Hacker News Reader

> Its workers rules from the 80s are just not adapted anymore

I once spoke with an Air France flight attendant on a domestic flight (Paris => Rennes) and she told me that her employment contract was governed by Irish law. She was French. I don't know if this is representative of all the flight staff status. But for me it is a bit weird that a French company, owned by the French state, employs French people under an Irish status.

The parent company of Air France is AirFrance-KLM which is a publicly traded company. France and the Netherlands are the largest shareholders and hold about 14 and 12 % of the stock each. So it is probably not correct to identify Air France as a company owned by the French State.

As a publicly traded company they are to some extent required to choose employment options that are financially beneficial, I would guess that's happening here.

Would also think a big enough airline may have staff based in other countries. Being Air France staff based in Dublin wouldn’t let you fill many hours if you could only work on journey between Ireland and france.

There’s probably some union rules restricting them from working exclusively outside of the country they’re based.

That became quite common, also for pilots. Apparently these jobs became so sought after that non-flag carriers, RyanAir being among the main offenders apparently, have their co-pilots pay to get the flight hours to keep their license. Gone are the days of lofty, high paid airline jobs. Even gone are the days you don't have to pay for pilot training, let alone being paid as airline trainee.

> Such a weird move.

> I want to start by saying I'm not sure Air France should be subsidized to the level we do.

This is the point. It's pork barrel of a flag carrier being under a gunpoint. The message is "I will not let even your most overpriced, over-subsidised, bathing in cash airline to make money"

I'm not sure if the idea above makes sense to somebody in American cultural context.

The US had a 40 year cold war with Russia. This looks like the standard playbook. The rules regarding flights into Berlin from the West were a game.

Great power politics don't change a lot.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Berlin_Air_Corridor

Mmm, I have much the same misgivings about the likes of EDF being allowed to go on spending sprees in other countres - including my own, Britain - when they are mostly owned by the French state.

At the less knuckle-dragging end of the Brexit voting spectrum, stuff like this showed a clear two-tier level of behaviour in the EU and was hard to rationalise in the minds of people somewhat on the fence.

I know that I - as a Remain voter - had an on-going irritation at the situation. Samesame huge state/EU loans to the likes of Spain's Ferrovial to go on spending sprees here too.

Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour as our continental cousins were, our industrial Brexit-supporters (Dyson et al) might not have felt they were being so unduly hard done by.

Oh well, it matters not any more.

> Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour as our continental cousins were, our industrial Brexit-supporters (Dyson et al) might not have felt they were being so unduly hard done by.

The British finance industry made out by bandits by having the best of EU, UK and worldwide financial markets. UK kept a much tighter control of its currency than mainland EU countries, and did pressure _constantly_ to get EU rulings in its favor.

Yes, I know - we played the game within the constraints of the rules available, for better or worse as far as the development of the Community was concerned. Our political overlords have played that game forever, particularly since the UK rebate.

Strangely, that rebate was mostly because of antagonism about French support for its food industries... .

That we've still not had a resolution to our financial market's future engagement with the EU shows how fundamentally [expletive]-ing stupid and utterly short-sighted Brexit was. Idiots, all.

> EDF being allowed to go on spending sprees in other countres - including my own, Britain

Ssh, the only way we can get Hinkley Point C built at anything like reasonable cost is if the French government bails it out! :)

The British counterpart didn't fare so well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nuclear_Fuels_Ltd

I'd rather we threw whatever guaranteeing stake the UK government owes into supporting Hinkcley instead to the likes of Rolls Royce and modular small-scale nuclear, which seems to me a better use of fission nuclear in the [hopeful] interim between now and fusion hopefully becoming A Thing in a decade (or five).

Heck, given how much money the current administration's spunked, we could just add some more zeroes to the deficit and double up... .

But yes, you're not wrong :)

- ed - the loss of the British Nuclear industry's one of the last generation's stupidest mess-ups.

> Mmm, I have much the same misgivings about the likes of EDF being allowed to go on spending sprees in other countres - including my own, Britain - when they are mostly owned by the French state.

This was a UK political choice, this could have been manage differently by UK government.

> Perhaps if we'd as a country had a bit more spine and a bit less hesitance to occasionally mangle EU rules to our favour

UK is the country that has mangle EU rules the most.

> UK is the country that has mangle EU rules the most.

Can you explain what you mean by this? To me, it's always seemed that Germany and France benefit most from EU integration at the expense of the southern nations which have less industrialized export economies. I'm American, but my two cofounders are British and Swiss, so European politics is a pretty common topic of discussion.

What you say is true, but I think the point was that the UK has consistently cherry picked rules and developments coming from the EU, while also benefiting from the EU integration.

Germany and France differ somewhat in that the EU structurally benefits them. However, they also participate in all mechanisms and, as a consequence, pay a lot of money toward other member states.

The UK, by contrast, has tried to minimize obligations while trying to keep some benefits intact.

Anyway, thing of the past.

> Probably because we don't depend on their oil nor gaz and since that's virtually the only thing they do they don't have any thing else than their giant airspace to get back at us.

I don’t want to miss my dear JetBrains products ;)

JetBrains is Czech

To elaborate, quoting Forbes, JetBrains has some links back to Russia. Shafirov is Russian, as are its three cofounders: Sergey Dmitriev, Eugene Belyaev and Valentin Kipiatkov. Three of its six research and development centers are also based in Russia, alongside its bases in Germany, the Netherlands, the U.S. and the Czech Republic.

>Such a weird move. [...] Russia trying to punch our national carrier down

It doesn't seem weird if Russia has a history of using its valuable airspace as a geopolitical weapon. (A 10 min video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdNDYBt9e_U)

France's Macron was vocal about EU issuing sanctions against Belarus. Putin supports Belarus and in a tit-for-tat show, they denied Russia clearance to Air France flights. The motivations for economic punishments from both sides seem obvious.

Not sure why you think this move is weird. Air France submitted flight plans, which didn't get clearance, so they don't fly.

The weird part is this:

"which didn't get clearance"

not this part:

"so they don't fly"

Well, it seems that Russia is trying to play games. I just don't see how Russia can benefit from those.

They may be trying to signal they're willing to cut of their nose to spite their face in order to dissuade France from pushing for deeper sanctions if the Belarus situation further deteriorates.

They were saying it was weird for Russia not to give clearance.

Why is it unfair that middle eastern carriers are offering a better product at a lower price?

It's hard to compete with the next-door-neighbor kids' lemonade stand when their daddy gives them free sugar and lemons. Or something like that.

Price dumping paid by oil&gas profits --> bye bye competition --> monopoly (duopoly?)

Allegedly because they get subsidies from the oil states. I personally do not know if above is true. Maybe they are just more effective not having to coordinate every move with unions and not having extra costs due to some stupid political moves. Maybe both. Maybe none...

So could France then tax the Arab oil to even the score? The tax revenue could even partially subsidize Air France to compete with the Arab airlines.

Last time they tried it caused massive protests and unrest in France, so the government had to scrap the nex taxes...

Isn't this what the 'yellow vest' protests were (initially) about?

gas is already heavily taxed in France and then Air France is getting subsides

US is "so much richer" than Russia. China is "so much richer" than Russia.

France is not "so much richer" than Russia. You chop 40% of France's GDP and that's the GDP of Russia. Sure that's bigger but then Russia has 2x the amount of people and... 30x the country size. 30x.

I have absolutely zero doubts that Russia is going to overtake France's GDP in a not so distant future.

Since losing the Waterloo battle France went from world's 1st superpower (debatable) to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th (in the eighties and maybe still in the nineties?), then 6th and now 7th. And the path seems pretty clear to me.

(I'm not russian btw and I don't approve what Russia is doing here but I know how "cocorico" french people can be and I wouldn't want others to be mislead so I simply present facts: chop 40% of France's GDP and you've got Russia's GDP. Russia has 2x the population and 30x the land of France)

And what evidence do you see that the GDP of Russia is going to grow faster than that of France?