Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1980 > Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies > Report No. 14 - Aer Lingus, Teoranta and Aerlínte Éireann, Teoranta

APPENDIX 3

LETTER TO CLERK TO JOINT COMMITTEE FROM AER LINGUS IN REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY

I refer to your letter of 13 June to Mr. Weldon.

In your letter you point out that, with reference to the fact that Aer Lingus witnesses queried the validity of certain comparative statistics concerning employment and labour productivity which had been made available to the Committee, such statistics were in fact taken from the ICAO Digest of Statistics, No. 249: Fleet-Personnel 1978.

First, may I restate the difference that emerged between the point made to us by the Committee and my reply. The Committee said that the 1978 figures showed that 40.8% of Aer Lingus staff were engaged in “Ticketing, Sales & Promotion” and that this compared with 23.6% for Austrian Airlines, 23.9% for Finnair, 12% for TAP and 31.2% for British Caledonian. In response I quoted IATA figures for the same year which showed that Aer Lingus “Ticketing, Sales & Promotion” numbers were 13.2% of total staff and that the comparative figures for the other airlines were 23.6% for Austrian, 13% for Finnair, 12% for TAP and 14.7% for British Caledonian.

I have examined the ICAO Digest Statistics No. 249: Fleet-Personnel and the IATA World Air Transport Statistics again and can confirm that the difference arises from a definitional difference. Furthermore, I can also identify the cause of this difference.

I attach as Schedule 1 a tabulation of figures from the ICAO Digest 249 and the IATA World Air Transport Statistics for 1978. The percentage columns I have added.

You will note that the total number of staff for each of the airlines (with a slight exception in the case of British Caledonian for which I do not have an explanation) is the same in the ICAO and in the IATA cases. Furthermore (again excepting B.Cal) you will note that in each of the categories “Pilots & CoPilots”, “Other Cockpit Personnel”, “Cabin Attendants” and “Maintenance & Overhaul Personnel” the numbers shown are the same for ICAO and IATA. The differences occur in the remaining categories. ICAO has two further categories “Ticketing & Sales Personnel” and “Other Personnel” while IATA has yet one more category “Traffic Handling Personnel”.

The definitional problem arises as to how the carriers classify staff as between these categories. If the ICAO two categories are added together, the totals for each airline (excluding B. Cal) will be found to equal the totals for the sum of the three categories in the IATA column.

I believe that it is clear that the IATA figures are from the same source as the ICAO figures; that they are, in fact, the same figures; and that IATA simply shows a more detailed breakdown of the figures.

An examination of the tabulation in Schedule 1 will also show that the ICAO figures for Austrian and TAP combine the IATA categories for “Traffic Handling” with “Other Personnel”, while in the case of Aer Lingus and Finnair* the ICAO figures combine the IATA category “Traffic Handling” with “Ticketing & Sales Personnel”.

The reason for this difference of practice arises from a change by ICAO in its categories

made apparently in 1977. Schedule 11** attached is a photocopy of the instructions from the ICAO Digest 249. Schedule 111** attached, is a photocopy of the instructions received by us through the Department of Transport for the completion of the ICAO statistics. You will note that in this case there is a category “Traffic & Sales Personnel” as opposed to the category “Ticketing & Sales (also Promotional) Personnel”.

I also attach as Schedule IV** a copy of the ICAO form we completed for 1976 where you will see that the category “Traffic & Sales Personnel” occurs.

I trust that this will clarify the matter to the satisfaction of the Committee.

Finally, I would like to say that having become aware of the difference in carrier practice in categorising staff for purposes of the ICAO statistics, I intend to make a submission to ICAO, via the Department of Transport, to have a standard practice adopted.

30 June 1980

Assistant Chief Executive-Finance.

SCHEDULE 1

STAFF NUMBERS COMPARISON 1978—ICAO vv IATA

Notes:

1. ICAO Digest of Statistics No. 249 refers.

2. IATA World Air Transport Statistics No. 23 1978 refers.

*There is a difference of 10 between the ICAO and IATA figures for “Other Personnel” in the case of Finnair compensated in the total by a difference of 10 in the ICAO “Ticketing & Sales Personnel” and the IATA categories “Ticketing & Sales” and “Traffic Handling” combined. There is no explanation for this difference which could be a transcription error. In any case it is not significant.

**The Committee decided that there was no need to publish these documents.