Ryanair authority problems
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks as if RY can expect a lot of ramp checks from now on, which might make the 20 min t/rounds a challenge!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Brussels
Age: 52
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this story is true, it also raises questions for Ryanair's competitors. Through the ATC cost recovery system, they will have paid too much charges. How will they be compensated and reimbursed?
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
doudou_epl has the answer. My old company had variable MTOM. We had to declare to Ops which one we were using, and that was passed on to the authorities for charging purposes. No point paying more than required.
When I was paying them it did.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Al M
The MTOW is recorded on the loadsheet for every flight. I don't see how this could be "forgotten" or changed. Sounds like a non-story to me.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryn operates with variable MTOW: 66,990; 69,990 and 74,990: you just need to declare which one you use prior to operate the flight.
As stated previously, ATOW has nothing at all to do with en-route charges.
Last edited by Dg800; 19th Dec 2012 at 11:11.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airplane panic attack - YouTube
So, Ryanair (the "hysterical woman" here ) . . . . 1st in the Q was France, followed by Italy, with Spain hot on their heels. Germany got their towel down a little late . . . . . and a few more lining up.
You can't say "**** You" to the whole world for 10 years without it coming back to bite you one day.
I would say their "Head of Communications" has timed his resignation pretty well.
Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary said:
“I would like to thank Stephen for the fantastic job he’s done for Ryanair over the last 4 years. As a company that spends little on advertising, we rely on our Communications Department to generate loads of free PR, as well as responding to the never ending series of absurd claims and fanciful stories that surface on a daily basis. Working in the calm waters of Irish rugby should prove a piece of cake after 4 years in Ryanair. We wish Stephen every success as he joins the IRFU, and hope that they will be as successful over the next 4 years, as Stephen and Ryanair has been over the last 4.
“In the meantime we look forward to recruiting another brave soul to take on the “worst job in Irish PR” and look forward to grooming the next candidate to take over the high profile and incredibly overpaid position as Ryanair’s Head of Communications.”
Ryanair’s Stephen McNamara said:
“I am sorry to be leaving Ryanair after 4 incredible years but I am looking forward to joining a great team at the IRFU. This is one of the fastest moving companies in Ireland, and I have enjoyed promoting Ryanair and dealing with the media across 22 different EU countries, as well as putting out fires, usually late on a Friday afternoon, when some crazy claim appears about Ryanair’s continuing 28 year success, our incredible safety record and our unbending commitment to offering the lowest fares to consumers in every market in which we operate.”
Oh BTW, NAS (and no doubt many many others,) also use this Variable MTOW sytem, via the EFB, the main difference from RYR being that we are entrusted to operate a Screwdriver
So, Ryanair (the "hysterical woman" here ) . . . . 1st in the Q was France, followed by Italy, with Spain hot on their heels. Germany got their towel down a little late . . . . . and a few more lining up.
You can't say "**** You" to the whole world for 10 years without it coming back to bite you one day.
I would say their "Head of Communications" has timed his resignation pretty well.
Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary said:
“I would like to thank Stephen for the fantastic job he’s done for Ryanair over the last 4 years. As a company that spends little on advertising, we rely on our Communications Department to generate loads of free PR, as well as responding to the never ending series of absurd claims and fanciful stories that surface on a daily basis. Working in the calm waters of Irish rugby should prove a piece of cake after 4 years in Ryanair. We wish Stephen every success as he joins the IRFU, and hope that they will be as successful over the next 4 years, as Stephen and Ryanair has been over the last 4.
“In the meantime we look forward to recruiting another brave soul to take on the “worst job in Irish PR” and look forward to grooming the next candidate to take over the high profile and incredibly overpaid position as Ryanair’s Head of Communications.”
Ryanair’s Stephen McNamara said:
“I am sorry to be leaving Ryanair after 4 incredible years but I am looking forward to joining a great team at the IRFU. This is one of the fastest moving companies in Ireland, and I have enjoyed promoting Ryanair and dealing with the media across 22 different EU countries, as well as putting out fires, usually late on a Friday afternoon, when some crazy claim appears about Ryanair’s continuing 28 year success, our incredible safety record and our unbending commitment to offering the lowest fares to consumers in every market in which we operate.”
Oh BTW, NAS (and no doubt many many others,) also use this Variable MTOW sytem, via the EFB, the main difference from RYR being that we are entrusted to operate a Screwdriver
Last edited by captplaystation; 19th Dec 2012 at 11:18.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i get the feeling there is some confusion here about what these "weights" are and why they can be changed.
As I understand it - and correct me if I am wrong, it works like this...
Mr Boing states a structural MTOW. That can never be exceeded and I'll eat my hat if RYR does that.
RYR pay en-route charges to Eurocontrol based on a declared MTOW which is not a structural limit but a bureaucratic one which may be some lesser figure that they declare to Eurocontrol and is included on the repetitive flight plan (?) Matters not, it is declared for each airframe. (Think of it as a Flex MTOW) This is to bring that aircraft into a lower weight category to reduce en route charges as described above on shorter sectors where most of the fleet operates well below structural MTOW. The loadsheet will reflect this and state the reduced MTOW. As far as the crew are concerned that weight is the MTOW, it means little to them whether it is the structural or the reduced one. As far as the crew are concerned this goes no further than saying, "Ah. I see we have a heavyweight today" or - sometimes - "Uh oh. They've given is a lightweight for Alicante..."
In the event that the lightweight is allocated for a flight that needs more capacity usually a phone call to ops gets a new PLOG at the structural limit and the crew is happy. NO limits are exceeded, but the company must declare the change in weight to Eurocontrol so the correct en-route charges are levied.
It is easy to see how an unscrupulous operator might "omit" to declare that he is operating actually high weight aircraft when he has declared them all lightweights...I gather this is what is being suggested. If so it is a bureaucratic fiddle - nothing remotely safety related beyond indicating a worrying attitude to rules.
And I think we all know what the IAA are likely to do about that. I suspect (ha!) the DFS are rather more punctilious and Eurocontrol will probably not let them get away with it either. Time will tell.
As I understand it - and correct me if I am wrong, it works like this...
Mr Boing states a structural MTOW. That can never be exceeded and I'll eat my hat if RYR does that.
RYR pay en-route charges to Eurocontrol based on a declared MTOW which is not a structural limit but a bureaucratic one which may be some lesser figure that they declare to Eurocontrol and is included on the repetitive flight plan (?) Matters not, it is declared for each airframe. (Think of it as a Flex MTOW) This is to bring that aircraft into a lower weight category to reduce en route charges as described above on shorter sectors where most of the fleet operates well below structural MTOW. The loadsheet will reflect this and state the reduced MTOW. As far as the crew are concerned that weight is the MTOW, it means little to them whether it is the structural or the reduced one. As far as the crew are concerned this goes no further than saying, "Ah. I see we have a heavyweight today" or - sometimes - "Uh oh. They've given is a lightweight for Alicante..."
In the event that the lightweight is allocated for a flight that needs more capacity usually a phone call to ops gets a new PLOG at the structural limit and the crew is happy. NO limits are exceeded, but the company must declare the change in weight to Eurocontrol so the correct en-route charges are levied.
It is easy to see how an unscrupulous operator might "omit" to declare that he is operating actually high weight aircraft when he has declared them all lightweights...I gather this is what is being suggested. If so it is a bureaucratic fiddle - nothing remotely safety related beyond indicating a worrying attitude to rules.
And I think we all know what the IAA are likely to do about that. I suspect (ha!) the DFS are rather more punctilious and Eurocontrol will probably not let them get away with it either. Time will tell.
BMA 707's did the same
i seem to recall when i was at BMA long ago our 707-320C's had a legally reduced MTOW on-paper to save on landing charges...
down from 151000kgs to something much less as we operated them on
short haul Med holiday flights
the ryanair thing sounds the same?
was ok back then afaik
down from 151000kgs to something much less as we operated them on
short haul Med holiday flights
the ryanair thing sounds the same?
was ok back then afaik
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flex weights are nothing new and used by quite a few carriers for many years. We have around 5 to 7 different MTOWs that we can change as we like on the go. We get a few more passengers? Just change the MTOW on the loadsheet and off we go. That is indeed legal and approved by both the LBA (our governing agency), the DFS and eurocontrol. However from what i hear via the grapevine Eurocontrol will try to get rid of that system and rather use one fixed MTOW as that generates quite a bit more cash for them.
Nowadays the MTOW is changed by centralized load control (a third party contractor) most of the times, not us pilots anymore.
Nowadays the MTOW is changed by centralized load control (a third party contractor) most of the times, not us pilots anymore.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FR will not have exceeded the aircrafts MCTOM period.
What they may have done is declared one flex MTOM and operated at a higher weight, its not a safety issue as such, but if this is any more than an omission by the flight crew on a particular flight and is as widespread as the report suggests then repercussions may well be serious.
For those who don't quite understand this system let suppose an aircraft is doing a 4 sector day sector 1&2 DUB-STN-DUB mainly hand luggage TOM say 61000kgs sector 3 & 4 DUB-AGP-DUB full flight and lot of hold luggage TOM say 74000kgs so on the first two you pay Euro fee's based on 65T and on 3 & 4 you pay fee's based on 75T
What is alleged here is that Ryanair have deliberately declared a lower TOM when the actual was higher for no reason other than to lower their costs, where that to be proved (it wont be difficult to prove/disprove) then legal action will almost certainly follow, if this was proved to be deliberate and systematic across Europe heads will roll and the directors may face legal action themselves, suspension of their AOC could follow.
All airlines will likely face more SAFA checks now so make sure you have your doc's in order and your spare glasses!!
Airlines with EFB's normally require the commander to sign (electronically) that they have declared the correct TOM and with some airline change the ATOM plate in the flight deck for each flight at a different TOM i.e. 65T or 75T
Its hard work being an Ultra Low cost airline, but the list of questionable if legal practices continues to grow for FR what goes around comes around
What they may have done is declared one flex MTOM and operated at a higher weight, its not a safety issue as such, but if this is any more than an omission by the flight crew on a particular flight and is as widespread as the report suggests then repercussions may well be serious.
For those who don't quite understand this system let suppose an aircraft is doing a 4 sector day sector 1&2 DUB-STN-DUB mainly hand luggage TOM say 61000kgs sector 3 & 4 DUB-AGP-DUB full flight and lot of hold luggage TOM say 74000kgs so on the first two you pay Euro fee's based on 65T and on 3 & 4 you pay fee's based on 75T
What is alleged here is that Ryanair have deliberately declared a lower TOM when the actual was higher for no reason other than to lower their costs, where that to be proved (it wont be difficult to prove/disprove) then legal action will almost certainly follow, if this was proved to be deliberate and systematic across Europe heads will roll and the directors may face legal action themselves, suspension of their AOC could follow.
All airlines will likely face more SAFA checks now so make sure you have your doc's in order and your spare glasses!!
Airlines with EFB's normally require the commander to sign (electronically) that they have declared the correct TOM and with some airline change the ATOM plate in the flight deck for each flight at a different TOM i.e. 65T or 75T
Its hard work being an Ultra Low cost airline, but the list of questionable if legal practices continues to grow for FR what goes around comes around
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to meet the Ryanair Captain who departs over the Placard weight deliberately to do a favour for O'Leary. In the 5 years i've been here i've only ever heard of it happening once and that resulted in a severe reprimand from the Captain concerned and a memo issue from Uncle Ray. Even then it only ever happened because the aircraft had been swapped to a non staffed engineering outstation and was set at 66.9 when it should have been 74.9.
RE: Comments on SAFA checks - they are not allowed to delay the scheduled operation. If they are scratching around in the wheelwell and I have a slot to keep they will be given their marching orders!
RE: Comments on SAFA checks - they are not allowed to delay the scheduled operation. If they are scratching around in the wheelwell and I have a slot to keep they will be given their marching orders!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In t'sky
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AHA! I understand now!
Perhaps the problem stems from around 2 years ago, when rather than recording the MTOW we selected on the voyage report, we were instructed to write the ACTUAL MTOW. That way, if we decided to fly 69.9 for a sector, and ended up after LMC being 66.8 it would look like we went 66.9 instead!
Perhaps the problem stems from around 2 years ago, when rather than recording the MTOW we selected on the voyage report, we were instructed to write the ACTUAL MTOW. That way, if we decided to fly 69.9 for a sector, and ended up after LMC being 66.8 it would look like we went 66.9 instead!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 500' above Ireland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MrHorgy you got it spot on!
Since the change two years ago we sometimes fly at one MTOW but pay at the MTOW(lower) for the actual TOW. This was the original way of getting around the problem that pilots didn't do weight changes down route.
Organised avoidance of charges and probably fraud, but I'm not a lawyer.
Since the change two years ago we sometimes fly at one MTOW but pay at the MTOW(lower) for the actual TOW. This was the original way of getting around the problem that pilots didn't do weight changes down route.
Organised avoidance of charges and probably fraud, but I'm not a lawyer.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Age: 38
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to Eurocontrol (Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on route charges | EUROCONTROL):
"The MTOW declared should be the maximum certificated take-off weight of the aircraft. In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration."
Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?
"The MTOW declared should be the maximum certificated take-off weight of the aircraft. In the case of multiple certificated take-off weights, the MTOW to be declared must be the highest weight authorised by the State of registration."
Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
highest weight authorised by the State of registration."
Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?
Then what is the point of using flexible MTOM?