Dutch TV reports on 'Ryanair pilots denominated alarm over safety'

[BOAC]

KV - I had wrongly assumed the contracts were placed by one of the aircrew contract companies eg Brookfield, not an 'Irish company'. A strange system. The contract pilots I have worked with were employed differently.

[Herod]

I flew with Ian Sumner many times in a previous airline. He should be taken seriously. However, I have had no contact with him for a while, so don't know his position vis-a-vis Ryanair.

[Puck2]

RyanAir

Okay I just like to know, who sign out the aircraft? The captain, I think...or does the company sign out? Or are the catains getting fired....for this or other reasons.

[1stspotter]

Dutch TV programma KRO Brandpunt smells blood and keeps on broadcasting new items about the safety of Ryanair.

Tonight a new item on Ryanair (the third). They had an interview with Benno Baksteen. He was a Boeing 747 captain at KLM and chairman of the VNV (union of dutch pilots). He now is a consultant/ chairman for an organization advising on safety. Benno Baksteen has been invited in the past as expert in many news programmes discussing safety and accidents on aviation.

Beside the interview no new facts. Just a repeat of parts of the previous two programmes. Also again the same mistake. The programme mentions 17 aircraft diverted from Madrid at 26 July. Only three called mayday, all FR aircraft. Baksteen btw mentioned the Lan Chile mayday.

He was quite shocked about what he learned from the two episodes (in which anonymous Ryanair pilots told their story).

A few quotes of Mr. Baksteen:
-the practise of Ryanair flying with minimal fuel will eventually be fatal
-a crash will happen eventually.
-if the Lan Chile A340 would block the single runway at VLC things could have become very nasty for the two FR aircraft still on their way to their alternate VLC.
-Ryanair too much put the emphasis on reducing costs which is a threat for flightsafety
-a mayday call because of low fuel is very rare. It did not happen once in his career as a pilot
-the 30 minutes reserve fuel is for emergencies only. It should never happen that this reserve is used.
-the fuel league is no good. Calling pilots to the Ryanair HQ is intimidation. It has an affect on descisions of the captain in future situation on fuel planning
-Baksteen would rather (if he had a choice) fly HV, KL or EZ than FR

[bargrall]

Ryanair apologies and damages payouts begin

Sandilands at Plane Talking reports:

In the UK The Sunday Times has published an apology to the low fare high fee airline Ryanair for false allegations made about its fuel policy and alleged safety breaches in Spanish airspace.

Ryanair damages and apologies begin | Plane Talking

[BEagle]

Baksteen would rather (if he had a choice) fly HV, KL or EZ than FR

I would rather walk than fly FR!

[BOAC]

Ah 'Benno Brick':

-the practise of Ryanair flying with minimal fuel will eventually be fatal - rubbish

-a crash will happen eventually. - possibly - so? Probably not for fuel. Even KLM crash.

-Ryanair too much put the emphasis on reducing costs which is a possible threat for flightsafety - cannot disagree (with the italics added). Most major airlines, including BA and KLM have the same goal.

-a mayday call because of low fuel is very rare. It did not happen once in his career - Does he mean NEVER or not to him?

-the 30 minutes reserve fuel is for emergencies only. It should never happen that this reserve is used. - all crews strive not too, but that is what it is there for, Captain.

-the fuel league is no good. Calling pilots to the Ryanair HQ is intimidation. It has an affect on descisions of the captain in future situation on fuel planning - I agree in principle (does he mean Dublin?) but kind of depends how p!!ssed off the crews are and how 'profligate' they have been. Sooner or later someone will need a 'disciplinary'. It probably happens in all airlines. BA certainly had a 'fuel league table' in the early 2000's.

-Baksteen would rather (if he had a choice) fly HV, KL or EZ than FR- not a problem. I suspect he has that choice.

[1stspotter]

With regard to the Sunday Times, Ryanair and "the truth", I noticed in one of its press releases regarding the Dutch documentary, Ryanair clearly states they have 1700 contract pilots, yet a couple of months ago in an interview with the Irish Sunday Times:-

Quote:
Asked how Ryanair pilots were employed, O’Leary said: “The majority are direct employees and a minority are contractors.”

The video at the stating page of REPA (not a union but secure platform for Ryanair pilots to discuss) clearly shows a percentage 70+ for contractor pilots and 30 % - for pilots with a Ryanair contract.
I guess it is safe to assume REPA knows the situation. The website REPA has 1600 members.

If the press wants to investigate Ryanair they should do more their best and try to find dissimilarities between official Ryanair press statements/MOL statemens and irrefutable facts.

[SD.]

I think the investigation into the fuel is a non-runner. It goes against my usual stance with FR, but we can take as much fuel as we like - as long as there is a reason and you can justify the extra fuel.

However, the "Mayday Mayday - low fuel" headline has attracted enough attention to bring more important facts to the general public. The alleged bullying, intimidation, divide & conquer techniques employed from the board room down are now in the public domain.

[Zipster]

Not too many advantages being a contractor nowadays really, yes you can deduct some expenses but all in all you are worse off having no real job security and other disadvantages that come with it. Unclear social security and tax status is one thing. The contractor v company relationship is also highly regulated via the contract, i hear the only way they do business. So instead we better use "contractor" instead, it is far more appropriate.

[1stspotter]

BOAC

-the practise of Ryanair flying with minimal fuel will eventually be fatal -rubbish

Why do you think this statement of Benno Baksteen is rubbish?
We all know crashes in aviation happen because all the layers of the Swiss cheese cakes are aligned in such way a single hole is created.
Lets assume the 26th of July went a bit different :

-FR pilot knows weather and ATC situation at MAD and wants to take over 300 kg of fuel.
-Few weeks ago same FR pilot was kindly requested to come over to DUB for an 'interview' to answer why he is in the red zone of the fuel league for the last months. If he continues to take more fuel than FR thinks is needed his contract might be ended or he might be transfered to a base far away.
-FR pilot has financial worries about mortgage for house and training/TR and stress in private life (sick child or sick father).
-FR crew is aware that diversions costs the airline lots of money. And also extra hours are not paid by FR.
-while approaching MAD in rushhour CB's are all around. Lots of delay. ATC does not mention estimated approach time. Iberia, Vueling flights are given priority by ATC to land. ATC is stressfull, talks Spanish to Spanish airlines. Weather is very stressfull to the crew.
-FR crew is in doubt weather to divert or hold longer. Needs to concentrate on flying.
-FR does an approach to MAD (Get-There-Itis/ pressure to land on time) but on final a go around is initiated due weather conditions. Decide to divert.
-aircraft is vectored around a CB adding to the flighttime needed to reach alternate field. Might not be taken into account in fuel planning.
-midway MAD and VLC FR calls mayday because low fuel. Got a lower flightlevel (lots of other diversions ex MAD on same route) or unexpected headwind on route to alternate.
-at VLC a Lan Chile calls mayday as well. Is in front of FR. At landing Lan Chile is unable to vacate runway in time for FR behind or worse, blocks the runway.
-FR which called mayday needs to go around with full power
-FR needs to find another airport to land with less than 30 minutes of remaining fuel.

Yes, it is a lot of 'if this and if that' happens. But that is the case with most crashes.
Some of what I described above actually happened. Some could happened.

Ryanair was lucky the FR aircraft that landed slightly below final fuel reserve did so 9 minutes in front of the LAN Chile (which lost one engine) and the LAN could evacuate the rwy.

How unlikely is a slighty different scenario with more bad luck seeing the many flights of FR operates on a single day?

[fireflybob]

I agree with BOAC.

In my five years with Ryanair I never felt any undue pressure re taking extra fuel above flight plan.

Whilst there are other issues the fuel one is not relevant.

There were extenuating circumstances at Madrid that night and Ryanair is not the only company that has had to declare fuel emergencies.

Whilst I do not agree the ethics of Ryanair the technical and operational side of the Company is second to none thanks to their training system and the skill and dedication of all their crews.

[Squawk-7600]

-FR crew is aware that diversions costs the airline lots of money. And also extra hours are not paid by FR.

How does this work? How are the crew paid then? If a flight is planned from point A to point B and diverts to C, are you suggesting they're not paid?

[SD.]

An example - A planned 4 sector day from STN to DUB and then Malaga.

On the first sector it diverts to Shannon and crew wait for the pax to be bussed over - lets say a 3 hour delay. You'll only be paid for the first 2 sectors and another crew cash in on the Malaga.

Equates to 8 hours (ish) work for 2 hours pay.

[Squawk-7600]

Ok that makes sense, thanks. It's simply a case of getting paid per flying hour right?

Let's say the crew diverted with pax to an alternate (C) and then flew back to their initial destination (B), they would get paid A->C->B right? However if I understand you correctly, it could mean they lose any subsequent flying they otherwise may have expected to fly as that would be then be handed off to another crew. On the other hand, if it happened to be the last sector for the day, they would get paid the additional diversion time to and from (C)?

[SD.]

It's been a while since I had a diversion, but if I remember you do get paid for any flight time yes. That's scheduled flight time, not actual.


It's a different story for cabin crew. They only get paid for actual time, so a 100 knot tailwind all the way home from the Canaries can dent their income. If after reading this thread you think flight deck have tough, the girls and boys in the back have it 10x harder.


Edit: after re-reading your post. Very rarely do you still push onto the original destination after a diversion. You either wait for the pax to be sent over by road, or the return flight is cancelled and you return to base empty. The latter is generally the case in my experience.

[Squawk-7600]

That's scheduled flight time, not actual.

Whoa! So if you are delayed, say in a hold, then you get paid zip for it? Edit: To elaborate, I mean you get paid no extra for any holding, and instead just the scheduled flight time.

Sorry for the thread diversion, it's just curious to read how other's contracts differ.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by 1stSp

We all know crashes in aviation happen because all the layers of the Swiss cheese cakes are aligned in such way a single hole is created.

- a long-standing fact. HOWEVER, this focus on Ryanair is primarily driven because MOL and his team are severely denting the status, T&C and well-being of airline pilots and cabin crew (at least) and not directly, I feel, because of 'safety' per se. Let's look at Benno's position:

Reserve fuel is an emergency situation only - we all agree, and that is why a MAYDAY call is predicated. So, what is Benno's (?theVNV, BALPA, IFALPA??, etc etc) position on EUOPS and para 1.295 c.1 - are they all happy that this allows 'short-haul' (NB 6 hours is a 'long' flight) operators to expect crews effectively to plan to arrive with an emergency fuel state in certain situations? Are Benno and his team campaining against this - I have heard nothing?

Let's put this in perspective. IF regulations allow a certain minimum fuel state, at least one operator is likely to drive crew to use it. Does that not make the regs the correct target?

My personal view is that 1.295 c 1 should be withdrawn and a/c should always have alternate fuel on board at the point of take-off. I also agree with the common view that alternate fuel is not always realistic, but surely that is down to the individual Captains to sort out? As FullWings said, it is not what you load but what you do with it.

While we are at it, how about pressing for a survey of arrival fuel states v a v alt+reserve and seeing how many a/c subsequently 'committed' to a single runway destination and why? Let's be objective instead of subjective.

Judging by the huge and sometimes juvenile flurries of activity on this and the KLM thread and the sparse serious activity on the fuel planning thread, everyone and his dog appear blinded by the RY headlights.

[1stspotter]

Quote:
-FR crew is aware that diversions costs the airline lots of money. And also extra hours are not paid by FR.
How does this work? How are the crew paid then? If a flight is planned from point A to point B and diverts to C, are you suggesting they're not paid?

See this posting http://www.pprune.org/7612075-post208.html on the same thread about the financial consequences of a divert for Ryanair pilots on a contract.

[BBK]

BOAC

I won't debate the fuel planning aspects with you as I don't think that is the real issue here. I believe it is, as SD said earlier, the alleged culture of bullying and aggressive behaviour towards the pilots. These allegations suggest an environment utterly removed from that found in say BA, Virgin etc.

Lastly, I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fact that Ryanair pilots cannot belong to a union. What does that tell you about how management see its flight crew? Compare that to an article in the BALPA "Log" a few years ago where they interviewed a union rep at Southwest Airlines. He described a good relationship between the pilots' union and the company.

BBK