The Perils of Plastic Pollution

Meena Miriam Yust 

Plastics are found in the products we use every day: the toys we give our children, the clothing we wear, the disposable cups we drink from, the automobiles we make, the straws we use, the list goes on.  Cheap and easy to make, plastic goods and plastic production have exploded in recent years.  Yet the junked cars, the used straws and cups, they all end up somewhere, perhaps in a landfill, or perhaps drifting in the wind.  91% of plastic goods are not recycled.  Most have found their way to rivers, lakes, and oceans, and over time break down into tiny microscopic particles of plastic.  Microplastics are everywhere, even in the deepest sea floor sediments and in the Arctic.  They can originate in small form from toothpaste or makeup, or can be derived from larger pieces of plastic, which over time break down into small particles.

Not very long ago (Sept. 8, 2018), a giant 2,000 foot long tube was launched from San Francisco to be towed to a suitable site.  The brainchild of a young 24-year-old Dutchman named Boyan Slat, it is intended to trap some of the ever-increasing tons of plastic polluting our oceans.  To be sure California lends a more sympathetic ear to pollution problems than does Washington or the federal government these days.

Researchers have sought to determine the extent of plastic pollution and tested water samples from cities and towns on five continents.  The results: microscopic plastic particles were present in 83%.  Ironically samples that tested positive included the US Capitol building and the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, as well as the Trump Grill in New York.  Researchers say these plastic particles are also likely in foods prepared with water, such as pasta and bread.

Every day, more plastics are added to the world’s waters.  From coastal regions alone, between 5.3 million and 14 million tons of plastic find their way to the oceans each year.  By 2050, the amount of plastic in the ocean is expected to ‘outweigh the fish’, says Jim Leape, co-director of the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions.  Currently estimated to be 150 million tons, they take a very long time to biodegrade – an estimated 450 years to never.

Almost 700 species that we are aware of have been affected by plastic pollution, ranging from tiny creatures to the largest, and some are already endangered.  Wales have already fallen victim to plastic contamination. This past June, a whale died in Thailand from ingesting more than 80 plastic bags.  And a sperm whale was found dead on a beach in Spain with 29 kilos of plastic in its stomach.

Australian researchers studying a large sample of sea turtles recently reported in Nature that half of the baby sea turtles had stomachs filled with plastic.  They calculated that turtles have a 50% probability of death after ingesting 14 pieces of plastic, and that younger turtles are more likely to be harmed.

Can plastics affect human health too?  The answer is ‘yes,’ and in various ways, depending on the kind of plastic.  Diethyl hexyl, found in some plastics, is a carcinogen.  Bisphenol-A (BPA), present in some plastic bottles and food packaging materials, can interfere with human hormonal functioning and can be ingested through water or from eating contaminated fish.  Some toxins in plastics are known to cause birth defects, cancers, and immune system problems.  Cadmium, mercury, bromine and lead are highly toxic.  Many of these metals are now restricted or banned from plastic production.  Yet a recent 2018 study examining the water of Lake Geneva, Switzerland, found levels of these chemicals sometimes beyond the accepted limits under EU law.  The findings were a testament to how long plastic pollution remains in the environment – toxins banned from manufacturing several decades ago were still in the lake.  The metals are released as the plastics break down over time, and they remain in the environment.

It is very difficult to study the exact impact of plastic pollution on humans because plastic pollution is so widespread that ‘there are almost no unexposed subjects’, notes a researcher.

Norway has managed to recycle a remarkable 97% of its plastic bottles.  It achieved this by installing plastic bottle machines that return money in exchange.  The UK is considering adopting a similar strategy.

Denmark recycles far more plastic bags than the United States: an average Dane uses four single-use bags per year, an American almost one per day.  How do they do it?  Denmark adopted a tax on plastic bags in 1993 and the bag is not free.  It costs about 50 cents, part of the money going to the tax and part to the store.  The effect has been a reduction in the sale of bags by over 40% over the last 25 years.  One can only hope that more countries will follow.

The United States currently recycles only about 9% of plastics.  According to an EPA study this past August, the U.S. recycling rate actually decreased in 2015.  Could the Scandinavian techniques help?  Only a handful of states in the U.S. have passed laws regarding deposit machines; adding laws requiring a charge for plastic bags or a tax, as the city of Chicago did, is not impossible.

China has been for years importing much of the world’s scraps, including 40% of U.S. recyclables.  But in 2018, China put a ban on imports of plastics, mixed paper, and other materials.  Recycled plastics from the U.S. to China dropped 92% in the first five months of the year.  California may be especially hard hit, as it had been exporting about a third of its recyclables, amounting to 15 million tons in 2016.  62% of those exports went to China.  It is unclear whether the U.S. will be able to cope with the increased influx of recyclables on home territory.

Sadly, even if the U.S. and all developed countries had sufficient machines and facilities to reach  Norway’s 97% level of plastic bottle recycling, it would not be enough to save the oceans.  The reasons: the bulk of ocean plastic pollution comes from developing countries who often lack recycling and waste pickup infrastructure.  In 2010, one researcher estimated that half of the world’s plastic pollution was generated by just five Asian countries:  China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka.

The top polluters were again listed for Earth Day 2018, by quantity of annual mismanaged plastic waste.  The top six:

1) China:  1.32 – 3.52 Million Metric Tons (MMT) / year

2) Indonesia: 0.48 – 1.29 MMT/year

3) Philippines: 0.28 – 0.75 MMT/year

4) Vietnam: 0.28 – 0.73 MMT/year

5) Sri Lanka: 0.24 – 0.64 MMT/year

6) Thailand: 0.15 – 0.41 MMT/year

The statistics also showed a percentage of mismanaged plastic waste. Eight countries had over 80% mismanaged plastic waste: Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Burma, and North Korea.  These are developing nations and they often do not have a proper waste and recycling infrastructure.  In the Philippines, recycling is sometimes done slowly and laboriously by hand picking from dump yards.  Not surprisingly, much is washed away to sea.  The Pasig River that flows through Manila carries an estimated 72,000 tons of plastic downstream each year, and the river has been declared “biologically dead” since 1990.  Of course, developed nations could provide aid to help create a recycling infrastructure where it is lacking.  But such foreign aid without educating the public of its necessity is unlikely.  Then there is the intriguing possibility of actually scavenging ocean plastic.

Boyan Slat’s giant flexible tube, appended on its underside with a curtain barrier, will be shaped into a U to trap the plastic, which a sister ship will retrieve for recycling and safe disposal.  Due to ocean currents, the plastic collects in the relatively stagnant ocean pools between them easing the job of Mr. Slat’s device.  The Ocean Cleanup, Slat’s foundation, displays five such sites in the world’s oceans: one each in the North and South Atlantic and Pacific, and one in the south Indian Ocean.  They claim the device can clean up 90% of the floating waste.  Everyone is rooting for him.

In the mean time, there are a few things we can do each day, which, collectively could have a positive impact:

+ Ordering fewer products online could help, as packaging is a huge source of pollution and often includes bubble wrap, made of low-density polyethylene.  It is not the easiest form of plastic to recycle and it comprises 20% of global plastic waste.  Bringing ones own bags to a local store would be far less taxing on the environment.

+ Minimizing foam cups and takeout containers would be highly beneficial – they are made from polystyrene, which is difficult to recycle.

+ Avoiding the use of straws, when possible, would aid sea creatures.  Straws, made of polypropylene usually end up in the ocean.  Polypropylene comprises 19% of global plastic waste.

+ Reusing and recycling as much as possible is a mantra that cannot be repeated too often.

+ Collectively, we could make a difference.  And if we can also pool our resources to help developing countries recycle, then perhaps we can save our oceans, the turtles, the whales, and even, us.

Power, Politics, Prudery or the Totalitarianism of Sex

Dan Corjescu

Sex is a dangerous subject. Rape even more so.

However, the question is: does the current climate of sexual victim narratives exactly fit in an age that is allegedly post-sexual liberation?

To be clear; violence used to gain ones pleasure against the will of another should always and everywhere be rightfully condemned.

But despite this obvious disclaimer is there still somewhat of an antiquated double standard operating in the sex lives of men and women?

If not, why is it then that if young men are forced to have sex with women, or disrobed by them unwillingly, or made to perform or undergo sex acts by them that no one, in the end, really cares including the young men involved? Or if this is not the case, then is it because young men are ashamed to report such behavior? Or are they less traumatized by such behavior for social, cultural reasons? To put it more dramatically, do young men view the fact of having sex, even unwillingly, with more than one partner in a night as a somewhat different experience than do women? And if so, does this mean men and women are after all different and perhaps unequal in questions of sexual modesty or that women’s view of their own sexuality has to let go of the last vestiges of Victorian prudishness?

If modern day feminism is to be consistent I think they must choose the latter. This would mean that women should not be expected to be more traumatized or incensed by certain unwilled sexual acts than would men. This, too, means that the concept of rape has to be carefully rethought. After all both sexes often enjoy the thrill of a bit of violence in their sexual relations. Anyone who denies this is a liar and a hypocrite. (But yes Americans are sooooo good at hypocrisy) Sex is complicated but at the same time shouldn’t its ambiguities be shared equally?

Here’s an even more extreme example to contemplate. If someone puts a gun or a knife to your throat and literally forces you to commit a sexual act, let’s say for the sake of argument, that for most people that would be an undesirable situation to be in. Yet, if a woman were to play the role of the violator in this instance would society expect the man who was violated to be deeply and irrevocably traumatized? So the question here is: why does society still encourage women to view themselves as victims and sex, even violent sex, as the terrible monster from which they will never recover?

Should not women be encouraged to view sex, all kinds of sex, as something natural and, just as for men, if they should be in a position to commit unwilling sexual acts that this is unfortunate but not, barring physical damage, an irrevocable caesura in their Dasein?

For the record, I am emphatically not saying that rape, however it will be defined in the future, is OK and not a serious event. It is. Yet what I am saying is that I think our present day culture is a schizophrenic hybrid of outdated Victorian mores and supercharged Pornographic fantasies which send an overwrought and confused signal to young men and women. If men are raped by women we, and they themselves, expect different things/responses from themselves than the reverse situation. Is that right?

If someone put their vagina, unwillingly, on a young man’s face how do we expect them to react? Do we view it as an unmentionable crime? I think not. But if a young man exposes himself in the same way towards an unwilling woman the response is inevitably histrionic. Again why? Are today’s young women not psychically strong enough to take such an event in their stride? Are their psyches so weak and their bodies more sacrosanct then young men? Or are we indeed operating here with a double standard inherited from the Victorians which view women as always the potential innocent victim with the evil, demonic male principal ever lurking to satisfy his disgusting lusts on a pure virginal symbol.

C’mon people grow up already. Women are just as sexually manipulative, conniving, and opportunistic as men are. As often as not, society encourages them to capture and use the age old Victorian narrative to their advantage. And who benefits? Often powerful men, who want to bring down other powerful men. Demonization has always been one of the tricks of the trade of totalitarian societies. In the USA, true to Orwellian form, SEX CRIMES are the clever if not so subtle way to destroy ones opponent. After all, even in the Soviet union enemies of the state were always referred to, among their many negative epithets, as sexual deviants.

We should not stay silent over this insidious culture and institution of thought crime. A first step forward is to be responsible modern people and start viewing young women as equal to men in their sexual appetites, sexual powers, sexual machinations, and sexual conflicts. Both sexes are equal in their abilities to sustain the ups and downs of the sexual circus that is part of the travails and tribulations that is sexual experimentation. Massive institutional intervention is not necessary and probably unwise in the long run. Diffusing sexual events, even unpleasant ones, of any histrionic metaphysical meaning; of making sex more spiritually at home in the female; and making both sexes equal combatants in the arena of passion might, in the end, free us from both the power and the prejudice of the American Totalitarianism of Sex.

The Real Reasons behind Washington’s War on UNRWA

Ramzy Baroud

The US government’s decision to slash funds provided to the United Nations agency that cares for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, is part of a new American-Israeli strategy aimed at redefining the rules of the game altogether.

As a result, UNRWA is experiencing its worst financial crisis. The gap in its budget is estimated at around $217 million, and is rapidly increasing. Aside from future catastrophic events that would result in discontinuing services and urgent humanitarian aid to five million refugees registered with UNRWA, the impact of the US callous decision is already reverberating in many refugee camps across the region. Currently, UNRWA has downgraded many of its services: laying off many teachers, reducing staff and working hours at various clinics.  

Nearly 40 percent of all Palestinian refugees live in Jordan, a country that is already overwhelmed by a million Syrian refugees who sought shelter there because of the grinding and deadly war in their own country.

Aware of Jordan’s vulnerability, American emissaries attempted to barter with the country to heed the US demand of revoking the status of the two million Palestinian refugees. Instead of funding UNRWA, Washington offered to re-channel the funds directly to the Jordanian government. Thus, the US hopes that the Palestinian refugee status would no longer be applicable. Unsurprisingly, Jordan refused the American offer.

News of this failed barter resurfaced last August. It was reported that US President Donald Trump’s special envoy, Jared Kushner, tried to sway the Jordanian government during his visit to Amman in June.

Washington and Israel are seeking to simply remove the ‘Right of Return’ for Palestinian refugees, as enshrined in international law, from the political agenda altogether.

Coupled with Washington’s strategy to “remove Jerusalem from the table,” the American strategy is neither random nor impulsive.

“It is important to have an honest and sincere effort to disrupt UNRWA,” Kushner wrote to the US Middle East envoy, Jason Greenblatt, in an email last January. The email, among others, was later leaked to Foreign Policy magazine. “This (agency) perpetuates a status quo,” he also wrote, referring to UNRWA as “corrupt, inefficient and doesn’t help peace.”

This notion that UNRWA sustains the status quo – meaning the political rights of Palestinians refugees – is the main reason behind the American war on the Organization, a fact that is confirmed through statements made by top Israeli officials, too.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, echoed the American sentiment. UNRWA “has proven itself an impediment to resolving the conflict by keeping the Palestinians in perpetual refugee status,” he said.  

Certainly, the US cutting of funds to UNRWA coincides with the defunding of all programs that provide any kind of aid to the Palestinian people. But the targeting of UNRWA is mostly concerned with the status of Palestinian refugees, a status that has irked Tel Aviv for 70 years.

Why does Israel want to place Palestinian refugees in a status-less category?

The refugee status is already a precarious one. To be a Palestinian refugee means living perpetually in limbo – unable to reclaim what has been lost, and unable to fashion an alternative future and a life of freedom and dignity.

How are Palestinians to reconstruct their identity that has been shattered by decades of exile, when Israel has constantly hinged its own existence as a ‘Jewish state’ on opposing the return and repatriation of Palestinian refugees? Per Israel’s logic, the mere Palestinian demand for the implementation of the internationally-sanctioned Right of Return is equivalent to a call for “genocide”.  According to that same faulty logic, the fact that the Palestinian people live and multiply is a “demographic threat” to Israel.

Much can be said about the circumstances behind the creation of UNRWA by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1949 – its operations, efficiency and the effectiveness of its work. But for most Palestinians, UNRWA is not a relief organization, per se – being registered as a refugee with UNRWA provides Palestinians with a temporary identity, the same identity that allowed four generations of refugees to navigate decades of exile.

UNRWA’s stamp of “refugee” on every certificate that millions of Palestinians possess – birth, death and everything else in between – has served as a compass, pointing back to the places those refugees come from – not the refugee camps scattered in Palestine and across the region, but the 600 towns and villages that were destroyed during the Zionist assault on Palestine.

These villages may have been erased, as a whole new country was established upon their ruins, but the Palestinian refugee remained – subsisted, resisted and plotted her return home. The UNRWA refugee status is the international recognition of this inalienable right.

Therefore, the current US-Israeli war does not target UNRWA as a UN body, but as an organization that allows millions of Palestinians to maintain their identity as refugees with non-negotiable rights until their return to their ancestral homeland. Nearly 70 years after its founding, UNRWA remains essential and irreplaceable.

The founders of Israel envisioned a future where Palestinian refugees would eventually disappear into the larger population of the Middle East. Seventy years on, the Israelis still entertain that same illusion.

Now, with the help of the Trump administration, they are orchestrating yet more sinister campaigns to make Palestinian refugees vanish, wished away through the destruction of UNRWA and the redefining of the refugee status of millions of Palestinians.  

The fate of Palestinian refugees seems to be of no relevance to Trump, Kushner and other US officials. The Americans are now hoping that their strategy will finally bring Palestinians to their knees so that they will ultimately submit to the Israeli government’s dictates.

The latest US-Israeli folly will prove futile. Successive US administrations have done everything in their power to support Israel and to punish the supposedly intransigent Palestinians. The Right of Return, however, remained the driving force behind Palestinian resistance, as the Gaza Great March of Return, ongoing since March, continues to demonstrate.

The truth is that all the money in Washington’s coffers will not reverse what is now a deeply embedded belief in the hearts and minds of millions of refugees throughout Palestine, the Middle East and the world.  

Japanese space agency lands two rovers on surface of asteroid

Bryan Dyne

The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) successfully deployed two small hopping rovers from the Hayabusa2 spacecraft onto the asteroid 162173 Ryugu. Initial images and sensor data transmitted back to Earth from the rovers indicate that their systems are operating as expected. It is the first time that robotic craft will be able to travel across the surface of one of the Solar System’s oldest objects.

Hayabusa2, a combined effort of Japanese, German and Australian scientists, was launched on December 3, 2014, using a H-IIA launch vehicle. It spent the next three and a half years maneuvering to Ryugu, using its ion engines to synchronize its motion with and enter orbit around the near-Earth asteroid. It is a follow-up to the Hayabusa mission, which launched in 2003 and returned with samples from the asteroid 25143 Itokawa in 2010. That mission’s many successes, as well as the failure to land a rover in 2005, have been incorporated into the more recent design and played a significant role in the ongoing success of the current mission.

An image of Ryugu's surface from ROVER-1A. The blurry purplish glint is Hayabusa2. Credit: JAXA

The target of Hayabusa2, the one-kilometer-wide asteroid Ryugu, was chosen because it is a near-Earth asteroid which is expected to have minerals, ice and organic compounds preserved from the origin of the Solar System. Similar to comets, every asteroid contains a part of the history of humanity’s planetary system and every mission to study them has provided new insights into the development of Earth, the other planets in the Solar System and the worlds that have so far been detected elsewhere in the galaxy. Ryugu in particular is thought to contain matter that will provide additional knowledge about the origins of the Solar System’s rocky inner planets—Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars—as well as the origins of the water and organic compounds on Earth.

In order to answer some of these questions, Hayabusa2 has a variety of tools, including the two currently landed rovers and two rovers which it has yet to deploy. Its rovers are equipped with visual cameras that will eventually be used to make a three-dimensional map of the asteroid, thermometers to measure the temperature at the surface, and instruments to study the mineral composition and magnetic field of Ryugu. The spacecraft itself is equipped with optical and infrared cameras and precision-mapping sensors, as well as tools to capture bits of dust and rock of the asteroid.

Artist rendition of ROVER-1A and ROVER-1B as they hop across the surface of Ryugu. Credit: JAXA

These analyses started in June, when the probe arrived and stabilized its orbit at 20,000 meters. A month later, the spacecraft began using the very fine control provided by its ion engines to begin a two month descent to an orbit at a distance of merely 55 meters. From that altitude it successfully deployed ROVER-1A and ROVER-1B using a MINERVA-II landing vehicle. Next week, on October 3, the rover MASCOT will deploy from its parent craft and gather data for sixteen hours before its battery runs out of power. A fourth rover, ROVER-2, will deploy sometime next year to follow up on the analyses made by its siblings.

In between deploying MASCOT and ROVER-2, Hayabusa2 will use its ion engines to almost touch the asteroid, hovering just one meter above its surface. It will then use its specialized asteroid sampling suite to gather material from the asteroid, getting two samples of rock and dust from the surface. The spacecraft is also slated to fire a 2.5 kilogram copper projectile at the asteroid’s surface to expose the underlying rock and collect a sample of that as well.

Artist rendition of Hayabusa2 taking samples of Ryugu which will eventually be returned to Earth. Credit: JAXA

While these samples are being collected, the instruments on board Hayabusa2 and its rovers will be taking as much data as they can to provide information about the asteroid and its environment. Once the data collection of the asteroid is complete, the spacecraft is slated to fly back to Earth and send the samples to the surface for a more detailed analysis than can be done in space. The sample return is currently scheduled for December 2020, after which Hayabusa2 itself will likely have enough propellant to flyby another asteroid, likely 2001 WR1, before it runs out of fuel and drifts through the Solar System indefinitely.

In addition to the original Hayabusa spacecraft, Hayabusa2 has benefited from the lessons learned during the Galileo and NEAR Shoemaker missions, both of which are NASA missions that had previously visited asteroids. In fact, NEAR was the first spacecraft to land an asteroid, 433 Eros, on February 21, 2001. While it wasn’t designed to do so, the attempt was made close to the end of the probe’s lifespan. It impacted at a relatively soft 6.5 kilometers per hour and landed with its antenna and solar panels oriented so they could send back data to Earth and collect power, respectively. This allowed the other instruments, particularly the gamma ray spectrometer, to gather data directly at Eros’ surface. Observations were made at the landing site for 16 days before NEAR was shut down.

The asteroid Ryugu as seen by Hayabusa2 just before the spacecraft released two of its rovers. The shadow of the probe can be seen in the upper right. Credit: JAXA

As noted earlier, Hayabusa2’s main achievement is successfully landing rovers on an asteroid. While it is more difficult to land on a comet, the weak gravity of asteroids provides many problems for moving around. The most notable is that a standard wheeled craft is just as likely to drive itself off into space as it is to stay on the surface. Instead of this, JAXA designed its ROVER craft as cylinders that are able to hop around, while MASCOT can tumble to change its orientation. It is a very non-traditional but so far effective solution.

Of course, it is not impossible to make some sort of wheeled or tracked vehicle to drive around an asteroid. JAXA was constrained both by physical problems and a stringent budget. The entire Hayabusa2 instrument suite is $146 million dollars, a relatively small amount when compared to what NASA and the European Space Agency spend on comparable projects. And even those sums are dwarfed by the colossal amount world governments spend on their militaries—$43 billion for Japan, $227 billion for Europe and $717 billion for the United States. If this money was appropriated toward progressive pursuits—the exploration of space, the promotion of the arts, investing in infrastructure—asteroids across the Solar System could be studied along with a great deal more.

BJP government pushes Air India into financial morass to hasten privatization

Kranti Kumara 

India’s Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government is pushing Air India, the heavily indebted, state-owned airline, toward a financial precipice so as to facilitate its breakup and privatization.

Events suggest the Modi government may even choose to force Air India into bankruptcy, as happened with Swissair following the mid-1990s “deregulation” of Europe’s airline industry. This would open the door to hedge funds and other vulture capitalists hiving off the airline’s considerable assets, including aircrafts, hotels, and other properties, while leaving the Indian people to pay for the airline’s debts through increased taxes and social spending cuts.

Earlier this year, the BJP government tried to sell off a 76 percent ownership stake in Air India and 100 percent of its low-cost carrier, Air India Express, but did not receive a single purchase offer by its May 31 deadline.

India’s principal air carrier is weighed down by a massive combined short and long-term debt, which as of March 31, 2017 stood at 658 billion rupees (Rs) or $10.3 billion. Interest payments on this debt amounted to a massive Rs. 42 billion in 2017 ($650 million) while profits were a measly Rs. 57 million ($890,000).

The Modi government has been deliberately exacerbating the airline’s crisis by withholding the funds Air India desperately requires for its long-term survival. This is because the government is determined to use the crisis to push for a corporate restructuring aimed at slashing costs and squeezing more profit from the workforce, in order to make Air India more attractive to private investors.

The Modi government’s hard line towards the airline, which has the implicit approval of the opposition parties, is meant to send a political signal that the government is determined to push forward with its privatization drive.

The government is utterly indifferent towards the fate of the airline’s workforce, which, whether under bankruptcy or privatization, will face huge job losses and a frontal assault on wages and benefits.

Air India, which in recent months has repeatedly failed to meet its payroll, has seen its pleas for support rejected by the government.

This week, junior Aviation Minister Jayant Sinha claimed discussions within the government on an Air India “bailout” are at an advanced stage. But even if true, the focus of any “rescue plan” will be on reducing the debt on Air India’s balance sheet so as to make it more attractive to investors.

Sinha’s boss, Civil Aviation Minister Suresh Prabhu, recently told the Press Trust of India, “Forget Air India, nobody can handle that debt. For any airline to service that debt is not possible.”

Currently, the airline is staying afloat from the trickle of funds that remain from a Rs. 300 billion cash injection granted by the then-ruling Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government in 2012.

The selling off of public assets at fire sale prices has been a key part of the Indian bourgeoisie’s class strategy since it jettisoned state-led capitalist development in 1991, in favor of India’s full integration into international capitalist markets and transformation into a cheap-labor haven for global capital.

However, the Hindu supremacist BJP has accelerated the privatization drive. This has included targeting some of the so-called navratna public sector companies (those, generally highly profitable, in strategic sectors like oil production and distribution) for “disinvestment” or partial privatization.

This is for ideological reasons, but also because the revenues from disinvestment are an important element in the government’s neoliberal fiscal strategy, which aims to keeps taxes low for big business and the rich while reducing India’s budget deficit at the expense of India’s workers and toilers.

Each year the finance minister announces during his annual budget presentation the amount of funds the government expects to raise from selling off government ownership in Public Sector Enterprises (PSEs). The proceeds are then used to help meet the government’s annual fiscal deficit target.

Air India’s travails are largely a result of successive Indian governments compelling this previously high-quality airline to compete in a cutthroat manner with a plethora of low-cost private air carriers that were licensed to operate especially since the beginning of this millennium. Other important contributing factors are: India’s heavy fuel taxes; the UPA government’s insistence the airline purchase 111 Boeing and Airbus aircraft at a cost of Rs. 700 billion in 2006-7; and its forcing the state-owned carrier to cede many lucrative routes to the new private airlines.

Many of the private carriers that came to proliferate India’s skies after 1991 have since gone bankrupt. These private airlines’ “low-cost model” resulted in working environments characterized by low wages and brutal exploitation and air fleets comprised of decades-old aircrafts. Such precariously run airlines were lauded by the ruling class as a magical outcome of the “free market”.

Their bankruptcies have further inflated the huge portfolio of unpaid corporate debt that is weighing down India’s public-sector banks and threatening to trigger a major financial crisis.

So dire is Air India’s financial condition, it now must borrow funds just to finance its day-to-day operations, including the payment of salaries to its 17,000 employees. It also has been unable to obtain spare parts, grounding many aircrafts.

The current employee count is a steep decline from the 33,000 workers the airline employed when the UPA government created it in 2007 through the amalgamation of the state-owned overseas carrier, Air India, and its domestic counterpart, Indian Airlines Ltd.

Since March, the payment of workers’ wages has been delayed every month by management without any prior notification. Air India paid the flying allowances for the month of June to its pilots only on August 20, and only after they had threatened to stop flying if payment was not made immediately.

In mid-August, the Indian Commercial Pilots Association (ICPA), which represents the airline’s 600 pilots, wrote a pleading letter to management urging it to partner with them to find a solution to the crisis. The letter went on to ask whether Air India’s planes were even safe to fly, since routine maintenance has being heavily impacted by cost cutting.

The BJP government has been emboldened to act in this high-handed fashion by the inaction and indeed criminal passivity of the numerous trade unions that claim to represent Air India employees, and more generally by the unions and Stalinist political parties’ complicity in implementing the Indian bourgeoisie’s neoliberal agenda. The Stalinist Communist Party of India (Marxist) has pursued what it itself describes as “pro-investor” policies in those states where it has held office over the past quarter-century and it has systematically tied the working class to pro-big business governments, most of them Congress-led, at the Center in the name of “blocking the BJP.”

Turkish president visits Berlin as US-European conflict in Middle East rises

Alex Lantier 

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan arrived yesterday for a three-day visit to Berlin, amid explosive conflicts between Washington and the European Union (EU) in the Middle East. During his visit, Erdogan will attend a state banquet with German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier and meet twice with Chancellor Angela Merkel.

It was barely concealed that Erdogan was traveling to Berlin in order to seek an ally against Washington. He is facing an economic crisis and currency collapse unleashed by Trump’s tariffs and trade war measures targeting Turkey; and his government is bitterly opposed to US use of Kurdish nationalist fighters as proxy forces in the bloody NATO proxy war in Syria. It is also clear, moreover, that Washington is moving against his government at the same time as tensions surge between US and European imperialism.

Germany recently joined France and Britain in seeking to devise a common mechanism with China and Russia to evade US sanctions against Iran. Top EU officials have called for a push to use the euro as an alternative to the US dollar. Powerful forces in the European bourgeoisie are manifestly considering direct challenges to what American imperialist strategists see as core US national security interests.

“The dramatic developments in the world make it indispensable for both Germany and Turkey to open a new page in bilateral relations, to leave aside their differences and focus on their common interests,” Erdogan wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung the day before arriving in Berlin. “With respect to our disagreements, we should keep all dialogue channels open, continue our exchanges, and by showing maximum empathy, we should try to understand our mutual sensitivities,” he added.

Erdogan also denounced the Kurdish-nationalist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the “Fetullah Terrorist Organization,” (FETÖ) the name he has given to Turkish supporters of the coup launched against him with US and German support in July 2016. “The PKK and FETÖ members and their organizations are using various instruments, including manipulations and fake news, to sabotage our bilateral relations,” he wrote. The Erdogan government is particularly enraged by US reliance on Kurdish nationalist forces in its proxy war in Syria.

Late last month, as the Turkish economy staggered and the lira plunged in currency markets, Berlin made clear that it would try to counteract Trump’s tariffs aimed at Turkey and prevent an economic collapse that could bring down the European economy, as well.

“The federal government is closely following developments in Turkey. A stable, prosperous and democratic Turkey is in our interest,” German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer said. She added: “As you know preparations are continuing. Ahead of President Erdogan’s visit, the finance minister will meet with his counterpart here.”

While German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said yesterday that no plans for direct economic aid to Turkey would be settled at the Erdogan summit, talks between Berlin and Ankara have proceeded rapidly over the last month. On September 5, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas traveled to Turkey. After high-level economic talks with Turkish officials on September 21, German officials stressed that they valued Turkish aid to pursue the EU’s draconian anti-refugee policy, by detaining Syrian refugees in Turkey to keep them from seeking asylum in Europe.

Erdogan’s release of German-Turkish journalist Deniz Yucel, whom he had detained on terrorism charges arising from the July 2016 coup, also laid the basis for a warming in relations between Berlin and Ankara.

Plans have been mooted for Berlin to offer export subsidies to German firms exporting to Turkey, that is, for Berlin to pay German firms to ship their products to Turkey even if the Turkish banks cannot pay for them—limiting the disruption to German industry from any financial crash.

“We have very close economic cooperation. More than 7,500 German companies are active in Turkey,” said German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier, who called for a “new era” in relations between Germany and Turkey. He added: “We are sharing common geostrategic interests. … We would like to stabilize the region, which is very often characterized by civil wars and refugees.”

This draws a sharp contrast with the collapse in relations between Turkey and the United States. As he imposed trade tariffs on Turkey that sent the lira on a downward plunge, during which it lost 40 percent of its value, Donald Trump tweeted: “I have just authorized a doubling of Tariffs on Steel and Aluminum with respect to Turkey as their currency, the Turkish Lira, slides rapidly downward against our very strong Dollar! Aluminum will be 20 percent and Steel 50 percent. Our relations with Turkey are not good at this time!”

Fundamental political relations underpinning world capitalism after World War II—including free trade and the NATO alliance between America, Europe and Turkey—are rapidly collapsing. On many military and financial conflicts, as US imperialism escalates war in an attempt to use its military muscle to strengthen its fading global hegemony, Washington and the EU now find themselves on opposing sides.

As Berlin remilitarizes its foreign policy and seeks to emerge as the dominant force in a militarist EU, factions in both Berlin and Ankara are considering reviving longstanding strategic ties between the two countries, stretching back to Germany’s Baghdad Railroad plans prior to World War I.

This plan played a major role in stoking inter-imperialist tensions in Europe before the outbreak of the war in 1914. Today, US war plans are again bringing tensions to the breaking point. As Washington tears up the Iranian nuclear treaty and re-imposes financial sanctions on Iran, to cut it off from the world economy and prepare for war, it faces opposition from the major EU powers in alliance with the principal targets of US foreign policy, China and Russia.

While European firms have largely abandoned Iranian markets, the EU is proposing mechanisms to evade US sanctions targeting Iran. On September 24, they met with Chinese, Russian and Iranian officials to agree to a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) funding scheme. The proposal consists of financing continuing purchases of Iranian oil independently of the US dollar-denominated financial system, paving the way for a broader challenge by the euro to the dollar.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo denounced the SPV plans the next day, stressing that they are unacceptable to Washington. He said he “was disturbed and, indeed, deeply disappointed to hear the remaining parties in the deal announce they’re setting up a special payment system to bypass US sanctions.” He added: “This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable.”

On September 12, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker had already called for building up the euro as a global reserve currency challenging the US dollar. He called it an “aberration” that the EU pays for its energy imports in dollars though only 2 percent of these imports come from the United States. “We will have to change that. The euro must become the active instrument of a new sovereign Europe,” he said.

The vast implications of such proposals, as war spreads across the Middle East from Afghanistan to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya, underlies the rapid shift towards the right in official politics, and the constant incitement of nationalism and chauvinism in official European politics. It entails an explosive growth of European militarism, the intensified exploitation of the working class in Europe and internationally, and the preparation of devastating, great-power wars.

The election of a neo-fascist government in Italy, the coming out of broad sections of Germany’s Grand Coalition government in favor of neo-Nazi demonstrations in Chemnitz and Dortmund, and the imposition of a permanent state of emergency in France come as countries across Europe pledge to divert hundreds of billions of euros from social spending into military spending.

German government agrees to arms deliveries to Saudi Arabia, fuelling war in Yemen

Sven Heymann

The German Federal Security Council (BSR) recently agreed to allow extensive arms shipments to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. This is confirmed in a letter from Economics Minister Peter Altmaier (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) to the parliamentary Economic Affairs Committee.

The BSR is a subcommittee of the federal cabinet, which includes Chancellor Angela Merkel and eight other ministers. Its meetings are secret so that usually nothing penetrates into the public domain. The decision taken at its recent session means that Germany is directly fuelling the brutal war in Yemen, led by a coalition under Saudi Arabia.

According to media reports, the BSR agreed to deliver to Saudi Arabia four reconnaissance radar systems for artillery pieces. These tracking systems are vehicle-mounted and designed to determine the exact source of enemy fire. As a result, they enable precise counter strikes, as Deutsche Welle explained in a report.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE), one of the key states in the war against Yemen, will also be able to receive German weapons in future. Specifically, the BSR has given the green light to deliver 48 warheads and 91 guided missiles for ship-based anti-aircraft systems.

Other recipients of German-made weapons include similar reactionary regimes such as Jordan and Qatar. Qatar is looking forward to the provision of 170 German warheads and engines for “Meteor” air-to-air missiles. With the government’s permission, the Rhineland Dynamite Nobel company will now deliver 385 portable anti-tank weapons to Jordan.

The BSR also approved a shipment to the military regime of General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi in Egypt. Seven air defence systems from Diehl Defence can now be delivered. They are reportedly equipped with the “IRIS-T SLM” missile, one of the most modern short-range missiles worldwide, equipped with an infrared sensing system. Fighter jets with these missiles can independently shoot down flying objects to the side (instead of just from behind), which significantly reduces the blind spot for the pilot.

The extensive permits for the delivery of advanced weaponry to the reactionary regimes in the Middle East means the German government is continuing its policy of exporting arms to the Saudi-led coalition, thereby making itself an accomplice in one of the biggest war crimes of recent years.

World Food Program (WFP) Director David Beasley recently said that Yemen faces a “full-scale famine” if the war on the Arabian Peninsula is not halted immediately. Even now, of the 18 million inhabitants of Yemen, two-thirds do not know where their next meal is coming from. This famine is caused by the blockade and battles for the port city of Hodeida, which is the country’s only landing point for relief supplies. At least 10,000 people have already died in the civil war, which has been ongoing since 2014, according to UN figures.

The German defence industry has benefited from this war policy for years. The decision of the BSR makes clear that the Social Democratic Party’s (SPD) insistence that the agreement forming its Grand Coalition with the CDU/CSU precludes sending weapons to states participating in the Yemen war is not worth the paper it was written on. It has merely served to lend a thin humanitarian cover to the massive militarization of German foreign policy.

Already in the last legislature, the Grand Coalition allowed the export of weapons and war equipment worth about €1.3 billion to Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Yemen war.

For the Grand Coalition, providing weapons to fuel the war in Yemen is more than a matter of securing and expanding the profits of German defence companies. More than 70 years after the end of the Second World War, the continuing arms shipments to the Middle East and the Arabian Peninsula are part of the strategic plans of the German ruling class, which wants to pursue its geopolitical goals by military means. Weapons shipments are the first step in initiating and justifying future involvement in military combat operations, including major wars.

Nothing could better illustrate this connection than Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen’s visit to Iraq last weekend. Von der Leyen met there with members of the German military contingent Counter Daesh/Capacity Building Iraq. Since March, the hitherto separate German contingents in Iraq and Jordan have worked together under this name. In Erbil in northern Iraq, von der Leyen then visited a site of the Kurdish Peshmerga and the multinational Camp Stephan. In the north of the country, 100 German soldiers are currently stationed as part of a training mission for the Peshmerga.

In Iraq, too, Germany’s military involvement initially began with arms deliveries, before the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015 served as a pretext for intervention by the Luftwaffe (Air Force). As the WSWS wrote on the occasion of the new military mandate in March, the merger of the missions in Iraq and Jordan serves to “train the Iraqi army as a proxy army and lackey for imperialist interests.”

With the deployment of German soldiers, Berlin is pursuing yet another goal: “The mission also ‘contributes to creating the basis for the return of internally displaced persons and refugees,’ write the CDU/CSU and SPD in the draft mandate.” While the Grand Coalition is massively expanding its area of interest in the Middle East, it is simultaneously preparing to expel thousands of refugees into exactly those countries to which it is still providing more munitions.

German Chancellor Merkel loses closest ally

Ulrich Rippert

Two days after Germany’s grand coalition gave its backing to former secret service president Hans-Georg Maassen, after he defended neo-Nazi rioters, Chancellor Angela Merkel has lost one of her closest political allies. The Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union parliamentary group surprisingly voted long-standing parliamentary leader Volker Kauder out of office on Tuesday.

Kauder, who has led the CDU/CSU parliamentary group for 13 years, played a key role in maintaining support for Merkel’s line among the deputies. Both Merkel and CSU leader Horst Seehofer intervened prior to the vote to declare their strong support for Kauder. Kauder was a guarantor for the stability and continuity of successful parliamentary and government business, stated the Chancellor and CDU leader.

Kauder lost the election nonetheless. In the secret ballot, the relatively unknown Ralph Brinkhaus secured 125 votes, while Kauder got just 112. Media commentators wrote of “a vote of no confidence in the Chancellor,” “the Chancellor’s twilight,” and the approaching end of the government.

Merkel referred to it as a normal democratic process which had led to a disappointing election defeat. At the same time, she announced she would cooperate closely with the new parliamentary group leader. The newly-elected Brinkhaus rejected all talk of a planned putsch and also vowed to work closely with the Chancellor.

But the attempts to convince otherwise cannot conceal the fact that the defeat of Merkel’s ally amounts to a political watershed. Kauder, who is a member of the religious and socially conservative wing of the CDU/CSU, was not for nothing described as Merkel’s right-hand man. The CDU leader helped him become general secretary in 2004, and parliamentary group leader in 2005. He enforced Merkel’s policies in the parliamentary group and also defended her over recent years against criticism of her refugee policy.

Brinkhaus is a member of the business wing of the CDU/CSU and has thus far operated in the background as one of the deputy leaders of the parliamentary group. Like the original founders of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), he opposes making financial concessions to the euro. He came briefly to prominence earlier in the summer when he emerged as spokesman for a skeptical wait-and-see approach toward French President Emmanuel Macron’s plans for Europe.

The fact that Brinkhaus even challenged the candidate backed by the party leaders is itself unusual in the history of the CDU/CSU. A rebellion of parliamentary deputies against a Chancellor from their own party, like Tuesday’s vote, has never before taken place. The main reason for this is the terrible numbers for the CDU/CSU in the polls. The CDU/CSU has recorded unprecedentedly low levels of support, both in polls at the federal level and for the upcoming state elections in Bavaria and Hesse in October. The same applies to their coalition partner, the Social Democrats (SPD).

The collapse in the polls is an expression of the mounting opposition to the grand coalition’s right-wing agenda. Their policies of strengthening the repressive state apparatus at home and the military abroad, of inhumane attacks on refugees, and of anti-working class social policies are meeting with widespread opposition among broad sections of the population. Their decision to stand by ex-secret service chief Maassen, who defended the far-right rampage in Chemnitz, unleashed a wave of outrage. Ever since, thousands have repeatedly demonstrated in several cities against right-wing extremism.

However, the revolt by the CDU/CSU deputies is by no means an adaptation to the mounting opposition in the population. On the contrary, they have accused Merkel of not pushing ahead energetically enough with the government’s reactionary programme and of repeatedly pulling back.

Leading big business associations, military personnel, and members of the security apparatus have increased their pressure on the government. They were involved earlier this year in working out the grand coalition’s programme. Ever since, they have repeatedly stated that the agreements and goals contained in the grand coalition deal have not been enforced rigorously enough.

Just a few days ago, Dieter Kempf, head of the German Association of Industry, complained that the grand coalition was occupied far too much with itself instead of pressing ahead with the measures agreed upon to liberalise the economy. Behind the scenes, leading personnel in the German army are demanding that the rearmament programme be implemented more rapidly than was previously agreed.

The statement by Kauder’s successor, Brinkhaus, that no daylight exists between him and Merkel must be understood in this context. Brinkhaus is firmly behind the grand coalition’s reactionary programme, but wants more independence for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group so it can pressure the government to enforce it even more ruthlessly.

It has already become clear over recent weeks that the grand coalition relies on far-right elements within the state apparatus and the AfD to enforce its social and political attacks. Their decision to stick with the discredited Maassen, in spite of his close ties to the AfD, amounted to a signal to AfD supporters in the state apparatus that they enjoy the backing of the government.

The change in the CDU/CSU parliamentary group leadership strengthens this signal. Under conditions of deepening popular opposition, the coalition is drawing ever closer together, with the most right-wing elements setting the agenda. The SPD explicitly declared its trust in Merkel on Wednesday and sharply rejected the comments from those in its own ranks that Merkel had been weakened. SPD leader Nahles said that the task now is to continue trusted collaboration within the government and focus on issues of political substance.

Similar comments were made by Left Party parliamentary group leader Dietmar Bartsch. He complained that the government’s permanent crisis was not good for the country or Europe, praised the coalition’s programme, which contained nice headings, but was not being enforced decisively enough, and warned that the government crisis was causing a deepening feeling of insecurity among the population.

At the same time, the groundwork is being laid with the change in personnel in the CDU/CSU’s parliamentary leadership for future coalitions with the AfD, which the CDU/CSU, at least officially, has thus far ruled out. Even now, the AfD has a strong influence over government policy, particularly on the issue of refugees.

Just a day after the change in leadership personnel in the federal parliamentary group, Christian Hartmann, the new CDU parliamentary leader in Saxony’s state parliament announced that he would not say no to a potential coalition with the AfD. Hartmann, a police officer for many years, was elected as the new leader against the wishes of CDU Minister President Michael Kretschmar on the same day as Brinkhaus.

This question could be acutely posed following the two state elections in October. In Bavaria, the CSU is certain to lose its majority and the majority of the CDU/Green coalition in Hesse is expected to disappear. It cannot be excluded that the CSU and Hesse CDU integrate the right-wing extremist AfD into government after the elections. AfD leader Alexander Gaulland comes from Hesse, where he played a role for 40 years in the right-wing CDU originally led by Alfred Dregger, before switching to the AfD.

The integration of a far-right party into government would mark a sharp escalation of the rightward shift, and amount to a declaration of war against refugees, the left and the working class. However, this would be fully in keeping with the agenda of the grand coalition, which is already implementing the AfD’s programme in practice.

Airline workers launch largest strike in Ryanair’s history

Gustav Kemper

Cabin crew at Ryanair are on strike today in five European countries. The work stoppage began at 3 a.m. in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal. After pilots in Belgium and the Netherlands committed to join the strike, the Cockpit union announced on Thursday that permanently employed pilots in Germany would also participate. This means the strike will be larger than any previous job action at the airline.

The German trade unions for cabin crew, Verdi and UFO, delayed their decision for as long as possible before confirming their participation in the strike. Both unions held separate talks with Ryanair this week. Verdi lead negotiator Mira Neumaier stated recently that the union wanted to consult members on the outcome of Tuesday's talks before calling a strike. However, under pressure from the workforce, Verdi called on its members late Thursday to take part in the strike.

"There is still no satisfactory offer after four rounds of talks," declared a press release. The result of the talks was summarised as follows, "Not enough money for workers, a long contractual period of four years, the unequal treatment of Ryanair employees and temporary workers, as well as Ryanair's rejection of workers' representation."

Ryanair's most recent offer contained just three pay increases of between €40 and €60 over four years, which would barely keep pace with inflation.

The "totally insecure working relations," including temporary work, trial periods, fixed-term contracts, Irish labour law, were no longer acceptable, said the union.

UFO held its own talks with Ryanair on Thursday afternoon and stated that only after their failure could they legally call a strike.

The undignified working conditions and extreme levels of exploitation at Ryanair, which helped the airline become Europe's largest budget airline, are infamous. The airline's business model is based on its poorly paid and highly-exploited workforce. Whoever is hired by Ryanair faces the prospect of contract work, de facto self-employment, and precarious working relations.

During the last strike on September 12, a group of striking workers told the WSWS about their terrible working conditions, which had driven them to take strike action: "We work in two shifts, early and late. The early shift begins at 5:20 a.m. The late shift begins at 11 a.m. and can last until midnight," they explained. However, they are only paid for part of this 12-hour period, i.e. for flying time. "Flying time begins when the plane leaves the gate. That means all of the flight preparations and clearing up is unpaid." This means that of the 12 hours, only six or eight are compensated.

The monthly gross income for flight attendants at Ryanair is between €800 and €1,200, well below the pay at other budget airlines. The majority of cabin crew is employed by Ryanair's labour contractors, Crewlink and Workforce, and have fixed-term contracts. These labour contractors have written a ban on giving press interviews into workers' contracts to prevent the terrible working conditions from becoming public knowledge. This is also designed to block a common struggle by the workforce against the company. However, working conditions are so bad that strikers are more than willing to report them.

Asked what changes they would like to see in working conditions apart from pay, the group of Ryanair strikers answered spontaneously, "Sick pay is not in Ryanair's vocabulary. If we're sick, we receive no pay. The number of annual paid holidays is also very low, between 15 and 20 days, and one of these can be withdrawn over Christmas."

The workers have been subject to massive intimidation by Ryanair. The company has threatened to shift striking employees to other European countries and shut down all German locations. Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary declared that the company would make no concessions on wages. At the company's general meeting last week, he announced that he is ready to extend his contract, which runs out in the autumn of 2019.

The airline is attempting to keep workers divided by only conducting talks with one union at a time. The European trade unions have accepted separate talks. A meeting had already taken place in Rome in early September, Neumaier told the WSWS, but there is another timetable. She was unable to explain what this meant.

The workers are not only fighting the company, but also the trade unions. These organisations do not represent the interests of employees but are trying to negotiate deals with Ryanair at the national level while competing among themselves for the greatest influence at the airline. In Italy, the Anpac trade union signed a contract with Ryanair on August 28 for the 300 pilots it represents. More than 500 pilots are employed by Ryanair in Italy. This first collective agreement at Ryanair in Europe, which was signed by airline workers, also applies to cabin crew, according to Anpac. The contract does not come close to addressing the demands and needs of airline workers. In many ways, it is worse than the status quo, since it bans strikes and does not allow for the free election of union representatives. The parties committed not to participate in strike action. Pilots and cabin crew are also reporting that they must still pay for their own uniforms and no longer get free food and drink on board.

Concrete figures on Ryanair's concessions on wages and social benefits were not published, but many workers have reported they were inadequate. Two other Italian unions (Filt Cgil and Uiltrasporti) described the contract as totally unacceptable and plan to continue strikes.

The contract requires Ryanair to participate in a health insurance scheme and offer sick pay of €76 per day. It permits a maximum of 10 months of parental leave per couple, although this applies only to permanently employed workers. There is nothing in the contract to prevent employment by Ryanair's job agencies CrewLink and Workforce. This means that Ryanair can simply avoid the additional costs contained in the contract by hiring more pilots and cabin crew through these firms.

The strikes at Ryanair have now lasted over several months. But the one-day strikes have yet to produce any result and threaten to wear down the workers' militancy. The unions' tactics confirm what the WSWS wrote on 9 August, "The only way to combat this global offensive of the employers is through a global counter-offensive by the workers. Ryanair pilots, cabin crew, and ground crew must free themselves from the grip of the unions and take the conduct of the struggle into their own hands. They must organise rank-and-file committees independently of the unions to unite the struggle of all Ryanair workers across national borders and at the same time call for support from airline, transportation, and delivery workers around the world."