Originally Posted by
NickB
I don't find it that surprising. First, there is far juicier journalistic stuff in other conflicts: ND des Landes and the students' strikes
provide the more "dramatic" style of occupying movements and the SNCF strike has considerably more impact on the French public than the Air France one. Secondly, the number of persons impacted by the AF strike was, it seems to me, relatively limited and manageable overall, albeit costly. I travelled through CDG on two different strike days and I was struck at how much it felt broadly similar to normal days and how the display screens showed a relatively limited number of cancellations overall. This seems to be in line with the number of flights cancelled in the media.
The idea that the impact of the strike was underplayed by the media because AF is a big advertiser does not seem to me very credible.
The big strike problem is longhaul. When you reach near 50% of longhaul flights cancelled (and some with long delays), one can hardly say that the impact is relatively limited and manageable. Longhaul is the bread and butter of AF. Sure longhaul flights ( 7 to 13 hours duration) are much fewer than the numerous 1+hour short/medium flights. There might even be more French domestic AF flights than longhaul. On a Paris-Nice or Paris-London route, a few cancellations hardly troubles a pax. But longhaul cancellations certainly do as there are few nonstop alternatives. Unfortunately, a large proportion of pilots qualified to fly the big birds have been on strike.
Your point on the lesser importance of AF strikes in the media is well taken.
I am still surprised that the "written" press (which is all we can access abroad) has devoted none of its numerous secondary articles (not headlines) to it. And the headlines have been basically paraphrasing AF press releases.