There does seem to be a culture in Ryanair of repeatedly saying things that are either not entirely true or just outright lies. The case against REPA recently proved that outright lies were being told by at least two members of senior management.
Now having watched the O'Leary v. Cullen debate we have the following "not entirely true" statements:
1. That the pilots only work 18 hours a week on average. Nonsense of course. Unfortunately it may make a good headline for Joe Public to consume but it is utterly untrue as all pilots know. For that amount of flying, without even examining a typical Ryanair pilot's working week, I would guess 45 hours a week (and with no opportunity for breaks). Real figures supplied here agree with that guess.
2. The suggestion was made about 6 times was that all the pilots are on €100,000. No they are not, but what percentage are? A lot less than 50%.
3. A doctor who contributed to the program noted he had been asked a number of times to supply false medical certificates (to indicate anything other than fatigue or stress). He at no time suggested he supplied such certificates. However OLeary decided in his infinite wisdom that the doctor must have done so and therefore his evidence was entirely unreliable. If I was that doctor I would be more than a little annoyed at that conclusion.
4. IALPA in the parallel universe of OLeary is the Aer Lingus pilots union. Really? Are there no other pilots from other Irish companies in this union?
5. And of course the final "failed pilot" lie about Mr.Cullen. This is extraordinary and if you watch the report again this lie was carefully timed by OLeary to be delivered at precisely a time when no rebuttal was possible by Mr Cullen. OLeary obviously spots the studio floor director doing that "wind it up in 5 seconds" thing they do and chucks that obnoxious comment in at the very last second. Theatrical indeed but it was basically the act of a craven little bollix.
Apart from all that, I found David Learmount's comment about the IAA very disturbing. The fact that a highly respected aviation industry commentator could make such a remark raises more alarm bells than everything else in the program. What he is in effect saying is that the IAA are waiting for an incident or crash before they will act. This makes me think that the idea that the IAA, however large or small and however well funded or not, should be the aviation authority for say scheduled flights between Italy and Spain or Germany and Norway is highly questionable.
The phrase "flag of convenience" springs to mind. Convenient because while the IAA maybe "standing on the sidelines" as Mr Learmount stated, the fact that the sideline is potentially 1000's of miles away (in Dublin) from the operation that should be under constant scrutiny is even more worrying. How long will it be before that part of JAR is re-examined?