European airlines go ballistic over French air traffic controller strike (www.politico.eu)

submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 44 comments

sorted by: hot top new old

[-] [email protected] 45 points 1 week ago

Staffing shortages played a role in a near-collision between an easyJet plane and a private jet at the Bordeaux airport in December 2022, according to French investigators. They found that three controllers were working in the tower at the time of the incident instead of the six required by the duty roster.

This should be the key aspect here. If we elevate the ramblings of Ryan Air to become any basis of policy, we should prepare for it to become normal that people are being killed in plane crashes in France.

[-] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago

“It is indefensible that today that I'm canceling flights from Ireland to Italy, from Germany to Spain, from Portugal to Poland,” O'Leary said.

The budget airline chief blamed the European Union, and specifically European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, for the situation.

looks puzzled

Is the European Commission responsible for mediating union disputes?

The strike, which took place on Thursday and Friday, was over disputes between two unions and the French directorate general for civil aviation

I mean, this sounds like it's between the French government and French unions.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I mean, this sounds like it's between the French government and French unions

If it's causing issues with flights in other countries, which it sounds like it is, then it is the EU's business...but ideally, they'd just pressure the French government to cave to the unions' demands. Fat chance though, lol

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 week ago

From the article: O'Leary said that of Ryanair’s 400 cancellations caused by the strike, “360, or 90 percent of those flights, would operate if the Commission protected the overflights as Spain, Italy and Greece do during air traffic control strikes.”

“Von der Leyen and the Commission made a big song and dance during Brexit about: 'We must protect the single market, the single market is sacrosanct, nothing would be allowed to disrupt the single market,'” he said. “Unless you're a French air traffic controller and you can shut down the sky over France.”

From me: I don't think it's unreasonable to require strike actions to not affect non french traffic. In wartime, air traffic control continues. Countries in conflict wills till communicate with air traffic control. It makes sense for it to be an apolitical system and strikes are effectively political.

That needs to be balanced with the right to strike which is quite strong in France! Frances central location in Europe would affect quite a number of flights.

[-] [email protected] 33 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

People still work during war time. I dont think it is a fair comparison.

Airlines sometimes avoid a country at war. They decide if they do it or not. So it is not a relevant comparison at all.

Nothing is keeping airlines from routing around France. It just costs a bit more mone

....and it should be the normal thing to expect. Their complaining is ridiculous.

[-] [email protected] -5 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 1 week ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Making air traffic control.subject to politics

Every part of your life is subject to politics. Always has been.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

Yep, I agree. Yet some things can be kept apolitical when there's a will to do so.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

It's entirely unreasonable to compromise on striking rights for the mere convenience of international travellers and the pockets of airline owners. I don't see how forcing people to work could be apolitical.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 1 week ago

And screw the environment and passenger safety.

People should not be forced to work. However, having an agreement with the union that when striking, certain activities are protected is not a bad outcome for workers.

It could be at overtime rates (or triple time), fees collected could go to the union or workers instead of the agency and flights originating or terminated in France would remain affected.

[-] [email protected] 44 points 1 week ago

A company boss complaining about workers who strike.

Nothing really new here.

[-] [email protected] 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Our attitude should be that anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded or get a new fancy job & forced to start the career over.

Basically what we (apparently) do to people protesting against funding genocides & climate change we should be doing to people oppressing workers bcs they want profits to be higher.

Just deal with the strike, make it work without a stick or accept your business isn't viable (or at least not with you in it).

[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

People should be allowed to complain most of the time the complaining helps bring attention to the protest. Otherwise most wouldn't be known to the public.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yes, but ads work on all our brains & most of the time the public opinions form in regards to articles such at these (ie anti-strike without knowing the reasons, and in turn in support to political parties holding such views).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Still it’s human af to complain just let people do it. It is annoying that you get into trouble because of something somebody else did or didn’t. Especially if your power is limited for whatever way.

Personally I feel that if you enoy people to much they will side against you not for you. You kinda wanna get that balance going so the people with a lot of power are affected and those with little power aren’t.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Oh, no, no - that's not what I meant at all!

Not literally any complaining (actual free speech & law protections apply), with the article as context - these are professionals acting from/on behalf of the company amplified by the money & media relations that company has (& possible political party relations).

So if I use my corp assets & relations to push out ~~"well"~~ precisely written points about how strikes are bad that is not at all comparable to a random person just being a bit frustrated & bitch about it. It's deliberate, amplified, and solely for profit. And it leads to shit like when in developed countries govs/parlaments/presidents literally outlaw strikes (eg per sector even when it's uncalled for), and the public doesn't care.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

anyone complaining about strikes should be immediately excluded from society, unable to get rewarded

But in reality, such people get new fancy boss positions 😉

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, true.
And in return held in higher regard even by average workers (perhaps not in that one specific company tho).

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

There are ways to strike which are better than others. In some countries they simply don't collect fares, so the user is not hindered, but the cost of a strike is still felt by the employer. Maybe this doesn't work for air travel, but it works for other services.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are rules (strict laws with fines & prison time) to strikes depending on sectors.

Eg basic infrastructure workers (doctors, bus drivers, etc) can't strike by not working, which I think you were referring from. I think that does makes sense otherwise innocent people can die or really suffer.

But where public's lives aren't at stake, the users sold def feel the strike & know what the company they are financially supporting doesn't wasn't to do.

But laws too can get very corrupt very quickly, eg USA presidents totally outlawing strikes on sector or per company basis (bcs pocket monies).

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Eg basic infrastructure workers (workers, bus drivers, etc)

Bus drivers strike all the time.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Yes, but usually they do it by other means as to not driving the bus (or they don't drive the buses only for a limited time within the strike).

But countries differ a lot in regards what is basic infrastructure.

(Lol, typo, I meant doctors there, fixed.)

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Nah, they properly strike. The transporation company might try to get some replacements and shift around bus drivers that aren't striking, but it usually means no or greatly reduced service.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Yes, I know, in my county too.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

But why should the user feel the strike, what is the use in that? The strike is against the employer, not the user. It happens to hinder the user as a side effect, but ideally you'd have fare strikes that only hurt the company and not the users.

PS: ok, if it is to show users how useful you are to them (but that is just an indirect way to pressure employers), besides, that could just be used as an excuse for the employer to raise the fares in order to pay workers (and management) more.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I absolutely want to know where I shop & who I vote for with my wallet (make profit for).

If that company is shitty to workers I'll def try to avoid it.

Worker rights endeavours arent something to hide & dilute.

And yes, the employer needs to take into account customer view too (which they do).

[-] [email protected] 18 points 1 week ago

flights over rights ?

is that the deal now ?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Only during high season. Do the same at the end of January and you wouldn't hear about it.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Then why bother to strike then if it would be completely ineffectual ?

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

My point is that French always strike when is really sucks. Summer, Christmas, etc. Because that's what "works".

You don't hear about protests and strikes during low seasons.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

The French know how to do it :)

[-] [email protected] -4 points 1 week ago

Of course. Not like 20% of their economy is based on tourism. Or that normal people then prefer driving their car than taking the train.

And you know what? Anyone who can paralyze the country should strike, just because.

Train drivers? Airport personnel? Truck drivers? Hey! If you can freeze the economy, go for it!

The number of people I know, who have a car just because they need a solution when people strike...

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Not like 20% of their economy is based on tourism.

So you think the purpose of their strike should be to pamper the economy?

I can't help feeling like there are 2 or 3 things that you still need to learn... 😅

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

Lol. Being born in France, I know a few things about strikes 🤣

I also understand that they are a sign and a reason for the current social climate in the country. Some strikes are meaningful. Most are just ridiculous.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago

Wont somebody think of the profits

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Kevin has been angry about this for a while, here's March 2023: https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryanair-launches-eu-passenger-petition/

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025

92 points (96.9% liked)

Europe

6674 readers

1002 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

on any topic: Al Mayadeen, brusselssignal:eu, citjourno:com, europesays:com, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Fox, GB News, geo-trends:eu, news-pravda:com, OAN, RT, sociable:co, any AI slop sites (when in doubt please look for a credible imprint/about page), change:org (for privacy reasons)
on Middle-East topics: Al Jazeera
on Hungary: Euronews

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media. Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the primary mod account @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]