the airline, launched by Michael O'Leary and Ryanair, did little to help its prospects of being accepted by the unions.
The Flynn report suggests that the move by the company to commit to making specific changes in a notice to the stock market, without prior consultation even with its own line managers, was another contributory factor in talks on the plan going nowhere.
The cost containment plan, or programme for continuous improvement, as it was officially known, effectively resulted in a process whereby the company sought to negotiate changes in work practices at home while planning for the establishment of new bases outside the jurisdiction.
At the new bases, the company sought to operate more or less from scratch without any of the so-called restrictive practices that applied in the Republic.
Management is absolutely adamant that it will not allow the existing work practices which have grown up in the Republic to be exported to its new bases abroad.
It also wants to introduce new pay scales and pension arrangements for pilots recruited at its planned base in Belfast, which would be the model for future expansion elsewhere.
The union, for its part, has sought as far as possible to hold on to the terms and conditions it secured in negotiations over decades. It is also strongly opposed to a two-tier system that would see pilots outside the Republic having different pay and conditions.
The Flynn report also specifically states there is a real fear on the part of pilots that the company would use the establishment of outside bases to undermine the existing conditions and bargaining capacity of Irish-based pilots.
Impact has also argued that the existing working agreements do not constitute restrictive practices but rather merely set out definitions on the amount of work pilots can be asked to do.
Aer Lingus management has said that significant progress has been made in negotiating with the union on work practice changes in relation to its short-haul network. However, it has maintained that a lot of work remains in relation to the long-haul area, where it sees most commercial opportunities in the future.
Management has, in particular, pointed to the agreements with the union governing "stick time" - the length of time a pilot can be at the controls of an aircraft - as an area where it wants reform.
The company has argued that, under existing arrangements, the nine-hour flight time on the planned route to Orlando in Florida would involve having three pilots on board. It is looking for flexibility to fly the route with only two pilots. It says the requirement for three pilots was a significant factor in this service being discontinued on a previous occasion.
Management has also indicated that it wants to review the issue of performance pay for pilots. Pilots, under regulation, can only fly for 900 hours per year. Management says pilots in Aer Lingus qualify for performance or premium pay after flying 520 hours, whereas in other competitors this threshold is 750 hours.
The pilots' union has disputed that pay scales in Aer Lingus are above the industry norm.
Both sides are also at odds over plans by the company to reduce the "stopover" time pilots have after flying to the west coast of the US.
Last night it appeared that the parties were moving closer to agreeing to meet for talks at the Labour Relations Commission in a move to avert the strike planned for Tuesday and Wednesday.
However, on the substantive issue of whether pilots in Belfast should be employed on new terms and conditions, union and management seem as far apart as ever.