Terms and EndearmentThe forum the bean counters hoped would never happen. Your news on pay, rostering, allowances, extras and negotiations where you work - scheduled, charter or contract.
Less than 6 months ago, management swore they would never ever hire DEC again. They do know. Therefore, anything can happen, whatever the company says...
No one can ever tell you for sure but history shows they have more than enough cadets to fill the RHS. Just look at the RYR thread in the interview section. Many are waiting for a long time before interview and with the growth coming to a steady hault soon then recruitment will slow down. I would say its very unlikely for the foresable future.
Given the number of sectors operated without incident daily/yearly, I would be enlightened to know what comparitive statistics you are using to back up that rather all encompassing statement.
RYR is a safer airline than BA by any normal measure, eg: hull loss per x flights, or fatalities per x flights - but statistics can change at a moments notice and are only ever rear facing.
Does RYR have a low overall cockpit experience level? Yes, absolutely, but then again who else is upgrading people at 3000hrs flat? Does a lower level of experience increas the chances of an incident/accident? I don't know.
I don't for one minute think that the experience levels in Ryanair/Easy are as high as anyone would wish in an ideal world, but then again where do we draw the line. Statistically they have been as safe (or safer) than say Air France, who have a much more experienced crew compliment throughout the company. In my experience the problem in Ryanair is not due to the "total" experience that each crew member has, it is more due to the fact most of them have gained most of it in Ryanair, & this sometimes manifests itself in a strange inability to think outside the box. This doesn't seem to prevent hordes of them applying for (& being gladly scooped up by) Emirates etc, so it seems the aviation community in general is satisfied with them. I have to say that the majority of low hour FO's I flew with there, performed a whole lot better than I remember doing with their level of experience, but Yes, inexperience does sometimes rear its head. Journey Man, yes it is worthy of attention, & I believe most Ryanair/Easy Capts (regardless of their own high/or low, experience level) are mindful of it on a dark & dirty night, however I still assert that kisslandings' statement that it is a "huge safety problem" is untenable & not backed up by any statistical safety analysis of these two companies.
The harsh reality is that the vast majority of major incidents in Ryanair have not been caused by low time skippers. They have nearly always been flown by guys with five figures in their total time column. The, ahem, "low level circuit" in Cork a few moons back is one that springs to mind. The man in the left had over ten thousand hours on 737s and should have known better.
DECSFOs? The last intake of so called "fast track" SFOs circa 2005/2006 was a very unsuccessful project. The plan to upgrade them within six months to a year was, with a few noted exceptions, a flop.
Many SFOs in Ryanair approaching command are leaving. It's not really worth it in financial terms and certainly not worth playing the wheel of misfortune that is the basing policy after upgrade. That must be a problem in the making. Although with the expansion slowing in the near term they may be happy to get some DEC bums on seats and keep the sims humming with P2F F/Os.
As per Ryanair experience I would say any RYR FO with 3000 hrs is more experienced then any 6000 hrs major airlines FO. It is the fact, it is a combination of the places we fly, policies we have and training we got.
The last DE SFO intake was 2008. It was limited and barely recognisible in comparson to the cadet 'sausage factory' production line occurring at both CAE and the then SAS flight academy (now OAT I believe).
I met one of the F/Os taken on back in 2008 (who is now a RYR TRE). He said they had a single sim prior to their LST. He struggled, as did the others, simply because 4hrs is not enough to get the -800 and SOPs squared away. I don't think it's got anything to do with poor recruitment, or pilot standards. One sim to learn is not enough.
To say one flying hour in a RYR aircraft is worth 2 in any other airline is deluded. RYR are not the only operator to fly into tricky airfields. In anycase, NDBs are flown in LNAV anyway, so how is that difficult?
To say one flying hour in a RYR aircraft is worth 2 in any other airline is deluded. RYR are not the only operator to fly into tricky airfields. In anycase, NDBs are flown in LNAV anyway, so how is that difficult?
He did say 'major airline'. Anyway, its not all LNAV NDB's. We prob have a larger percentage of visual, Circle To Land, Narrow Runway operations than most operators in Europe. After all, I don't see many other operators of fully loaded 738's at most of the back of beyond places we fly into.
Not saying we are better than the next guy, just we might have more exposure. With enough practice any pro pilot can carry out the above proficiently.
Maybe I should have said .....have not arrived at their destination alive.I don't recall any fatalities from ryan air flights.From an outsiders pov I would say that that is a pretty good record.Statistically I have more chance of not reaching my destination with air france who have apparently a better standard of pilot.
While im not the biggest fan of the RYR recruitment tactics (and given a stop to new aircraft deliveries, something will have to change regarding the speed of newbie recruitment !), they are certainly safe as any other as prior posts have mentioned - as for the smaller airfields reducing safety due to lesser facilities/infrastructure, well you could argue any operator allowing one of their aircraft to dispatch with unservicabilities as allowed by the MEL is also reducing safety margins and that would mean all airlines are equally "reduce the safety". What i am saying is that assessments are made, risks mitigated, and operations allowed when deemed safe - If they had issues with low hour FO's and inexperienced Capts., then i think it would have become an issue many, many times over by now, they don't have because the training etc. is as good as any out there elsewhere, and maybe better ?.
Silverhawk, by your logic you're suggesting that somewhere with a Cat III approach to both sides of a short runway, with all the facilities associated with it, that is also known for really bad weather; is safer then a 2 mile runway in east Europe somewhere with CAVOK wx 99% of the year, with just a set of PAPI at the end of the runway.
One could also argue that an airfield with all the facilities you mention, would be an airfield below some very busy airspace. Is it therefore true that busy airspace is safer then less congested airspace??
I don't know the answers, don't suppose anyone does, but to simply state that an airfield with more facilities is safer then on with very few, is simply not true. If it were true everyone would think that landing in Leeds for example is easier then say Marrakesh (no radar control).
What I am saying is, it is the cheap, under equipped (compared to other )airfields that RYR operate to that reduce the safety in RYR's operation.
So how come these airfields are licensed to accept Boeing 737-800 aircraft?
With respect I think you are making some sweeping assertions there! I think you would find that the "minor" airfields you talk about are very intelligently and conscientiously run - surely if they were not up to scratch their aerodrome licence would be pulled? (As an example this happened at Londonderry about 3 years ago when their Bird Prevention programme and some other items did not come up to the statutory standards)
Out of all the destinations we operate into/out of, I can't think of any that are unsafe. Yes, some are challenging, but where the odd incident has happened, it is very rarely down to the aerodrome.
Anecdotal evidence seems to point at DEC's, and very high houred Captains (the minority, before you shoot me down) that sometimes have issues.
