A Case on Air India’s Pilot Strike

of May 2012

longest pilot stir in 40 years.

Presented By:Meghna Sangwan (4131004)Sonali Garwal (4131031)

CASE POINTS

In 2007, the Government of India announced that Air India would be merged with Indian Airlines. As part of the merger process, a new company called the National Aviation Company of India Limited (NACIL) was established.Around 2006-2007, the airlines began showing signs of financial distress- combined losses for Air India and Indian Airlines in 2006-07 were 770 crores (7.7 billion) On 27 February 2011, Air India and Indian Airlines merged along with their subsidiaries to form Air India Limited.

EMPLOYEE’S DEMANDS

Better salary, promotion and increment.

Equality between Air India and India Airline Staff.

Reappoint the pilots, who force to resign.

Career progression Integration across

various cadres Rationalization of pay

scale

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AIR INDIA STRIKE MAY 2012

May 8, 2012: About 100 pilots went on medical leave as a mark of protest while their talks with the management were still on.

Reason for mass sick leave: pilots were protesting the move to provide Boeing-787 Dreamliner training to pilots from the erstwhile Indian Airlines.

Later, the same day Air India sacked ten agitating pilots and de-recognized their union after 160 pilots failed to join duty by the given deadline.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AIR INDIA STRIKE MAY 2012

An original list of 14 demands was put and reinstatement of their 101 sacked colleagues was demanded by aviators.May 15, 2012: the Union Civil Aviation Minister Ajit Singh stated that the Government was giving Air India one last chance and that it must perform in order to qualify for a bailout. May 26, 2012: Aviation Minister Ajit Singh announced that he would go ahead and hire new pilots if the strike didn’t end soon.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE AIR INDIA STRIKE MAY 2012

AI management gave an assurance to Delhi High Court that it would look into the hardships of the pilots sympathetically.

July 4, 2012: 58 day old strike ended immediately.

Air India suffered a loss of 500 crores due to strike in 45 days.

EMPLOYEE’S VIEW

Employee opinion: “The merger created problems that cannot be solved. Our grades, work, promotions and allowances are different. When you see your colleague from the other cadre doing the same work, but getting easy promotions, allowances, there is bound to be resentment,”.

No attempts were made to standardise hiring policies for the rank and file. Air India has a five-day week; Indian Airlines has a six-day week.

Indian Airlines pilots were promoted unconditionally once in six years while Air India pilots complained they got their turn after 10 years - if there was a vacancy.

The ground handling teams of the two airlines continue to operate separately.

MANAGEMENT’S VIEW

Efforts were being made to resolve the situation. Appeal to the pilots that they should think about the passengers.As per Rule 42 (2) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937: Pilots who have claimed sickness for two months were asked to submit medical reports. But verification of the two-month long sickness and related tests and reports may catch pilots on the wrong foot

HOW DID IT END?

The Delhi high court asked them to join duty within 48 hours and the management to sympathetically consider their grievances

"The AI management shall sympathetically consider the grievances of the pilots including the aspect of reinstatement of those pilots whose services were terminated as a consequence to their strike," Justice Khetrapal

AIR INDIA MANAGEMENT COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE STRIKE

Why was the airline management in such a tearing hurry to send pilots from the erstwhile Indian Airlines (IC) to train on the B787 aircraft?

So what was the point in rushing the IC pilots for B787 training

AIR INDIA MANAGEMENT COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE STRIKE

The management should have reached an agreement with the AI pilots on their career progression issues before sending the IC pilots for training

Successive managements have been insensitive to issues raised by unions.

Main reason: weak HR setup, lack of structured policies and their inconsistent application.