Ryanair loses court challenge to Labour Court enquiry

[Wing Commander Fowler]

I'm no lawyer BUT I would imagine FR would engage their lawyers to tackle evn any "allegation" against them - and if it appeared on PPrune - guess who would cop for the law suit.....? Like Danny says, respect his freedom and private time (ie don't tie him up engaging in dialogue with FR's wolverines) and keep it clean. There's enough fact to chew on without moving into the realms of fantasy........ Oh and FR bashers not welcome!

[delwy]

There are just too many actions by Ryanair that give rise to concern. To also allow them to suppress free comment is a step too far. It is interesting that IALPA, the pilots' association closest to Ryanair's Head Office, has started to call for a "Whistleblower's Charter". Surely it must be obvious to all that there really is information out there that cannot be used unless the reporter is protected?

At the same time the airline concerned uses the law to ensure that anyone who facilitates free comment is gagged. This is not to say that some posters may be a bit over the top from time to time, but is the important thing not the level and extent of those who clearly feel strongly that there is something wrong with Ryanair? Ryanair and the use of legal threats is a byword in the industry - are we really to believe that an organisation that behaves properly would need to make such extensive use of lawyers?

As for those who have been labelled "Ryanair Bashers" ... is one a "basher" if what one says helps the reader to spot the rotten foundations?

I think that PPRuNe should not allow itself to be silenced or censored.

[manintheback]

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about sticking the word allegedly in all the right places.Will this work .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolutely not.

[Faire d'income]

This thread went off topic very quickly.

As with anything to do with Ryanair it seems any reader has to do a lot of reading between the lines. Even the Irish media under-play the significance of the courts findings.

Make no mistake this was a huge victory for IALPA. Well done to all involved and particularly to the Fr guys who are seeing the benefit of standing up for themselves.

A poster mentioned the possiblilty of Ryanair upping sticks and moving to another licensing authority. There is zero chance of that. Think of the comfortable corporate tax climate in Ireland and the head in the sand Authority and you can see it will never happen. Also I'm no accountant but Ryanair's accounts show a liability of €117m in deferred tax which may be perfectly normal but then again may not.

Ryanair accounts

[GGV]

Faire d'income has a good point about media coverage, but it equally has to be said that there is a great sentence in yesterday's Irish Times:

“ Yesterday's verdict amounted to a pummelling, with Mr Justice Michael Hanna finding against the airline on all counts and ordering it to pick up the tab for the case. ”

That being said, I have to say I am most uneasy about the whiff of censorship here. I believe that the removal of quite innocuous comments is just going too far. Notwithstanding Danny's points, the real issue is that a public transportation company, with a controversial reputation, repeatedly manages to suppress what are, in effect, warnings about its behaviour in a range of different areas.

It is considered obvious by many, including myself, that some contributors here are Ryanair management types, who can normally be spotted at 50 paces. To call one of those - specifically Leo Hairy Camel - forth to give his response to the High Court "pummelling" is reasonable. Such posts should not have been removed from the site. I support Danny, but not this type of decision, which is excessive and unreasonable. It makes me fear for the free expression of opinion on what is, in effect, the LAST public site that has not suppressed by Ryanair.

[niknak]

If you will permit me to coment from an alternative perspective, the people who appear to have failed are the Irish Aviation Authorities.
They have pandered to Ryanair from day one and despite the totally bleeding obvious staring them in the face, they fail to act in any way.

Other national authorities (the UK CAA et al'), who are strong enough to face up to the likes of MOL but can do little about it outwith the UK, the Irish CAA prefer to behave like ostriches, or even worse, (yellow is the term some may choose to use).

Meanwhile, Ryanair will never be short of pilots or cabin crew because those who want get on know they can get paid a reasonable salary for working hard and in return they get a stepping stone for better things.
Remarkably, that's not too different from the majority of other airlines in the same, or other sectors.

[RAT 5]

niknak.

I'm not sure the UK CAA are quite the snarling tiger you imagine. Indeed, in quite a few EU countries, NL & IT, their local AA's
should have been far more snarling for many years. They all seem to be more of a bureaucracy than a police force. If you compare the furore in the railway industry, there should be a much greater one in the airline world. I wonder why not.
That IMHO is a very big question. The bugs & worms uncovered in Railtrack et al have amazed a great many people. I wonder what the same kind of investigation would reveal in our hallowed world!

Further, I wonder why the UK CAA can not have more infuluence on RYR at its UK bases. STN is their biggest operation, yet it is under a flag of convenience. Is this arrangement so sacrosanct? Someone more knowledgeable will know.
If it is true that a Belgium judge ruled that those based in CRL were subject to Begium law for their emploment contracts, I presume this is true for all the other bases in their respective countries. If so, how come UK crews operate to Irish FTL's day in day out. They are not flying in on an ad-hoc contract for one day; they are based there permenantly. How can the UK CAA have absolutely nowt to do with it? I'm sure the UK pax think the UK CAA has jurisdiction over the operation for which they pay UK pounds for a ticket. Curious. Did the freedom of EU labour law really intend flag of convenience operations for such industries? I wonder if the same relaxation is allowed in the freight lorry business. Based in one country but registered vehicles in another.

True, I have no answers just questions and curisoity where our industry is going.

[worldwidewolly]

Forget all this bickering.
What is clear for all to see is that this was a substantial victory for the pilots. And interesting to note that you wont be reading about it on the Ryanair website news pages. Oh no, far too embarresing.

The fact is that there is a change in place, people are no longer so afraid.
This has been borne out by the twenty (or whatever) final offers from RYR to the Dublin pilots to sign here or thats if, final offer.
Well final offer apart from the remaining 19 to follow.

Nobody budged and as usual they made the usual media thing of it that the guys gave in. No they didn't, they performed a tactical move that wrongfooted RYR.

They looked stupid and it is now no longer effective.

Sometimes self respect takes over. Life is too short to be intimated by that sort of behaviour.

[Aloue]

Good point WWW - but you forgot to mention that the Share Options, which were taken from the Dublin pilots by way of retaliation, have been given back .... as a result of a fancy Ryanair "own goal" in which they yet again misread the legislation and situation. Tee hee. I wonder will poor old DOB get the blame for this debacle? His fingerprints are all over it.

By the way, the censorship / legal threats deveopment speaks volumes about the airline and its approach to dissent. What's not so good is to find that it might even be working. We must all resist these threats, just as the guys in Dublin have resisted the threats made against them. (And that's a fact Danny!).

[Sunfish]

Well well, I'm surprised and sorry to hear that you have had legal threats Danny.

I might be flattering myself, but I suspect you were referring to certain posts by me. I agree that I do not have first hand knowledge of bad behaviour in relation to safety or any other matter, I do not believe I have made any allegations.

What I will own up to, on the basis of my professional experience working for a variety of companies, and on the basis of my professional experience as an engineer, manager, CEO and Director of a variety of companies, is asking a hypothetical question which I will repeat, since it cannot possibly be libellous or defamatory.

""If a hypothetical company is allegedly renowned for penny pinching, sharp dealing with both customers and staff and aggressive work practices, is it possible for one particular hypothetical division of said hypothetical company that is responsible for a sizeable chunk of the hypothetical company's total operating costs, to be immune to the application and effects of such practices?"

Please remove this post if necessary to comply with any threats you have received and we will all know that Pprune is now neutered.

[Oilhead]

Not sure how Pprune can take Ryanair's money at the same time permitting less than positive anonymous postings against Ryanair, or any other airline for that matter. Danny is rightfuly concerned about loose cannons firing way from the safety of the anonymous woods. It would of course help the creibility of this forum if a minimum of two things were to occur - firstly Pprune stops taking advertising money - of course that raises the reasonable question of how it pays its way. Which brings me to point number two - perhaps it is time to require posters to use thier real names, and pay a subscription. It appears to me that this forum has come to a crossroads in several ways.

[Gigginstown ERC]

Law enforcement

For many years Danny and the team have provided a platform for exchange for which we are very grateful.

It disappoints me greatly that moderaters are being forced into being censors.

Past cases have shown that legal system is being used to pressurise, bully, dissuade, delay and deter rather than to achieve justice. It would appear that this once again is the case.

The tide is starting to ebb on those who rule inside the whitehouse, this issue will go the distance and it is vital that all the facts blow by blow are aired and receive fair comment from both sides of the fence.

[The Real Slim Shady]

It is understood that Ryanair's legal team will be considering the detailed ruling and has not yet made a decision on whether to appeal

I think that on the basis that an appeal may be likely Danny is quite correct to minimise the discussion on this particular topic.

In fact, he would be quite within his rights to terminate the thread entirely as it may still be sub judice.

[Judge Whyte]

The real victim

I cannot help but think of the injustice done to Evan Cullen (President of IALPA) in many posts of Leo-H-C.
The personalised nature of these attacks were quite breathtaking.
In addition I believe from EI pilots that Capt Cullen received death threats from public phones in the U.K.
I don't believe he (Cullen) has made a complaint to PPrune but I hope in any discovery case to identify posters Capt Cullen will be given access to all evidence.

[the grim repa]

enforced censorship of pprune - the sting of a dying wasp.

now even lhc can see how despotic his master is.the school bully does not like to be called a bully.no surprise really,intimidation of those who have no power to fight back,his chosen weapon.good and respect for common decency will prevail.to hell with those who choose to **** on their fellow man for gain.

lets be having you big worded one!maybe waiting for your ass kicking in the lrc.

[Camel Killer]

In fact, he would be quite within his rights to terminate the thread entirely as it may still be sub judice.

Nonsense. Sub judice, literally "under justice", means that a case is currently before a court. This case is not. Judgement has issued. Despite some bleating from the White House, an appeal has not yet been lodged.

It is a common fallacy that one may not comment on a case that is sub judice. In fact, the sub judice principle operates only in certain very restricted cases. Mainly criminal, where public comment may prejudice a jury and imperil the accused's right to a fair trial. This does not apply here as Ryanair are not (yet!) charged with a criminal offence. The other common application of the principle is the convention that matters that are sub judice may not usually be raised in parliament. Separation of powers and all that.

These exceptions apart, commentary on sub judice cases is normal and permissible. Particulary when a jury is not involved. With all due respect to PPRuNe, the likelihood of the august justices of the Irish Supreme Court being unduly influenced by material published here seems remote.

[worldwidewolly]

For far too long now MOL has set himself as some sort of invincible. A bit sad that somebody needs that sort of indulgence to feel good about himself.

From the invincible guy that he has set himself up to be it is only heading one way. He is loosing and the DUB pilots are winning. Sort of has a conclusive fairytale ring to it, it all started out in Dublin and now it looks like it may be beginning to unravel in Dublin.

Make no mistake about it, this is big.


He is the general out in the field facing a 'Coup De'ta' and he don't like it one bit. He is a bit brassed off with Evan Cullen, but so what. The Dublin guys are squaring up to him and he don't like it.

[220]

Danny,

it's ironic that it is actually YOU who has hi-jacked this thread. )

Off the thread (equally ironic...it's a deletable comment I'm sure) I have to wade in behind the critisism of you in this case.

You are either acting under legal advice which is decimating the purpose of the website or else you are very ignorant to the happenings in FR. Whichever it is, please look into it and don't ignore the comments of your 'customers'!

[worldwidewolly]

Whatever about who did or didn't hijack this thread can we please get back to the discussion point.
That is, that Ryanair have lost a substancial case before the courts.

Lets put this in perspective. MOL is a 1 trick pony, a cost-cutter (and a very good one at that). But the man didn't reinvent the wheel or even invent the big-mac.

He was lucky enough to come across a particular man at a particular time in history when the European aviation market was waiting for low fares. He copied a concept from the US and pushed an open door.

But I do give credit where credit is due, the man is a visionary.
People say you have to admire him, I say 'no' you have to acknowledge him but you don't have to admire him.

I personally acknowledge that if the yard stick is building a massive company out of nothing, the man is to be applauded.
Outside that I don't respect him as a person. All those antics of dressing up and the unfunny antics may have the 'cheap seats' humoured but beneath all of that is a devious man and a public that are unaware or frankly don't care.

As LHC hasn't been on perhaps he is up to his neck in Sh1t.


No no. The nappies I meant.

[Aloue]

I don't think that MOL would be sufficient of a "modern man" in the social sphere to do the nappy thing (after all, one has people to do that kind of thing).

There would still be time to do the Leo Hairy two-step if he wished, but somehow I don't think Leo will be seen on this thread, given the fact that there is litigation in the air. Leo has always gone to ground at such times (further demonstrating that he is, as the journalists say, "a source close to management"). This must frustrate him, since Leo likes to strike out, throw a few insults, propagate some propaganda and.... generally behave like the great man himself.

All of this allows us to make the point in peace that Ryanair got royally pasted in the courts last week. The word is that the judge pointed out exactly what the Labour Court had previously pointed out, which is that a mere inspection of the relevant Ryanair documentation was enough to demonstrate that their case did not stand up. They lost everything. This, surely, is a bit of an "own goal" is it not?