Pilots have not agreed any changes to working conditions as part of Aer Lingus deal, says Ialpa

However, according to Captain Tighe, “we sold no working conditions as part of this deal.”

Speaking on RTÉ radio’s Morning Ireland programme, Captain Tighe said: “We’re recommending it because we believe it’s a deal that the pilots can hopefully accept and we’ll move on. 

“We’ve had a very successful time as a group of people demonstrating our unity and strength together. And that’s vitally important moving forward.” 

When asked if he regretted the impact the dispute had on the public, Captain Tighe said Ialpa “most certainly did not want any inconvenience towards passengers.”

“I’ve said repeatedly how important they [passengers] are to us as pilots. 

“But unfortunately, management could have come to this point a long time ago, and the question should be really directed towards them,” he said.

Captain Tighe said he understood that Ialpa would now be having “inflation meetings”.

“It’s not quite the inflation that we were discussing but we are looking at two years from now and pilots will be 19.2% better off than they were, which is some ways towards inflation.

“The question of inflation and employees being left behind while company’s profits continue to increase is an important one that will have to be discussed further by everybody in this country,” he said.

A work-to-rule action by the pilots, which has been in place since June 26, has now been lifted in the wake of the Labour Court recommendation, pending the outcome of a ballot.

“In light of the executive recommending acceptance of this deal, we felt that it was an appropriate move to make,” Captain Tighe said.

Clare Dunne of the Irish Travel Agents Association also welcomed the move saying it was a great day for the travel industry.

Ialpa, the professional body for Irish airline pilots, and a branch of Fórsa trade union, announced their decision late on Wednesday evening.

A spokesman said the union will now hold a series of meetings with members before a ballot on the terms will be held in the coming week.

Captain Tighe described the pay increase provided for as “a significant win for pilots”.

A spokeswoman for Aer Lingus said they welcomed the move, adding that they welcomed the “decision to discontinue the industrial action”. She added: 

We look forward to Ialpa completing the balloting process as soon as possible.

Earlier this week, Aer Lingus accepted the Labour Court recommendation and urged pilots to follow suit, and end their industrial action.

The work-to-rule action by pilots in a dispute over pay has already seen hundreds of flights cancelled and thousands of passengers facing disruption.

Pilots had been seeking a 24% rise which they say is in line with inflation since their last pay increase while Aer Lingus had offered 12.25%, along with requests for more productivity from workers.

The court’s recommendation was for a pay rise of 17.75%.

Previous attempts to resolve the issue at both the Labour Court and in face-to-face talks failed, with both parties attending the court again last Wednesday. The independent industrial relations court issued its recommendation on Monday afternoon.

The pay increase suggested is just under 18% over a number of years, with incremental rises starting from January 1, 2023 and concluding in July 2026. It also recommended an increase of pilots’ overnight allowance by 10% now, and a further 5% in October 2025.

In its recommendation, the Labour Court said:  “The Court understood from its engagements with the parties on both of these occasions that the potential exists for a very grave and unfavourable outcome to this trade dispute should resolution not be found in the short term.

“Similarly, the Court came to understand that, notwithstanding their extensive engagements directly and with the assistance of a series of expert bodies, no discernible narrowing of the gap between the parties’ respective positions on key matters, or indeed their disputation on matters of fact, had emerged.”

The Labour Court was critical of both sides for laying “significant emphasis on the differences between the parties” rather than focusing on positions they did agree with. 

It added that both sides would have known that their own submission to the court would not be acceptable from the other side.