Connect with us

News

Javier Milei goes to war with Argentina’s airline unions

Published

on

Javier Milei goes to war with Argentina’s airline unions

Argentina’s airports have been repeatedly plunged into chaos as a clash escalates between libertarian President Javier Milei and workers at the country’s flag carrier, Aerolíneas Argentinas.

In the first major confrontation between Milei’s free market reform drive and Argentina’s powerful unions, strikes are threatening travel around the 1mn-square-mile country, as the start of the nation’s peak holiday season looms in December.

Labour unions representing employees at state-owned Aerolíneas Argentinas, which controls two-thirds of the domestic market, are demanding wage increases to compensate for the country’s triple-digit inflation. In recent months they have staged a series of strikes; they say the government has refused dialogue.

“We have two extreme, completely ideologically opposed sides fighting, and trapped in between we have a company and thousands of passengers,” said one Argentine airline executive. “Anything could happen.”

Stranded luggage and queues of frustrated passengers filled Buenos Aires’ city airport during the largest strike in mid-September, which cancelled all Aerolíneas flights for 24 hours. It affected 37,000 passengers and cost $2.5mn, according to the company.

Advertisement

“It’s ridiculous . . . I’ve been waiting a year to see [Patagonian glacier] Perito Moreno and now I don’t think I’ll be able to,” a Spanish tourist complained to broadcaster TN. “I’m left with a bad image of how the country handles these things.”

Milei, a fierce opponent of the labour unions, has hit back with a hardline response. His administration has fired several pilots who took part in strikes and has tried to declare air travel an essential service as a means of banning strikes altogether, though the courts prevented this from taking effect. The government has also begun talks with private companies about ceding some Aerolíneas routes.

Milei on Tuesday issued a decree declaring the company “subject to privatisation” in order to speed up an effort to sell the group, which will require congressional approval.

“This company has cost the state billions of dollars, [which] have come out of the pockets of all Argentines, including many who have never stepped foot on a plane,” transport secretary Franco Mogetta told the Financial Times. “We insist it must be privatised.”

The clash is the most disruptive labour conflict so far for Milei, who won last year’s election on a pledge to cut public spending, deregulate the economy and sell public companies.

Advertisement

Union bosses in other transport sectors are considering a general strike next month, which could cause much of the country to grind to a halt. Further air travel disruption is coming, said Juan Pablo Mazzieri, spokesperson for the association of airline pilots, which represents all of Aerolíneas’ more than 1,000 pilots. 

“We heard unanimous support for deepening the conflict at an assembly of 420 pilots [in late September],” he said. “Deepening the conflict means more strike days, more strike hours and other forms of direct action that we will announce soon.”

President Javier Milei is deregulating the air travel sector to attract more private companies © Matias Baglietto/Reuters

Aerolíneas Argentinas is an ideological flashpoint for Peronism, Argentina’s powerful left-leaning opposition movement, whose founder, former president Juan Domingo Perón, started the company in 1950.

It was sold off in 1989 amid a wave of privatisations under rightwing president Carlos Saúl Menem, but renationalised under leftwing Peronist president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in 2008 when it was it was in severe financial difficulty.

Today it is the largest state-run airline in Latin America. Only Bolivia and Venezuela have similar companies, analysts said.

Advertisement

To shrink the airline’s footprint, Milei is deregulating the air travel sector to attract more private companies. Chile’s LatAm, then the second-largest operator, announced its departure from Argentina in 2020, citing the difficulty of operating with Argentina’s depreciating peso, high taxes and unusually strong labour union presence, and competing with the subsidised flag carrier.

Presidential spokesperson Manuel Adorni last week said Aerolíneas has cost taxpayers $8bn since 2008 thanks to a bloated payroll, which he said includes almost 15 pilots for each of its 81 planes, who receive benefits such as heavily discounted plane tickets for their families.

Continuing to subsidise the company would undermine efforts to eliminate Argentina’s chronic fiscal deficit, the backbone of Milei’s plan to bring down inflation, Adorni added.

Aerolíneas Argentinas jets at an airport in Buenos Aires
A recent poll found 49.2% of Argentines supported privatisation of Aerolíneas Argentinas, while 46.9% opposed it © Luis Robayo/AFP/Getty Images

Ricardo Delpiano, editor of Chile-based air industry analysis website elaereo.com, said Aerolíneas had “sharply reduced its deficit” in recent years to $246mn in 2022 through efficiency improvements and upgrades to its service.

In 2023, the company received no money from the Treasury. But people familiar with its finances said that was largely because of its ability to charge for tickets abroad at the peso’s artificially inflated official exchange rate, while converting revenue at the lower parallel rate. The company also issued $100mn in debt last year via a trust.

Critics of the privatisation proposal argue Aerolíneas should be seen as a public service, rather than a company, because it is the only airline serving about 20 small cities that are unprofitable for private groups, improving connectivity across the vast country.

Advertisement

“That connectivity stimulates [billions of dollars] of tourism, trade, development,” said Diego Giuliano, a lower-house Peronist lawmaker for Santa Fe province. “The people who think this is a good idea suffer from a Buenos Aires-centric view of Argentina.”

Delpiano said it would be “difficult” to find a buyer for Aerolíneas “given the company’s many unprofitable routes, and its high degree of labour conflict”.

But Milei’s allies in Congress argued that the unions’ disruptive strikes had strengthened the case for privatisation.

It is not clear whether the government has enough support to pass a privatisation bill, two of which have been presented to Congress. Its negotiators removed an article designating Aerolíneas Argentinas as “subject to privatisation” from a wider economic reform bill earlier this year because of pushback from legislators.

A May survey by pollster Trespuntozero found 49.2 per cent of Argentines supported privatisation of the airline, while 46.9 per cent opposed it. Pro-privatisation sentiment has dipped a few percentage points from 2023, but remains much higher than in 2015, when 24.4 per cent of respondents wanted the carrier taken out of state hands.

Advertisement

Union leaders accused the government of deliberately stimulating the protests in order to damage the workers’ reputation and garner political support for privatisation.

Rodrigo Borrás, spokesperson for ground workers’ union APA, said the government had refused to “seriously negotiate”, and that wages had not been increased since before Milei took office in December, despite accumulated inflation of 95 per cent this year.

“The offers they’ve made have been almost provocative — a 1 per cent increase,” Borrás said. “This is the perfect way for them to trigger a conflict.”

The transport secretary denied that offers had been so low, claiming they were in line with pay rises offered to other public employees who have accepted pay deals.

“The problem is these unions are accustomed to decades of excessive privileges that all Argentines have been paying for,” he said. “Those privileges ended the day 56 per cent of Argentines elected Javier Milei as president.” 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Opinion: New Jan. 6 court filing shouldn’t scare voters. Trump would never do that again!

Published

on

Opinion: New Jan. 6 court filing shouldn’t scare voters. Trump would never do that again!


If you need proof that President Trump and his running mate will honor the result of November’s election, just listen to how peacefully they have accepted the result of the last presidential election.

play

Dear voters who don’t only watch Fox News:

Advertisement

We here at the Donald Trump presidential campaign realize some of you may have heard or read about a new court filing by federal DEEP STATE prosecutors in the Jan. 6 WITCH HUNT case that oh-so-wrongly accuses your favorite president of trying to overturn the 2020 election. 

We want to let you know, from the always-honest mouth of President Trump, that the allegations in this 165-page document are TOTALLY FALSE, and the so-called voluminous evidence presented is not something you should pay attention to or read. And even if it were true – which it DEFINITELY IS NOT – we here at the Trump campaign promise we would never do anything like that a second time around.

Donald Trump would never try to overturn another election – we promise

Does the filing from special counsel Jack Smith accuse President Trump of pursuing “multiple criminal means to disrupt, through fraud and deceit, the government function by which votes are collected and counted”? Yes, it does. But those are lies – the president used, at most, one criminal means – and the whole thing is ELECTION INTERFERENCE.

Since when do court cases move forward in a way that might be detrimental to the accused’s hopes of becoming president again and shutting down the court case? That seems un-American.

Advertisement

New Jan. 6 court filing reveals details about the plan to deny election results

Does the document detail specifics of this “alleged” plan to overthrow the government? I suppose if that’s what you call this, then sure:

“When the defendant lost the 2020 presidential election, he resorted to crimes to try to stay in office. With private co-conspirators, the defendant launched a series of increasingly desperate plans to overturn the legitimate election results in seven states that he had lost—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (the ‘targeted states’). His efforts included lying to state officials in order to induce them to ignore true vote counts; manufacturing fraudulent electoral votes in the targeted states; attempting to enlist Vice President Michael R. Pence, in his role as President of the Senate, to obstruct Congress’s certification of the election by using the defendant’s fraudulent electoral votes; and when all else had failed, on January 6, 2021, directing an angry crowd of supporters to the United States Capitol to obstruct the congressional certification.”

But you know what those are? Those are a bunch of words strung together into what the liberals want you to believe are “sentences.” And are you really going to trust these so-called sentences to deliver factual information? Of course not.

Those could be migrant sentences Democrats let into this country to steal your way of life.

Advertisement

Did Trump supporters want to hang Mike Pence? Who can really say?

Some in the FAKE NEWS media have focused on one part of the document that details how on that Jan. 6, one of President Trump’s aides “rushed to the dining room” to tell the president that Pence had been taken to a secure location after rioters breached the U.S. Capitol. The aide apparently hoped the president would do something to ensure Pence’s safety.

The document says that President Trump responded: “So what?”

Opinion: Fat Bear Week debuted with a violent death. It’s time to give the bears guns.

First off … TOTAL LIES. But even if that detail about President Trump not caring whether the coward Mike Pence was safe happened to be true, you, the voter, needn’t worry about it.

The only person who should worry is current Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance. (Don’t worry, JD, President Trump would NEVER treat you that way, as long as you do exactly what he says. By the way, what is your noose size?)

Advertisement

Trump is saying the same things he said before the last election

Finally, this probably unconstitutional court filing claims President Trump told advisers before the Election Day in 2020 that he planned to “simply declare victory before all the ballots were counted and any winner was projected.”

The dirty, lying document goes on: “Publicly, the defendant began to plant the seeds for that false declaration. In the months leading up to the election, he refused to say whether he would accept the election results, insisted that he could lose the election only because of fraud, falsely claimed that mail-in ballots were inherently fraudulent, and asserted that only votes counted by election day were valid.”

Opinion: Vance and Walz had civil debate. Trump flung career-damning insults at soldiers.

Advertisement

That is complete nonsense, and the fact that as a reelection candidate President Trump has again been saying those exact things in the months leading up to this year’s election is a strange coincidence you should in no way think is odd or devious.

Just relax, already. You’re being hysterical.

It’s not like Trump and Vance continue to deny the 2020 election results

If you need proof that President Trump and his running mate will honor the result of November’s election, just listen to how peacefully they have accepted the result of the last presidential election.

When Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, was asked by Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz – LOSER! – at this week’s vice presidential debate whether Trump lost the 2020 election, Vance said: “Tim, I’m focused on the future.”

Advertisement

Asked on Thursday by comedian Jason Selvig if Trump won the 2020 election, Vance replied: “Yes.” And when asked again, Vance said: “Yep.”

President Trump himself, during his debate against Vice President Kamala Harris, was asked by the moderator: “Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?”

“No, I don’t acknowledge that at all,” he said.

You see? Both men at the top of the GOP ticket have clearly and forcefully accepted the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, and the outcome they accept is that President Trump won.

Trust us, America, you have nothing to worry about as long as Trump wins

Faced with such unparalleled honesty and firm grounding in reality and common sense, how can anyone look at Lyin’ Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 court filing – with all its stupid evidence and long string of dumb witnesses willing to testify under oath – and think the Trump campaign would ever try to do something dishonest?

Advertisement

It makes no sense. And it makes even less sense if you don’t read the document, which we at the Trump campaign strongly encourage. Spend your time browsing our online Trump merchandise store. Maybe get yourself a watch or a hat or something.

Just please don’t read that document.

Make America Great Again!

Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on X, formerly Twitter, @RexHuppke and Facebook facebook.com/RexIsAJerk

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: Liz Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris

Published

on

Video: Liz Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris

new video loaded: Liz Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris

transcript

transcript

Liz Cheney Endorses Kamala Harris

The former congresswoman and Republican exile campaigned with the vice president in the battleground state of Wisconsin.

I tell you, I have never voted for a Democrat. But this year I am proudly casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. I know that she will be a president who will defend the rule of law. And I know that she will be a president who can inspire all of our children and, if I might say so, especially our little girls. We have a shared commitment, a shared commitment as Americans to ensuring that future generations live in a nation where power is transferred peacefully, where our leaders are men and women of good faith, and where our public servants set aside partisan battles to do what’s right for this country.

Advertisement

Recent episodes in 2024 Elections

Continue Reading

News

US dockworkers suspend strike that threatened to cripple ports

Published

on

US dockworkers suspend strike that threatened to cripple ports

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

A strike that closed US east and Gulf coast ports will be suspended after the dockworkers’ union and the group representing ocean carriers reached an agreement on Thursday, averting for now a costly blow to the economy ahead of the presidential election.

The agreement extends the International Longshoremen’s Association’s employment contract, which had expired, until January 15. It will allow them to return to work for the first time in three days, the union and the shipping lines’ group said in a joint statement.

Negotiations, which had been at an “impasse” over wages and automation for months, would now continue, the statement said.

Advertisement

The work stoppage, which started on Tuesday, had threatened to upend the US economy by snarling global supply chains and halting imports of fresh foods, pharmaceuticals and other consumer goods. JPMorgan analysts estimated that it could cost the US economy as much as $4.5bn a day.

The three dozen affected ports span from Maine to Texas and together handle one-quarter of the country’s annual international trade, worth $3tn, per a Conference Board analysis.

US President Joe Biden congratulated the union and the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX), which represents the carriers, on the deal, saying in a statement that it “represents critical progress towards a strong contract”.

Frustration over the economic fallout of the strike, compounded by fears over how product shortages could delay relief efforts for states devastated by Hurricane Helene, had opened up a new line of attack on Biden and vice-president Kamala Harris, the Democratic candidate, ahead of the November 5 election.

Donald Trump, the former president and Republican nominee, claimed earlier this week the work stoppage “would never have happened” had he been in the White House.

Advertisement

Business leaders had also criticised Biden’s approach to the strike, repeatedly asking him to invoke a federal law that would temporarily force the longshoremen to resume loading and unloading container ships. Biden said he wanted the groups to come to an agreement on their own.

A coalition of 272 trade groups representing retailers, farmers, restaurants, meat processors, truckers and other industries had called the work stoppage a “dire situation” on Wednesday, with “massive negative ramifications for our industries and the economy”.

It threatened the import of consumer items from bananas to coffee to clothing. Some Americans even began panic buying and hoarding toilet paper, prompting a trade group that represents paper manufacturers to issue a statement saying it did not expect the strike to have an impact on supply. An estimated 85 per cent of such products are manufactured in the US, the American Forest and Paper Association says.

ILA leaders told picketing workers the deal that included a 62 per cent raise over the six-year term of the contract. ILA members earned between $20-$39 an hour under the old contract — with overtime pay that pushed a third of New York-based workers’ annual earnings above $200,000 during fiscal year 2019-2020.

They are also fighting the adoption of port robotics that they say could eliminate jobs. Ports in the Netherlands and Australia are already primarily operated by remote-controlled cranes, employing few human workers.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending