O'Leary going to Jail?

[redout]

Taken from RTE this afternoon

O'Leary in court over alleged order breach

21 April 2005 17:04
Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary was in the High Court this afternoon as lawyers acting on his behalf fought to keep him out of jail.

Ryanair pilot John Goss of Yellow Walls Road, Malahide, is seeking an order for the committal to jail of Mr O'Leary and the company's head of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien.

Mr Goss claims the company has breached a court order.



Last February Mr Goss secured a High Court order stopping the company from conducting a disciplinary meeting with him pending a full court hearing.

He claimed the disciplinary process was bogus and designed to get at him because he joined a pilots' trade union and brought a claim of victimisation.

On 13 April last he received notice that he was being suspended on full pay until the proceedings and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings had been brought to a conclusion.

Mr Goss claims this move is in contempt of the existing court order and he is now engaged in a process which if successful could result in the jailing of Michael O'Leary and David O'Brien.

[411A]

Hmm, if MOL is looking at jail time, he just might decide to close up FR...and start afresh.
Lesser pay, poorer T&C's, with a 'take it or leave it' attitude...just like now:p
Oh dear, oh dear, the devil you know.........;) ;) ;)

[atse]

From todays Irish Independent:

RYANAIR Chief Executive, Michael O'Leary, and the company's director of flight and ground operations David O'Brien, were in the High Court yesterday for the hearing of an application by one of the airline's pilots to have them jailed for alleged contempt of a previous court order.

The pilot, John Goss, of Malahide, Co Dublin, is also seeking an order against Ryanair Ltd rescinding his purported suspension of April 12, which he claims, is also in contempt of a court order of February 28.

He submits that an order made by the High Court on February 28 last restraining the company from conducting a disciplinary meeting with him pending the trial of the action has been breached. A full hearing of those proceedings have been fixed for May 31.

Ryanair denies Mr Goss' claims and submits his suspension is "an operational and safety decision".

Mr O'Brien, in an affidavit, said it would be wholly inappropriate to allow Mr Goss to fly passenger aircraft during the run-up to High Court proceedings given "the inevitable pressures and strains of such High Court proceedings".

Mr Goss believed the procedure was motivated by the company's wish to subject him to "bullying, harassment and intimidation" in an attempt to communicate with other employees, particularly pilots.

Yesterday, Mr O'Brien, in an affidavit, said the letter of suspension to Mr Goss went to extraordinary lengths to assure him the suspension would be temporary.

The hearing continues today.

[Falconpilot]

What about it now?

Please bring on the news! Keep bringing them!

And a big applause to our collegue Mr Goss for that bright move!
That company has had so many trials in Europe with little effects, and it seems that the David was inside the company...
It's easy to say "keep on fighting", (especially when I still have my salary) but go all the way! GO GO GO!

[James T. Kirk]

Mr O'Brien, in an affidavit, said it would be wholly inappropriate to allow Mr Goss to fly passenger aircraft during the run-up to High Court proceedings given "the inevitable pressures and strains of such High Court proceedings".


I take it then that Mr. O'Brien and Mr. O'Leary have relieved themselves from the duty of running a passenger carrying airline for the same reasons!?!

Kirk out....

[ShortfinalFred]

GOOD FOR CAPTAIN GOSS. "They dont like it up 'em", as Corporal Jones used to say. Ryanair is the unacceptable face of contemporary corporatism, and your courage in exposing it deserves all our support.

[Capt H Peacock]

When I started in this business more than 25 years ago, it was a highly respected profession. Like a surgeon or a lawyer, a professional pilot had demonstrated resolve and commitment, had achieved the highest academic and leadership skills, and was a skilled craftsman of his trade. Such a man was rewarded commensurately, and enjoyed the appreciation of those who engaged him and those who laid their lives in his hands.

People like O’Leary have brought this fine profession low, have stripped it of its ermine, and prostituted its honour like a cheap slut. The traditional lack of militancy, and the professional commitment of the airline pilot, together with the plentiful supply of new recruits who would do the job for nothing just to get a foot in the door, have been used by the O’Learys and beancounters of this world to undermine our livelihoods to the extent we are now but tradesmen.

When I look at that professional licence, the certificates proudly hung on the wall, the logbook with its thousands of hours, the children whose lives I have so scantly witnessed, and the wonderful woman who has raised them in my frequent absence, I imagine O’Leary stamping them into a muddy puddle while he laughs in my face.

The industry is now full of O’Learys. People who are not of measure or achievement, nor consummate leaders of men, treating me and my colleagues like refuse collectors. If O’Leary is guilty as charged, I will shed no tears.

Is a life sentence available?

[Raggyman]

What's going to happen when and if Ryanair goes under as customers will no longer want to fly as it is more expensive? For reference have a look at what was Ansett. Will staff then complain that there is no money in the pot to pay for holiday and serverance pay?

If you are unhappy, then leave. If there aren't any other jobs, then be thankful that the bills are still getting paid.

Don't think that you can get any more straight to the point then that.

[the grim repa]

very well put,captain peacock.

he will not do time,but a kick up the ass might serve him well.

he,like all of us wiil face a judgement in time,where he will have no defense team and will not be able to hide behind his lies.then let him justify his abuse of people.with the flames licking at his heels.

[maxalt]

I hope the judge in this case takes full consideration of O'Learys past performance in such matters.

Perhaps we can remind the good judge of the comments made to the European Commission by O'Leary which no doubt give an insight into his respect for authority, including no doubt, Courts of Law.

[under_exposed]

Last February Mr Goss secured a High Court order stopping the company from conducting a disciplinary meeting with him pending a full court hearing.
On 13 April last he received notice that he was being suspended on full pay until the proceedings and any subsequent disciplinary proceedings had been brought to a conclusion.

How is the second a breach of the first?

[jmc-man]

under_exposed,

I think thats why the judge has invited MOL to his court to determine if " suspending" someone is part of a disciplinary process.

I wonder how the institutional shareholders feel about the Chief Executive of their investment company being in court and facing jail for contempt. While no-one can MOL's success in making RYR a hosehold name, and very profitable, I can't help feel the major shareholders will start to take a dim view of the thrashing of Ryanair's business reuptation by the CX facing jail for contempt.

Maybe MOL will sarcriface Mr. O'Brien in this excercise.

JMC-MAN

[RAT 5]

Is it not the case that at RYR a pilot's income comprises pay + sector pay? I've heard this is in the ratio of about 50/50. If one is suspended on full pay it might be that one's income is halfed. This would seem to be a financial penalty and would therefore seem to breach the spirit of the judge's ruling.

Expanding further a field: does anyone have any idea how many legal cases RYR is defending at the moment, and at what cost? I have hard rumours, and the costs involved during the past 12 months would be a respectable profit for some companies.

[Irish Steve]

According to the latest update on RTE, the judge has reserved his decision, and the case will be reentered next Wednesday.

For the details, go here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0422/ryanair.html)

Wonder who will lose the most sleep this weekend?

[411A]

Sadly, Capt Peacock, today’s general labor problems/pay/terms and conditions for the airline pilot can be traced directly to three main sources…
Airline deregulation in the USA
The militant bunch in ALPA
The militant bunch in the Australian 1989 dispute

Deregulation means new entry carriers can trump established legacy airlines, ALPA in the USA became so militant with their incessant demands, that airlines gave in…and now find the shoe is on the other foot, and are using a really big club to beat down wages.
Low cost carriers are the reason, and like it or not, they are here to stay.
MOL is but the most undesirable of the LLC’s chief executives, but as has been pointed out already, he definitely provides employment for a good many pilots, and IF those pilots find greener pastures elsewhere, I’m sure they will avail themselves of same.

Anyone for the sand pit?

EK perhaps?:uhoh: :E

[MOR]

...and that really is one of the most intelligent summaries of the situation that I have seen for some time. We are so often our own worst enemy... comes with the motivation to be pilots I guess.

[GGV]

From today's Irish Independent:

THAT Michael O'Leary. He has our hearts scalded.

And, yesterday, if only for a flickering moment, it appeared that, he too, was beginning to rue the day he became "Michael O'Leary" - court jester, government menace and all-round “colourful character”.

A rumour had gathered pace that the irrepressible budget high-flyer planned on dressing up as a prison warden for his High Court appearance.

Everyone was very disappointed then when he turned up in his very ordinary, customary, open-necked shirt and brass buttoned blazer. But a rare treat was in store for all in Court 13 who witnessed the hard-nut airline boss visibly squirming in his seat at certain comments by the judge.

Judge Barry White drily referred to Mr O'Leary's televised comments carried on the news after the hearing the previous day.

Who would have thought that he knew how to blush, we wondered at the heartening sight of brass-neck Michael squeezing out a few pinky shades.

Judge White was in top form. He said he was aware that Mr O'Leary is "a great believer in the adage that all publicity is good publicity. I don't know Mr O'Leary personally but I know his public persona."

"I observed it on the news last night," he continued. The court exploded with hearty laughter, with even the plaintiff, pilot John Goss, in stitches. Mr O'Leary smiled uncomfortably.

In silky, soft tones Justice White added that he was also conscious of that morning's paper which had contained "certain colour matters". "On the papacy," he added.

There was a full-page advertisement that had Bertie tricked up as the new pope, proclaiming: "Habemus chaos at Dublin airport" and "Young people of Ireland ... join the airport queues."

But all this heat was getting to Michael O'Leary and, to heck with etiquette; he had to take off his jacket with the nice brass buttons.

Meanwhile, it's emerged Ryanair is cutting more costs - by banning its staff from charging their mobile phones at work. "Every cent counts" said a spokeswoman adding that the ban did not originate with Michael O'Leary.

Also see the Guardian: Guardian April 23rd (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1468517,00.html)

[Snifferdog]

...................I wonder if he'll be sent to a lo-cost prison where he has to pay over-the-top prices for his daily grub!!...............:E

[virgo]

I've got to say I totally agree with Capt. Peacock. These wretched accountants and other admin wallahs who treat pilots as ordinary people MUST be stopped. They must be told how it can take as long as eight months of hard study to obtain an ATPL - even longer if you haven't got any GCSEs to start with.
(That's about the same as a lawyer or brain surgeon ?????)
And all the other things that make pilots so special and worthy of consideration that no other ordinary airline staff have to suffer........the long hours during the night when at least one of them have to be awake, missing normal meal times, being away from home when the kids are growing up, not being able to decorate the sitting room because of all your qualifications displayed there...(Annual SEP...PASS, Annual competence...PASS,
Bi-annual Technical Refresher...PASS - dozens of the things a pilot gets awarded that no other ordinary person gets to hang on his wall)
Absolutely ! These people should try reading through the Ops Manual when you're dead tired to see if your overnight allowances are correct - thank goodness aircrew are still on higher rates than any other airline staff.............but be warned, the O'Learys of this world will try to stop that as well, with some argument that a pilot's standard of living should be no different to anyone elses.
If only pilots had a real union instead of the association of professional gentlemen they like to think they're in.............
I'm afraid it's going to get worse before it gets better, look what's happened to the reputation of politicians.

[411A]

<<If only pilots had a real union instead of the association of professional gentlemen they like to think they're in.............>>

Wouln't do any good.
Not today, with LLC's biting at the heels of many airlines.
Look at ALPA/APA in the USA.
A more militant lot would be hard to find, yet do you really think they are clamoring for higher wages today?
What they are trying to do is keep what jobs they have, never mind anything else. If a few here think that 'unions' will keep 'em employed in airlines today, they are sadly mistaken.
If the MOL's of the airline managements today find a 'union' at the door, they could simply close up shop, and start afresh.
Can't happen you say?
Connie Kalitta did it with American International, and they guys there lost it all....401K's, the lot.
Or, CX style selective dismissals would take the starch out of any so called 'action'.
Labor laws?
For the most part, they might be fine, but the airline industry would seem to be the exception....doesn't apply here.
Managements will find a reason to get rid of a troublemaker or three, make no mistake.

Do some here really believe that somehow airlines are exempt from the laws of the financial world?
If so, these folks have a very unpleasant awakening ahead.

Now, having said all this, it would appear that MOL is chosen to forget that you can attract more flys with honey than you can with vinegar.
Like many line pilots, he appears to have ignored basic human nature...throw 'em a bone from time to time to keep the 'union' hounds at bay.

<<They must be told how it can take as long as eight months of hard study to obtain an ATPL - even longer if you haven't got any GCSEs to start with.>>

Frankly, they couldn't care less.
Silly boy...:hmm: :zzz:

[fmgc]

411A

The US airline market pre and post 9/11 is very different to the UK market.

We have never had the serioulsy highly paid pilots/out of control costs like the major carriers in the US.

The airlines in the US had/have to make serius costs cuts in order to stay in business (chapter 11 not withstanding!).

In the UK after the initial blip post 9/11 the UK airlines (which were already pretty lean) are just trying to maximise profits.

The unions are not as useless as you suggest, they have successfully managed to stop alot of companies from taking the you know what.

Your CX argument is disingenuous, we do have labour laws (unlike HK) and only a very foolish management would sack anybody for just being a "troublemaker". They would be taken to a tribunal, and I would imagine that the union will pay for the representation.

If you want evidence of this, just look at the recent BA case with the airbus fo who wanted to go part time.

[maxalt]

Capt.Peacock/ 411A...you both have it wrong.

I don't consider myself to be a privileged professional! All THAT ever gave me was a few gold stripes on my sleeve, and a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Load of BOLLOX, as O'Leary would say.

Nah. I'm a WORKER. And a goddamn SOCIALIST at that. The only Gold I want now is that which is deposited in my backpocket.
All else is simply vanity.

The poor buggers in the US, or EK, or CX lack one thing...a SOCIALIST system, and the social contract that accompanies it.

I have rights, enshrined in law. They don't.
Tough.

I'm gonna protect my rights, and I don't give a damn what the public, 411A, or anyone else says about it.
Simple fact is - they'd do the same thing, and so does O'Leary.

And - I've been doing it VERY succesfully.
I'm earning twice what I was before 9-11.

Come on Peacock...drop the pretence, the old days are gone, and you don't have to feel guilty about it, its dog eat dog now...come down off your high horse, get down here and get your hands dirty like the rest of us.

Workers of the world unite!!

[411A]

<<They would be taken to a tribunal, and I would imagine that the union will pay for the representation.>>


Sadly, fmgc, it really is all to easy.
They could just as well be dismissed for failing a PC.
If the company is serious enough, they will find a way, and the results may not be pleasant.

<<We have never had the serioulsy highly paid pilots/out of control costs like the major carriers in the US.>>

Welcome to the real world.
Look at fuel costs. Do you really believe that these are not higher costs that put the squeeze on the bottom line?
Line pilots generally only look at what is in their pay packet, not what the real costs are, for the airline.
Nav fees, landing fees, terminal rents....the list goes on and on, yet the passenger wants the absolute lowest price for the ticket, and it would appear that a few carriers are up to the task.
And then again...some aren't.

A little blip in the British economy and a few airlines might well fall like dominos.
Has happened before.
Gee, what a surprise.

[maxalt]

Remember lads. Pilots salaries are a fixed cost of running an airline. Anything else you read is BOLLOX.

[Telstar]

We'd love to see it but he is not going to Jail. There will be a fall guy, DOB for example! He will wriggle out of it like the coward and bully that he is.

[M.Mouse]

Well that is a first, I find I am in agreement with 411A.

Whatever next?

[maxalt]

I guess 411A and O'Leary would like the pilots to pay for the fuel next?:}

[Nightrider]

Capt H Peacock, having seen the procedures which are applied to FR employees, I am pleased with the fact that I am not exposed to these unacceptable situations anymore.
The environment I am enjoying now is shared with some former FR colleagues and none of them wants to come close to MOL again.
As a matter of fact, yesterday I flew a full aeroplane of Irish tourists to their sunny vacation and while having a chat with some of the passengers after the flight, I had to smile when I was told that MOL should apologize to the Irish people for his attitude and moving Irish reputation into extreme disrespect.

[BEagle]

Doubtless the little beggar will somehow escape being slung into jail; however, he and his business methods are clearly the unacceptable face of capitalism in Ireland. Many Irish people are heartily sick of the foul-mouthed and belligerent way in which he behaves, giving the false impression that business practices in Ireland haven't yet emerged from the Dark Age.

Saw one of Micks 737s at FDH last week with "Nein zum Lufthansa Kerosinzuschlag" painted in huge letters down the side. That means "No to Lufthansa fuel surcharge" - which I'm sure means absolutely nothing to the people his airline flies. In any case, the LH fuel surcharge is not being introduced within Europe or on any route on which Ryanair might think that they compete with LH, so perhaps LH should take Mick to court over such lfalse claims?

[ou Trek dronkie]

Well, Capt Peacock and 411A,

I must agree in general with what you say. It was definitely a different world a few years back. And, perhaps, a better one. I know flying was more fun for sure.

Certainly respect was more plentiful and more obvious, as was genune friendliness. I mean respect for people, for those who work for you and with you and make you wealthy. Read that one how you like.

As for Maxalt, well, let me tell you squire, I am glad that I never needed to work for an airline that I was ashamed of. I was proud to be with the ones which employed me. I would certainly not write the way some people write, even if I felt that way. Can't see what politics has to do with it either.

Not so sure I would feel all that proud about working for Ryanair, charging pax for wheelchairs. That does bite me, I admit. If you know the world of the wheelchair user, your attitude on life is markedly different from "normal people", believe me mate.

I deliberately suppress wicked thoughts ....

As for O'Leary going to prison, forget it. My expert opinion (2nd hand from a human rights lawyer) is that he can claim the damage to FR would be immense if he were to do some chookie and the judge would be obliged to consider that as an important social factor.

So don't hold yer breath eh !

That feels better.

oTd

:ok:

[atse]

As for O'Leary going to prison, forget it. My expert opinion (2nd hand from a human rights lawyer) is that he can claim the damage to FR would be immense if he were to do some chookie and the judge would be obliged to consider that as an important social factor.With the greatest of respect to your human rights lawyer, this is nonsence. Contempt is contempt and the courts are not much amused by same.

The reality is that he can easily purge his contempt, possibly by an apology, possibly via other means (perhaps a fine). Prison only comes in if he keeps up his behaviour and even MOL knows that the courts are not for his verbal gymnastics or threats.

The issue comes back to this: will the courts determine that there was contempt, or not? We will know the answer later this the week. We also know that Ryanair will spin this as positively as they can, no matter what the outcome.

[sky9]

You've got to admit when it comes to Court cases MOL seems to loose most of them; is anyone keeping a score card?
He doesn't by any chance won a 3 legged dog called Lucky?

[Lionel Hutz]

He will not go to jail.

If he loses this case.

The Judge will most likley give him one last chance to pruge his contempt.

No prizes for guessing what he will do.

[ou Trek dronkie]

atse,

OK,

You make a good point, but my point, as a non-legal quoting a legal, is that he will definitely not go to prison (in the remote chance he is found guilty of course). The world does not work like that.

Unfortunately, I know this is true.

Just imagine thousands of screaming FR pax (don't even think of crews and other employees) all wailing "Injustice, Injustice". What a wonderful opportunity for the UK press …………… fill in the gaps.

Do we have judges with this sort of moral courage ???

Don't even think of answering.

My point was that he could make a (very good and sound*) claim that the effects of his imprisonment would be so great as to affect negatively mega innocent people. “The greater good of the greater number" before which, principles collapse. And that is the way the world turns these days, my friend, principles have no place.

‘Twas ever thus.

I respectfully request your honour to weight my views with care no disrespect intended.

Irish justice shall prevail !!!

OTd, a bit baffled by the legalese.

* I would need to take legal advice to explain this.

[atse]

o T d. I think your post speaks more to some personal experience or attitudes than is does to the facts as we know them.

The imprisionment notions all come from the intitial press reports. But the possibility of imprisonment is independent of being found guilty. In fact, Ryanair's history of "innocence" when it gets to court - or the steps of the court - is not good.

Of course you are right about imprisonment. I agree that it is highly unlikely (but as explained above this is for different and more mundance reasons that you seem to believe).

But I beg to differ on the being found guilty - "a remote chance" you say. Reading between the lines of the press reports I am much inclined to believe that they have been caught offside. My expectation is that there will be a guilty finding and that there will be an apology to the court.

And THAT that is what matters. Let's just wait and see.

[Taildragger67]

Aren't there some countries where, if one has ever been knicked for a criminal offence (even if the conviction is spent), one finds it mighty tough to get a visa?

Further, in some industries, those with criminal records are sometimes seen as being not fit-and-proper persons for such-&-such.

Contempt is a criminal offence, so even if one is convicted but let off with a fine, one is, by definition, a convicted criminal.

As a result, if one is found guilty at all, could this not have some deleterious effect on one's ability to act as an officer of a listed, multinational corporation?

Hence, could this not have the social effect mentioned, even without a custodial sentence? That said, whilst MOL certainly is seen as the face of FR, surely (like any responsible corporation) they would have management succession plans in place? Not to do so may indeed be seen as negligent for such a large company.

Please note that I am NOT Ryanair-bashing by these comments, rather posting real questions which have come to mind.

TD67

[BillHicksRules]

ou Trek Donkie,

Not wanting to get at you but what case could MOL bring that his imprisonment would cause undue problems for either FR or its customers?

I am sure that were MOL to be knocked down by a bus on the way home tonight nothing much would change (apart from the announcement of a national holiday in ROI by way of celebration).

MOL is like any other individual employee at FR, dispensible.

That is not to say that any employees at FR are worthless, simply mentioning that were any other single employee to be sentenced to "porridge" FR would continue on without them.

Therefore I cannot see a case for allowing him to sidestep the "bird" on these grounds. Yet again I am not a lawyer and deal, mostly, in common sense.

Cheers

BHR

[ou Trek dronkie]

atse,

You make a good post. All I know about FR is 2nd hand, sounds like you have some hands-on experience.

I know nothing at all about Ryanair courtroom steps settlements, but are these not usually a result of a person toughing it out against the heavies ? And coming right in the end ? True, I have been there, but that has nothing at all to do with my post.

My life experience is that expediency is usually the name of the game in legal matters. The reluctance to rock the boat, the reluctance to support the whistle-blower, the way someone who stands up against injustice is often deserted by his or her friends (check the EC fraud history for example). The name Tony Blair springs readily to mind. Remember the ANZ DC 10 flying into Mt Erebus in Antartica ?

So maybe that is what you refer to ? On the ball man.

Yet I have no facts in this matter, just what I read and my own prejudice.

Nevertheless, if he is found guilty – and I hope he is : if indeed he is guilty, then, I am sure he will not go to serve time. His lawyers will be far too smart for that. If he is innocent, of course I hope he goes free.

Probably they are on a no-win-no-fee basis anyway, if Ryanair commercial practices are also in force. I wonder if they charge for coffee ?

Thanks for you comments, illuminating.



Well Bill,

If he were knocked down, that is entirely different. By the way, I wish the man no personal harm.

No, what I meant to say is that, if he were to be found guilty, the most likely argument his lawyers would offer – this is a legal opinion (there will be others) – is that the public interest would not be served by committing him to prison. The effect on jobs, loss of confidence etc. It could swing it for him you know. His airline brings a lot of € to Ireland.

I remember the case of the footballer (forget his name) who attacked someone on an aircraft and got a community sentence ? He should have been sent down, so I believe, but he has the eye and ear of the public. A slap on the wrist. That does seem to me to be the tendency, not to send people to jail, but to “re-habilitate” them.

Lets face it. Many people idolise this person, they think he is wonderful. Now, if I had my way, I would h*** d*** and q****** him, but then, I come from another planet.

Sure, no-one is dispensable, but some people are more important than others.

I don’t think I said that “any employees at FR are worthless”. That would be wicked. I can easily understand the pressures they work under, believe me.

Like you, I am not anything like a lawyer and I believe I have a little common sense. But that is not the law. The Law is an ass, said someone.

oTd

[bentover]

Name me one person that idolises him

[ou Trek dronkie]

Many people who fly for "nothing" with FR and who don't have a bad experience.

Sadly, some are family.

oTd
:ugh:

[cargo boy]

By the way, I wish the man no personal harm...

...Now, if I had my way, I would h*** d*** and q****** him, but then, I come from another planet.

Like you, I am not anything like a lawyer and I believe I have a little common sense... ...The Law is an ass, said someone.Fer gawds sake, if yer gonna make comments then at least make sense! :rolleyes:

Whilst I have no admiration for the fella, I can understand why he feels so cocky when he reads rubbish such as that load of contradictory rubbish quoted above. There's nothing worse than a bunch of 'barrack room lawyers' holding kangaroo court. If you could only see yourselves and how ridiculous you appear to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

The law may be an ass but it's only because it takes one to know one! :rolleyes:

[maxalt]

As for Maxalt, well, let me tell you squire, I am glad that I never needed to work for an airline that I was ashamed of. I was proud to be with the ones which employed me. I would certainly not write the way some people write, even if I felt that way. Can't see what politics has to do with it either.
Bully for you OTD, I'm glad for you, that you're so happy with your employers.
Do you fly aircraft for a living? If so, could you please tell me who your wonderful employers are so that I can apply there?
Have you worked at Ruinair?

Since you use the past tense - are you no longer employed? How long back are we talking here? The Golden Years of Aviation perhaps - the days Peacock longs for, back when he was treated with "respect"?

If you were being victimised or otherwise abused by an employer you say you would keep your criticism to yourself?
Fair enough...but why should everyone else? If you don't like that - perhaps you should just exercise the same policy toward your colleagues as you do your employers - just bite yer lip.

As for politics - it has everything to do with it, as you would quickly realise if you lived in Ireland.

[DFC]

The Golden Years of Aviation perhaps - the days Peacock longs for, back when he was treated with "respect"?

There is a big difference between being admired, envied or even held in awe and simply being respected.

Some young guys these days seem to think that if they are simply given the same level of respect as a bus driver then that is something less than they deserve.

In the golden years we got the same respect we get today. It is simply that the idea of flying is more mundane today and the awe of the uniformed gold ringed grey haired Captain has disapeared.......Thankfully.

Respect is earned. Thus, it is like any other part of one's income............variable depending on who hands it out.

Regards,

DFC

[jmc-man]

Some time ago, a Radio Interviewer on Irish Radio asked MOL what the greatest risk to Ryanair was. He replied:-

The biggest risk to Ryananr would be if we start to believe our own BULLSH*T!!!!

It would appear that Mr. O'Leary has fallen into that trap.

[zehutiman]

Look at ALPA/APA in the USA. A more militant lot would be hard to find, yet do you really think they are clamoring for higher wages today?
Ah, yes, I know your type.

You say in your profile, you're a Captain. Put your money where your mouth is, and tell us what airline you fly for.

Are you one of those who flies for an ALPA carrier and doesn't pay union dues, yet enjoys all the hard-earned benefits that are paid for by other pilots? Kinda like a pseudo-scab?

Tell us what airline carrier you fly for, 411.

So, you think you know all about the cause and effect of our industry, do you? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, part of the reason for the immense pressure to lower wages is due in large part to LWC? That's Low Wage Carriers, not Low Cost Carriers -- their costs are, for the most part, the same as the Legacy carriers, except for the wages, so I prefer the term Low Wage Carrier.

As long as pilots are willing to fly for next to nothing, how do you expect the big carriers to compete? Do you think it's a coincidence that these low-wage carriers are not ALPA members or, have no union at all? Of course it isn't. Look at JetBlew; those guys sign a 5-year contract of employment. Do you think each individual pilot will be offered a renewal of his contract if he's heavily engaged in unionizing? Hardly.

In 2001, a First Officer with 7 years at one of the Legacy Carriers was making $170/hr. Now, I ask you, why would a pilot applicant choose to apply to say, JetBlew or AirTran, where the equivalent guy was making about $90/hr? Don't even try and tell me it's because the guy was clairvoyant and could see the trouble the Legacy carriers were in for. No, the answer is because he couldn't get a job at one of the legacy carriers and was all too happy just to get a job ANYWHERE, flying a JET!!!

This whole thing became a self-fulfilling prophecy. So, please, spare us the union-bashing. Unions as a whole, not just airline unions, are the reason in America, we ever had 40-hour work weeks, weekends off, vacations, health insurance, job protections, minimum wages, trip rigs, duty rigs, mandatory breaks, duty limits, etc, etc.

Don't forget 411, what airline do you fly for?

[maxalt]

Respect is earned. Thus, it is like any other part of one's income............variable depending on who hands it out. Piffle! If my employer disrespects me - then I'll disrespect them right back.

Loyalty is for losers.
Its the New Deal.

[jokova]

zehutiman wants 411 to break out of his closet and say his employer. (Why don't you 'zehutiman'?) You can only gauge the credentials of a poster, unless it's total crap, by reading the tone, and intuition tells us there are many idle or malicious infiltrators. Mind you, I do not count 'zehutiman' amongst them, (at least till 'CIA' appears in his profile). (Faint Georgian accent wafts in - "Thanks for nothing, mate.")

That flippancy aside, zehutiman speaks truth - how all of us in the western world who, collectively, fly or have flown for scores of carriers owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men who forced the largely unprincipled owners and operators to abide by, (as opposed to respect), hard fought terms and conditions. So much gained. So much lost.

Many a fine unionist now turns in his grave. If anyone can suggest mechanisms for reform that don't start in the parliament or the congress, let's hear them. (But please, not from the hardened or casual cynics who have nothing to contribute but resignation.)

[411A]

Oh dear, I seem to have you in a snit, zehutiman.
Now, if you were a bright lad you would have known who I have worked for in the last 35 years (do a search, you might be surprised) but I can sure tell you one thing...

In 1983, about thirty ex-Braniff guys showed up at my employers door, all wanting jobs.
Then once again, in 1991, 'round about forty ex-Eastern Air Lines pilots came a knockin' on the same door, with hat in hand.

The one common demominator of the two...they were both ALPO represented carriers.
Good old ALPO didn't do much for these guys, now did they?

Silly lad, you don't know what you a a talkin' about.

Legacy carriers in the USA are doomed...simple as that.
And a large chunk of ALPO will go down the drain with 'em.
With ALPO, the gravy train has left the station.
Sadly, the guys in the organization haven't realized it yet.:\

[DFC]

Maxalt,

Respect and Loyalty are separate issues.............you could be very loyal to a company but have no respect for a particular manager...........probably the case in many airlines.

Loyalty can be purchased..........give people good pay, free staff travel for them and their families, generous sick leave, more and more perks and you will have a very loyal workforce......they won't leave you..........they may not have any respect for you cause you are driving the business into the ground but they will stick round because no one else offers a reason for being loyal to them.

Regards,

DFC

[ShortfinalFred]

411a is a union-hater of long standing. He seems to devote an inordinate of time to decrying any attempt by pilots to create anything apart from a rock-bottom employment situation.

Under the 411a credo you'd be better off being a truck driver - its a more respectable job, and, if you own your own trucking firm, even with just your truck and you as the whole jig, hey, your a member of the property-owning democracy instead of being a rabid proto-marxist employee.

There's a degree of disingenuity at work. 411a long wished to create his own airline out of some disused Tristars, I believe. Obviously cheap pilots, (as cheap as you can get...............), improves the balance sheet of a start-up designed to enrich its owner, (nothing wrong with that, but its when the level of abuse reaches the scale of that in Ryanair that questions are rightly being asked).

It does seem as if the tragedy of 9/11 has put this plan into the deep freeze, or would 411a care to enlighten us otherwise?

It may well be that overcapacity in the market and a lack of a rational pricing model in the industry, (which lead a recent US newspaper commentator to call the US airline industry a "mass charitable airlift"), will drive down salaries, but I have a prediction.

Market forces cut both ways. In the end the seemingly limitless supply of people willing to become a pilot will dry-up. As a job it has lost its allure. Experience levels will decline alarmingly, hull losses will rise, insurance premiums with it. I guarantee that compensation levels will rise and benefits including good pension provision will return.

People are economic rationalists in this material age. How many will pay for training AND stick-at a job with no possibility of any equity worth a darn in the firm, no pension, no healthcare, the chance to lose your livelihood twice a year in the sim or at the medical, work levels that destroy any hope of a reasonable family life, and employers who'se only chance for profit is to reduce your compensation package again and again and again? Once you get beyond about 40 there is no chance of realistic-paying salaried employment outside flying either, in this highly specialised employment age that we live in.

To answer my own question I would say, less and less people of the right calibre will do it. And to all those who say the job does't need people of calibre, I would say think again. Anyone who posts that getting an ATPL in 8 months is all it takes is a fool or a liar. That is but the license to start a lifetime of dedicated learning and practise. Command of an airliner, and the trust that goes with it, the entrusting of peoples lives to your care, is not something to be gained lightly or easily decried. Anyone who claims that flying a modern airliner and being FULLY COMPETENT to manage any conceivable combination of failures is piece of old pi** is also a liar or a fool.

Ryanair rightly stands accused of using the tactics of the poorhouse in an industry where trust and mutual respect need to be the backbone of a safe operation. Its leader has enriched himself at the expense of his people and undermines the ethos and standards of a profession of huge public trust every working day.

411a can have little idea of the goings-on in Ryanair from his retirement idyl in Arizona and has deeply suspicious motives of his own for the endless posts he makes gloating at every turn of the screw against his own profession.

His posts should be read with deep scepticism.

[Telstar]

Getting back on topic.........

Aren't they back in court today, anybody know whats the latest?

[zehutiman]

411, I really DO know your type.

For those on the other side of the pond, every once in a while, I fly with a guy, usually about 58 years of age, mean, grumpy, mad at the world...the kind who comes home and kicks his poor, defenseless dog because it makes him feel like a big man....they sit in the cockpit muttering about how ALPA f***ed them over because his original airline went under (nevermind that it was run by a-holes like Frank Lorenzo) or he didn't get the seniority he wanted after the merger (eventhough he's now earning more and flying a larger a/c that his original company never even owned). He's a sour, horrible bird. That's the kind of guy we're dealing with here. A union-hater.

Judging by your postings on Airliners.net, a Frank Lorenzo lover to boot, eh? Well, that speaks volumes...volumes. Credibility: Zero.

And please, just indulge me. Since I'm very new to this forum, tell me and everyone which airline for whom you're currently (or in the past) a Captain. I certainly didn't see any type-ratings. But, then again, I knew you wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to answer that question (even though I asked it three times); then folks might see you as a fraud.

411, you wouldn't by any chance be a scab, too, would you?

[Kaiser Sose]

Gosser back in the saddle.

well done John.

[Cosmic Star]

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0427/ryanair.html

April 27, 2005 15:18

The chief executive of Ryanair, Michael O'Leary, escaped the possibility of jail and a contempt of court finding today on a legal technicality.

A Ryanair pilot, John Goss, had sought Mr O'Leary's committal to jail alleging contempt of a court order. But Mr Justice Barry White found today that the notice of contempt of court proceedings must be served on the person whose committal to prison is sought.

This did not happen in the case of Michael O'Leary and David O'Brien, the company's director of flight and ground operations. The judge did not make any determination on the contempt in relation to the company itself and instead the matter has been adjourned until a full hearing scheduled for May 31.

But as Mr O'Leary was leaving court he was served in person with new court papers alleging contempt. Mr Justice White did make an order requiring Ryanair to reinstate John Goss to his flying duties. The judge stressed that his order was not inhibiting Ryanair from suspending Mr Goss solely for bona fide and operational reasons, corroborated by appropriate evidence. But he warned that if his order were breached and if found contempt it would take an awful lot to convince that jail was not appropriate.

[Cosmic Star]

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0427/ryanair.html

April 27, 2005 15:18

The chief executive of Ryanair, Michael O'Leary, escaped the possibility of jail and a contempt of court finding today on a legal technicality.

A Ryanair pilot, John Goss, had sought Mr O'Leary's committal to jail alleging contempt of a court order. But Mr Justice Barry White found today that the notice of contempt of court proceedings must be served on the person whose committal to prison is sought.

This did not happen in the case of Michael O'Leary and David O'Brien, the company's director of flight and ground operations. The judge did not make any determination on the contempt in relation to the company itself and instead the matter has been adjourned until a full hearing scheduled for May 31.
Click here to find out more!

But as Mr O'Leary was leaving court he was served in person with new court papers alleging contempt. Mr Justice White did make an order requiring Ryanair to reinstate John Goss to his flying duties. The judge stressed that his order was not inhibiting Ryanair from suspending Mr Goss solely for bona fide and operational reasons, corroborated by appropriate evidence. But he warned that if his order were breached and if found contempt it would take an awful lot to convince that jail was not appropriate.

[the grim repa]

well done john!kick up the ass for mol and co.
now for all the above bull about unions being no good.where would mr.goss be today without his union.he would be out of work with no way to appeal to the megalomaniac.well done REPA.

[GGV]

But as Mr O'Leary was leaving court he was served in person with new court papers alleging contempt. Yes, but according to a very strong and repeated rumour these papers were served personally by the President of IALPA, Captain Evan Cullen. Apparently this was all caught on camera and will be on the news this evening.

Can't stand over this, but it is too good not to repeat and, it must be said, it is spreading like wildfire.

[411A]

Another snit eh, zehutiman?
You positively know the type, do you?

I can only laugh at your sad postings.
Do a search, and you will find that I have worked overseas (predominatly with three large state owned carriers, but your search will find which ones) for over thirty five years in command of heavy jets, and the countless ALPO folks that have shown at the door have all had seemingly sad stories.
Staunch ALPO guys to the end they were, until that is they were screwed over big-time by their union.
ALPO is not about representing pilots...it is about money for the ALPO executives.

And as for ShortFinalFred, no, there will be positively no 'shortage' of guys wanting to apply for airline pilot positions.
More accidents you say, from their 'inexperience?'
Not if the airlines boost up their training budgets, as they will have too in any case.
Pilot unions are fine if reasonably managed, but when they ask...no demand far too much (Delta is a perfect example) from the company, the airline may well find that bankruptcy is the only option...as Delta is considering now.
Gee, what a surprise.
Then, pensions aref flushed down the drain (hello UAL, USAir), pilots are laid off big-time, and general misery prevails.
And yet, ALPO fights tooth and nail to keep the regional carriers from partnering with legacy carriers, to provide ample competition in the LLC market.
Scope clauses have done absolutely nothing except throw legacy carrier pilots out of work...and the sad part is, these guys don't have a clue.
Oh yes, one final thought for Fred.
Continental would have been but a very distant memory if Lorenzo had not pulled their bacon out of the fire.
UAL had their eye on closing 'em permantly if they had had their way.
History is long forgotton, by those with short memories, clouded by ALPO BS.

And as for FR, clearly MOL has handled himself in a rather repugnant fashion, but I guess it's just in his nature.
He will certainly get what he deserves...whatever that may be.
In fact, he may well be forced out in the end.
Wouldn't be all that bad, now would it?:}

[zehutiman]

zehutiman wants 411 to break out of his closet and say his employer. (Why don't you 'zehutiman'?)
Delta Air Lines.

Hold your ammo for a few days, 411; some of us have to leave for 3 days to fly a trip and extract money from our benevolent employers so as to pay our evil, mafia-bent union.

[Rednex]

Believe mol and dob avoid porridge at todays hearing. Anyone else heard anything?

[Kaiser Sose]

The Chief Executive of Ryanair was served with contempt of court papers in person by the President of the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association.

"Mr O'Leary you have been served."

He went white and his minions scattered.

"All is changed, changed utterly, a terrible beauty is born."
WB Yeats Easter 1916

LEO............ YOU WILL LOSE.

[Kaiser Sose]

Captain John Goss re-instated to full flying duties.

Contempt issues deferred to full hearing on 31st May 2005.

President of IALPA personally served O'Leary with contempt papers outside the court.

Share price €5.60 down 2.1%

[the grim repa]

i believe mastercard and mol are to team up for one of those funky t.v. ad's.

something like.

PRICE of treating your staff like sh*t,a day in the high court.

PRICE of legal team for one day, 20,000 euros.

PRICE of being a bully,no mates.

expression on o'learys face when pres. of i.a.l.p.a serves him with contempt papers,PRICELESS.

[maxalt]

Loyalty can be purchased..........give people good pay, free staff travel for them and their families, generous sick leave, more and more perks and you will have a very loyal workforce......they won't leave you..........they may not have any respect for you cause you are driving the business into the ground but they will stick round because no one else offers a reason for being loyal to them.

Now you get it DFC...simply stated....SHOW ME THE MONEY!!

All else is bull.

[Shamjet]

Barry White .. saved your life !
Check it! (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0427/ryanair.html)
You Lucky Lucky Bastid!
I see O@leary had his toothpaste and vaseline slung over his shoulder all the same.
Rumour has it the only reason he's not behind bars is because he wasn't served the notice properly.
You Lucky Lucky Bastid!
No frills in Mountjoy ... bet you have the hump now though.!!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But as Mr O\'Leary was leaving court he was served in person with new court papers alleging contempt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and according to a very strong and repeated rumour these papers were served personally by the President of IALPA, Captain Evan Cullen. Apparently this was all caught on camera and will be on the news this evening.

Can\'t stand over this, but it is too good not to repeat and, it must be said, it is spreading like wildfire.

[bentover]

and you,re gonna lose huge.

[Shamjet]

Here's the video link
Including Union members serving the camel with summonse!
RTE 6.1 clip (http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2041056.smil)

[ou Trek dronkie]

It is irrelevant what I do or did, but I accept your point about the politics in Ireland. Thank you. Yes, I do know all about victimisation, at first hand. I decided to go to court and lost. It was fixed. As a result, I learned what it was to really hate someone, but it was a bad, stupid emotion and did me no good at all. It also cost me a packet and caused other damage. Still, to me, my self respect counted more than cringing for bucks.

Yes, I have worked for a lousy boss who used despicable tactics to disunite his crews, but he wasn’t in the same league as MOL. Maybe I have a slight idea of what you guys must put up with in FR, I also remember the pressures of needing the money. Anyway, we probably have more in common than you think.

As for the Golden Years – I don’t know about that, but all my airline friends tell me that it’s nowhere near the fun these days that it used to be. Who am I to disbelieve them ?

Anyway, I join everyone in the disappointment at the news, but hope it’s second time lucky.

Hang in there

oTd

[Airbus Unplugged]

Shamjet - thanks for that link!

Pure theatre.

I usually have to enter my room number to enjoy something that much:)

[Dutchie]

My firefox is unable to open the link. Is there an easier accesable version?

cheers

[minuteman]

Firefox lets me open it, no problem.

You need Real Player to view the clips.

Nine O'Clock News (http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2041150.smil)

Great result - well done lads! :ok:

All indications were that MOL was rather uncomfortable in the courtroom today...

[Shamrock 602]

Here are two versions of yesterday's High Court proceedings against O'Leary et at in Dublin for alleged contempt of court.

Both report that the court ordered the pilot's reinstatement.

RTE (the public service broadcaster whose pictures are linked to in previous posts) has a report on its website here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0427/ryanair.html) .

The Irish Times (subscription required) carried this version:

Move to jail O'Leary adjourned
[Thursday 28 April 2005]

An application to jail Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary and the company's director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien, for contempt has been adjourned at the High Court.

The judge found notice of the contempt proceedings was served on a secretary within the airline, rather than on the two executives personally, as would be required by law.

As Mr O'Leary left the Four Courts precincts late yesterday, a trade union official served notice on him of a rerun of the contempt proceedings, which were initiated by Ryanair pilot John Goss.

Mr Goss has claimed that Ryanair's suspension of him earlier this month was an attempt to bully and intimidate him and other pilots who wished to pursue issues with the company through the pilots' representative association, Ialpa.

Earlier yesterday, Mr Justice Barry White granted a mandatory injunction compelling Ryanair Ltd to reinstate Mr Goss to his flying duties.

Under the injunction, the company is restrained from suspending Mr Goss from his duties as captain or preventing him from flying or interfering in any way with his ability to comply with his aviation licence requirements.

The judge had heard contempt proceedings brought by Mr Goss last week and adjourned his decision until yesterday. It was submitted that Ryanair had breached an order made by the High Court last February, in proceedings brought by Mr Goss against Ryanair restraining it from conducting a disciplinary meeting with him.

On April 12th the High Court fixed May 31st for the hearing of Mr Goss's full action against Ryanair. In a letter to Mr Goss dated April 12th, signed by Mr O'Brien, the company said its internal disciplinary procedures could not function properly or in the interests of people if they were to be subjected to repeated delay and obstruction.

The letter continued: "In our view these continued delays, when combined with the burden which any High Court action may place on an individual, render it sensible and operationally appropriate that you should not engage in full-time flying duties.

"We hereby suspend you with immediate effect and on full pay, until such time as this court hearing on May 31st, and any subsequent disciplinary process, has been brought to a conclusion."

Mr Justice White, in his judgment, said it had been argued that there was a failure on Mr Goss's side to serve the February order personally on Mr O'Leary and Mr O'Brien. The judge said it was essential for the applicant, Mr Goss, to prove service of the court order personally upon those whose committal or attachment was sought (in this case Mr O'Brien and Mr O'Leary).

In this case the relevant affidavits of service showed that a secretary was served. Counsel for Mr Goss had urged that if the court could not find for him only because of the defect in service, it should at least hold Ryanair to be in contempt under and by virtue of the application for further and other relief.

Mr Justice White said he would not determine the contempt aspect of the present application but would adjourn it to be determined by the trial judge when the substantive issue was concluded.

On the application for an injunction, the judge said that in granting it, he was in no way inhibiting Ryanair, in appropriate circumstances, from suspending Mr Goss solely on bona fide grounds, corroborated by appropriate evidence.

Mr Justice White adjourned the question of costs.

© The Irish Times

Shamrock 602

[Flying Fiona]

Great result. Watching MOL outside the court shaking and his voice breaking made me feel so happy. The man is evil to the core and in this world God wins every time. Is there a fund I can contribute to in order to assist Mr Goss?

[VIKING9]

You'll probably find that MOL will get worse now but use others to spread his torture :yuk:

[karmakomet69]

O'Brien must be thinking twice the next time he is told to sign one of O'learys creations.

I'd say his missus is starting to take interest too!

What will it take for the rats to begin to desert the sinking ship or are they hanging on to take his place i wonder??

Wilson is a patient man!

[Lionel Hutz]

Its a mandatory injuction.

Not something to be taken lightly.

Ryanair's Lawyers should be banging Ryanair management heads together if they are worth the money they are paid.

Tread Carefully Mr O'Leary or you will indeed be somebody's Bitch.

[karmakomet69]

Rumours ... not just a dodgey O'Connell street night-club of the 90's

Rumour has it.. O'leary oh sorry Ryanair, have gone through 4 different law firms in as many years.

Rumour has it The last firm (well known in dublin!) were let go in January just as all this began to get some momentum up.

Rumour has it O'Rourke reid (presently engaged firm) are now actively looking for someway to re-establish.. following their easy money stint with O'leary.

Rumour has it that no qualified Lawyer would allow their client to write the dribble currently being printed on Company Letterhead unless it was really WORTHWHILE.

WORTHWHILE in this context is rumoured not to have any moral or idealogical weight.

Rumour has it O'Leary has told all hench men to stop posting on tinternet.

Rumours -- the favoured weapon of the Assasins of Character!

Rumour has it O'leary used to be a great Character!

Rumour has it that none of this is true!

[chikenscanfly]

For all those REPA members...

a link to a News video clip showing, in motion picture, OLeary 'being served' by Evan Cullin, is available on the REPA site now!

classic...

[411A]

I find it truly quite amazing that many posters here would desire FR to fold.
True, MOL might be 'not such a nice fellow' but considering that FR provides employment for several hundred pilots, never mind all the other associated staff, the thought of FR actually going to the wall will not feed those employees families....when (or if) it actually does.
I also wonder if some of the more virulent posters here might have actually been turned down for employment at FR at some time...and now have a bucketfull of sour grapes.

And further, would these folks consider supporting these unemployed pilots if they should lose their jobs due to the failure of the company.
You know, much like some of the HKAOA folks did at CX.

My bet is, they would not.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest respect 411A, I keep hearing this same line again and again in connection with Ryanair.

"providing employment for 700 pilots"
"Making air travel possible for the masses"
"Opening up new tourist destinations etc. etc. etc."

The thing that worries me is that every con artist it has ever been my unfortunate pleasure to run across (and I've seen three or four of them in action) has made these same or similar self serving claims.

To listen to them, its as if profit is the last thing on their minds, they are god's gift to the community, their employees, the poor, the nation, humanity and so on. New business models and practices opening doors to undreamed of economies of scale and so on.

In private however, they treat their employees with great harshness and ruthlessly punish anyone who threatens their worldview as God's gift to humanity, as the unfortunate Mr. Goss has demonstrated (even if he wins).


Two things ultimately happen.

1. They put their hand out for Government support.

2. They go spectacularly broke.

If I was a Ryanaire staff member, I would be much happier and more secure to hear management boasting about how big the profits were and how tight their cost control was, how much they value their customers and staff, rather than the sort of stuff that Mr. Camel was spitting out on Pprune.

[atse]

411A, I too have normally avoided saying anything in response to your inane, opinionated and rambling posts (which you seem to be prepared to make on any subject, and in a manner that suggests that YOUR opinion is in someway special). Your problem, which I seem to recall many people repeatedly making clear at other times, is not so much your opinions - to which you are as welcome as everyone else - but your basic ability to read what has been written and to understand what is going on.

Once again we see this repeated lack of ability to grasp what is obvious. This time you have sailed into another thread, apparently oblivious to what has been going on, to express your "horror" thus: I find it truly quite amazing that many posters here would desire FR to fold.This, as everybody else will have noticed, is not what has been at issue at any time in any thread on Ryanair. How come you did not see this? What way do you read what is written; is it through special "411A tinted glasses"?

What is, what has been and what will be at issue is a corporate culture of intimidation and bullying centred on one notable personality and the inability of pilots to find an adequate means of addressing their interests and needs.

Your apparent inability to read the English language and willingness to spout drivel on YOUR current hobby-horse is undiminised by anything said anywhere on PPRuNe.

You are not likely to read this post in any other way than serves what you were going to say anyway. However, you might like to take the opportunity to make clear to us all what your position on intimidation and bullying is. You might also like to tell us if the judges (note the plural) who have made their position on Ryanair very clear also "want Ryanair to fold". I look forward to reading what you say and how you say it ... go ahead, confirm you just don't get it, or just don't want to get it.

[bluepilot]

Normally i am not a great fan of 411As postings, but actually he has a very good and valid point here (for a change!!):O

FR provides hundreds of jobs and also the travelling public with a good service that they want. If they were to fold it would bring an enormous amount of suffering and worry to hundreds of people, MOL would not suffer ashe has already "cashed in" on the success of FR. I just wish MOL would grow up and stop being such a b*stard to his employees. There is no justification for it and i am sure a change of image would in fact do the company alot of good.

[Wing Commander Fowler]

Sorry blue but you too seem to be missing the point here...... Don't see anyone wishing FR to fold. They just either want to see the back of O'Leary or a change of hump!!

[BEagle]

411A, whilst your comments regarding aggressive and greedy unions driving an airline to the wall might well be true, in the Ryanair context this is irrelevant.

The employees of Ryanair do not appear to be making any unreasonable demands; rather, they are seeking collective bargaining methods to protect them from ever more erosions to their terms and conditions of employment.

This whole horn-locking saga seems so utterly self-defeating; if O'Leary really wants the airline to succeed, he should work with, not against his work force.

This court case must be a turning point; will the shareholders subsequently demand that O'Leary steps down?

[Finman]

Just in case anyone, including the ignorant are in any doubt, NOONE at Ryanair wants it to fold!!! Ryanair has the potential to be a great Company to work for. It only needs the correct type of leadership. Sadly, we are unlikely to get it from Leo. He seems to believe that by abusing his staff to save pennies (banning of phone chargers as the extreme example), he can afford to waste millions in futile court battles. He thinks all the pilots hate him so he hates all the pilots. It is a vicious circle which is unlikely to be broken until his retirement. Hopefully the major shareholders will wake up to the money he is wasting compared to what he is 'saving' in the very short term and help him out the door.

[GGV]

I agree with the most recent posters and I think the change in tone of the courts, the media and the political establishment in Ireland spell serious trouble for MOL. While this may be a temporary blip, I doubt it. The tone of absolute irreverance towards MOL in some of the press coverage is there to be seen for those who wish too see it. Are we seeing an ever increasing decline in the slipperly slope?

[unwiseowl]

Do you think there is any limit to which an employer can go before employees are allowed to fight back?

(Please don't bother to reply, I'm not actually interested in your one-sided rants:yuk: )

[sky9]

1 MOL is not Ryanair he is an employee of Ryanair, allbeit one with shares in the company.
2 Ryanair will offer jobs to pilots as long as aircraft require 2 people to sit up front and the company is profitable.
3 Unlike pilots Directors are disposable.
4 Don't take too much notice of 411A, he's only a Cessna twin.

[GGV]

Don't get to excited by the prospect. Contempt in Ireland is a civil and not a criminal offence (he says authoritativly, but to be honest I have just been "assured" that this is the case by somebody else!).

[the grim repa]

mol and his henchmen are not ryanair.

[maxalt]

To 411A and any other individual out there who thinks we want FR to go bust....please explain the mechanism by which you imagine this will happen?

Is it something like this:-

O'Leary and/or his cohort are thrown in jail.
The public suddenly decide they won't fly FR any more.
The company goes tits up.

If so, let me offer you an alternative scenario:-

O'Leary and/or his cohort are thrown in jail.
The pax don't give a **** as long as the ticket is still only 9.99
The company continues to flourish.

The only thing that is likely to change if Leo gets humped is a major improvement in staff morale...always a good thing for profits.

[RAT 5]

To 411A & anyone of similar ilk: there have been many airlines, Eastern for one, who have gone to the wall, and none of them have been due to pilot union action. They have all been due to inept or corrupt management. Of anyone in an airline it is the pilots who have a long-term interext in its survival. This utter C#@p that is spoken about unions wanting or causing the downfall of an airline; show us one occaision!?!
It is about time that pilots stand up for themselves and do not allow all this slanderous venom to continue.
RYR will not fold due pilot action; it will only strengthen.

[411A]

Sadly (for the pilots) BEagle, I really believe they are mis-informed.
The FR pilots (as a collective body) want a change of faces in the executive suite, as many truly believe MOL is a detriment for the company.

This whole scenario reminds me of the 'ole National Airlines in MIA.
Bud Maytag was seen as a very bad dude by the pilots, yet he was able to play 'em like a violin at every opportunity.
ALPO representation, contracts, pay...the lot.

Try this on for size.
Pilots anger is directed at MOL, so he is 'retired' fo the family farm, with the usual generous payout.
The pilots rejoyce...HE is gone.
Quietly however, the screws are turned on the pilots (again as a collective body) and nothing really changes, just a change of faces, not a change of modus operendi.

Pilots (as a group) are usually pretty dumb when it comes to this type of maneuvering...and I expect it will be no different now.

In short, they is screwed....either way.

I can only laugh at their stupidity.

Oh yeah, forgot to add.
Bud Maytag sold National to PanAmerican for $400million, and retired to his stud farm.
The pilots...right to the bottom of the PanAm seniority list they went...DC10 Captains became B727 Flight Engineers.
Bud had the last laugh, without a doubt.:}

[beardy]

Forgive me, but is that supposed to be a ringing endorsement of MOL, or a plea to us stupid pilots to wise up?

[Kaiser Sose]

Share price €5.55 down 2.5%

I believe it will be a better airline for both the shareholders and the employees if O'Leary is removed and Howard Miller or Michael Cawley take over the helm.

The board are watching this very carefully.

[Sunfish]

I'm afraid I've looked at the Airlines accounts and one or two analysts reports, and I'm afraid I am yet to be impressed by Ryaniare's commercial acumen. The runs are not yet on the board.

[saline]

The poor buggers in the US, or EK, or CX lack one thing...a SOCIALIST system, and the social contract that accompanies it.

And I thank god every day for that!

[click]

Hallelujah,

Me forgets where this quote came from but: "Socialists love the poor so much they make more of them". Could MOL be a closet socialist? Just a thought:}

[atse]

Just to get back to the "going to jail" bit of this thread. As far as I can make out, the judge said that MOL and DOB, as individuals, and Ryanair as a airline, will all face the "contempt of court" charge at the main trial which takes place at the end of May.

If I get this right, this means that he has not actually escaped, but that the matter has merely been put off until later. This, it has just dawned on me, may be even worse for him depending upon how badly the case goes for Ryanair. After all, it is widely rumoured that Ryanair may have big problems with this case.

So, maybe he really could go to jail!!??

[maxalt]

Well saline you must be either a manager or a business type, in which case an organised proletariat is your worst nightmare, right? And naturally the concept of a Social Contract gives you the twitches. Your best bet is to stay over there in the US and continue raping your workforce, where thats acceptable behaviour - you wouldn't like it much over here in Old Europe.

On the other hand, if by any slim chance you are just another misguided wage slave, content to place your trust in the capitalist system, and to trust in the integritry of your bosses to look after your future - Dream On. The workers at ENRON enjoyed the fruits of the capitalist system (for a while), and trusted Ken Lay to look after them. DOH!
I fervently hope that you - like those poor ENRON suckers - will soon be educated as to the facts of life in the new dog eat dog world-order, and that you will see your working conditions swiftly eroded and spend the latter years of your life struggling to survive after your pension has been embezzled by your greedy employer. :ok:

411A you don't get it yet. While most pilots at FR (and in many other companies) might have no love for O'Leary, to imagine that any of them wish to join a union with the aim in mind of taking action to oust him from his job - thats plain stupid.
Keep trying, the penny will eventually drop.

[The Real Slim Shady]

If you are so all so feckin' clever how come he is running is the company and you bunch of muppets are working for him?

Go to jail???

Get a life!!

[signeti]

speaking of clever , i can see from your posts on this site that you have a REAL SLIM INTELLECT to boot Mr shady

breaking a high court order in ireland is a very serious offence

there is a good chance MOL will get spanked in some way

[delwy]

Mr Shady. May I draw to your attention the following words used by the High Court judge last Wednesday and which I was shown earlier today. I understand these words are among other extracts from what the judge said that are shortly to be posted on another site:Again for the avoidance of doubt I will make it manifestly clear that if there is a breach of my order and if the matter comes back before me I will have little or no hesitation in considering the issue or issues of contempt of court and if I find contempt of court it will take an awful lot to convince me that it is not appropriate to jail certain persons until such time as they purge their contempt.
“Going to jail” may not be probable, but I have no doubt whatsoever that the “certain persons” will have been told what my legal source told me. Which is: take this seriously, it is REAL.

Also, as somebody has already pointed out, the contempt issue has not gone away – it has just been held over to the main court action at the end of May.

[skyclamp]

Nice one Moderators.

You know what I mean?

[Shamrock 602]

I will say straight off that I am not a lawyer, and there are undoutedly others who are better qualified to make the following points. But in the absence of their contribution, I have to point out that there seems to be some confusion over the nature of contempt of court.

MOL is not facing a criminal charge, so he does not necessarily face the prospect of a specific fine or jail term, as he would if found guilty of a criminal offence. His case involves an allegation of civil contempt: the court sanctions some one for failing to obey an earlier order of the court, or for interfering with the administration of justice.

Civil contempt can arise in many ways. They include allowing your mobile phone to ring in court, trying to intimidate witnesses, reporting the case in a prejudicial manner, or failing to obey a court injunction (as is alleged in Mr O'Leary's case).

With civil contempt, the court can send you to jail until you "purge your contempt", which you do by coming back to court very humbly and promising not to do it again. Unlike a criminal jail term, you can (in theory) stay in jail indefinitely until you do so.

As an alternative, the High Court has in recent years sent a former government minister to jail for periods of a week at a time, for failing to comply with earlier court orders to provide documents and cooperate with a Tribunal of Inquiry. It was a first, and was widely welcomed by the public. It made great television.

Speaking of the public, many of the comments about the nature of the courts are also wide of the mark. While I rarely find myself speaking up for the legal profession, the courts do operate in public and are generally outside of the political process. Some people will certainly disagree with me, on this, and they are of course entitled to their opinion (how generous of me;) ). But there are many, many examples of Irish courts handing down decisions which have been embarassing to, or against the interests of, the government of the day or the establishment in general.

They are of course constrained by the fact that they are asked to implement and interpret the law, which may or may not amount to justice.

Let us wait and see. The main fight is still a few weeks away. In the meantime, the mandatory injunction requiring the pilot's suspension to be lifted is significant; it would be madness for Ryanair not to obey it to the letter. MOL will have been warned of that by his legal team - and he may even listen.

Shamrock 602

[Camel Killer]

MOL will have been warned of that by his legal team - and he may even listen.

Whooops, there goes that pig past my window again;)

[cargo boy]

Interesting quote from another thread which is possibly very relevant to the 'corporate culture' within Ryanair:The effectiveness of CRM is "contingent upon the committment of the employer and the employees involved. The attainment of such a commitment is not easily achieved. Without a dedicated commitment by the employer....such training is llikely to have little or no impact on its primary goal of safety enhancement." I would say further to this, that human nature is such that managers who are out of their depth WILL resort to bullying and coercion; a poor corporate culture WILL develop. CRM has become just another tool to whip Captains over the head - to test them, to tell them they are failing, to blame them Frankly, CRM should mean CORPORATE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT - and managers should be tested too. I think the public would be shocked to know that they aren't.Seems to sum Ryanair management quite neatly. The actual quote, I believe, is from the report into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden some time ago. :ouch:

[Gorgophone]

The actual quote, I believe, is from the report into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden some time ago.
----------------------------------------------
Sorry, I should have said. Yes you are right Cargo Boy. (Are you older than your name suggests?)

Moshansky, Virgil P. Commissioner (1992) Commission of the Inquiry Into the Air Ontario Crash at Dryden, Ontario, Fifth Report, Volume III, page 1090.

They are the words of Dr. Helmreich. I wish the rest of that post had also been by Helmreich - the bit that suggested that CRM should mean CORPORATE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT!

The bit that goes, "I would say further to this, that human nature is such that managers who are out of their depth WILL resort to bullying and coercion; a poor corporate culture WILL develop. " comes from a working knowledge of psychodynamics of organizations. Does anyone remember the experiment at Yale where people were asked to give electric shocks to 'learners'? (Milgram, Stanley. (1974) Obedience to Authority. Tavistock Publications)

The 'learners' turned out to be actors who 'screamed in agony' while the real subjects of the experiment, those giving the 'electric shocks', continued to 'harm' the actors to the point of giving them heart attacks. Conclusion? Normal people will harm others if they think they are being obedient to those in authority. "I was just following orders..." is an example of that.

Remember - more people have died because of those following orders than those who opposed them.

Managers WILL send pilots to fly when they are fatigued and coerce even more work out of pilots - even if it means risking their lives. They do this to please those in authority over them. They are not deliberately being murderous. This is the chilling fact; this behaviour is normal.

That is why we need an enlightened, proactive, Regulator, not merely a commercially-focussed enterprise that merely relies on market forces. Market forces (with concomitant organizational psychodynamics) can kill.

[A-3TWENTY]

This is a good time for a more serious attitude from pilots....

[Ryanairpilot]

no, honestly, thanks for that a320. thanks to you we'll be able to solve all the problems now.

yours indebtedly, etc, etc

[LTNman]

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0509/ryanair.html

Ryanair pilot John Goss, whose suspension from flying duties triggered a bid to jail Michael O'Leary for contempt of a court order, has still not been reinstated to his flying roster.

Two weeks ago, Mr O'Leary escaped a possible prison sentence for contempt on a legal technicality.

Captain Goss's union, the IALPA, had alleged in court that Ryanair was in breach of a previous court order restraining it from holding a disciplinary meeting regarding the pilot.


At the time, Mr Justice White did not make any determination on the substantive row between the pilot and the airline, which has been scheduled for a full hearing on May 31.

However, the judge made an order requiring Ryanair to reinstate Captain Goss to flying duties.

Ryanair's argument that the suspension was made for operational and safety reasons was not accepted by the High Court.
However, the judge said his order was not inhibiting the company from suspending Mr Goss solely on bone fide safety grounds corroborated by appropriate evidence.

He also warned that if his order is breached, and if he found contempt, it would take an awful lot to convince him that jail was not appropriate.

In a statement today, the airline said it was in continuing discussions with Captain Goss about his return to flying duties.

Ryanair said it would not comment further on this matter, which remains the subject of ongoing legal proceedings.

No spokesperson from IALPA was available for comment.

[Gorgophone]

Ryanairpilot quote:



no, honestly, thanks for that a320. thanks to you we'll be able to solve all the problems now.

yours indebtedly, etc, etc
------------------------

Ryanairpilot, This isn’t about instant solutions right now – an attitude ascribed to toddlers in highchairs; it is about understanding the issues and being prepared to be effective if the worst comes to be worst. If, God forbid, a Ryanair pilot’s family and friends find themselves fighting an unjust charge of pilot error, and if you were one of them, you would be glad of some help. Similarly should you (if you are a pilot) or your colleagues are injured as a result of management malpractice, you'd be glad that someone had thought through the issues.

Today the MEPs in our midst will be voting. Some of them object to having working hours limited – this has the potential to increase pilot hours. This is a sop to the ‘market forces’ managers. In reality it means workers are open to being coerced into working extended hours and of being bullied. This is known in Europe as ‘the British Disease’.

Are you OK with that?

PPRuNe seems to have various functions and sounding off is one of them; it gives instant gratification and often brings a smile to what is a serious subject - thankfully. Another, longer term function is to aid the understanding so that activists can organize their thoughts. If MPs understand the issues they are better equipped to help – and let’s face it, there are few who even attempt to understand the aviation safety issues.

It seems to me that what A320 was doing was bringing a balance of these two functions into this thread. Both are OK, so don’t knock it. OK!
:ok:

[Ryanairpilot]

gorgophone

wow,no,honestly, thanks for that too.

not sure which particular tangent you've launched yourself off on but as regards my previous post and the issues within ryanair, you'll find, if you bother to ask, that we are deadly serious.

OK!

[FlyingV]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0510/ryanair.html

Ryanair pilot renews legal action

10 May 2005 15:27
Lawyers for Ryanair pilot John Goss have indicated to the High Court that they wish to renew their application for the imprisonment of airline boss Michael O'Leary for an alleged contempt of a High Court Order.

Two weeks ago the High Court ordered Ryanair to restore Captain Goss to flying duties.

Today, Mr Justice White was told that the captain has had three medicals and he is still not back on the flying roster.



Later today the court will be asked to give the go ahead for an application of attachment and committal to be heard on Thursday.

[Shamrock 602]

Looks like it's "see you in court" (again) for Michael O'Leary this Thursday (12th May)...

From the website of the public service broadcaster, RTE (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0510/ryanair.html)


Ryanair pilot renews legal action

10 May 2005 17:17 [GMT+1]
A new application for the jailing of Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary and two other senior executives for the alleged breach of a High Court order will come before the court on Thursday.

Ryanair pilot John Goss has served notice of new proceedings claiming that Ryanair is in contempt of a court order made two weeks ago directing that he be restored to full flying duties with the airline.

He is seeking the jailing of Chief Executive Michael O'Leary, Head of Flight and Ground Operations David O'Brien and Chief Pilot Ray Conway.

In his affidavit in court today, Captain Goss stated that he did not believe Ryanair has any bone fide reason for preventing him return to flying duties.

He said he believes the real motivation before the company refusal is that Ryanair and in particular Michael O'Leary will go to any lengths to ensure that a message is sent out to pilots and other employees that any person who challenges the Ryanair industrial relations and anti-trade union employment policies will suffer as a result.

In court today Mr Justice Barry White granted lawyers for Mr Goss leave to bring their application on Thursday [12th May]


(Edited to carry updated report)

Shamrock 602

[Gorgophone]

Ryanairpilot
I’m on your side. I believe that you are deadly serious – so you should be – but how does “thanks to you we'll be able to solve all the problems now” contribute to A-3TWENTY’s post?


Cargo Boy talked about corporate culture and safety. My post of 6th May refers to bullying ie MOLs behaviour and lack of Regulation.

Today, MEPs who have little knowledge of aviation matters will take a vote that will influence pilots’ jobs.

Far from being a tangent this, I argue, is central to how we are going beat attitudes like those exhibited by MOL. That is, through political means – and that means educating our MEPs as well as local MPs

And while I’m at it, all the best to Captain John Goss – hang on in there! I’d fly with you any day.

[Lionel Hutz]

Lionel Hutz gives free legal advice.

Reinstate that Pilot, Mr O'Leary.

You are in a lot of trouble if you don't.

Disclaimer.

Lionel Hutz is not connected in any way with any of the belligerents in this action.

Lionel Hutz is a person with some legal knowledge.

Lionel Hutz does not care whether Mr O'Leary goes to jail or not, but is of the opinion that he will if he continues in his present vein.

The Battle is lost Michael.

[FakePilot]

Seriously, why not make a year of prison mandatory for new CEO's? I think it would be fair that it count against their future offenses too. Besides, all the CEO's who get out of prison don't seem to be too interested in screwing people in the ass anymore. Coincidence?

[Shamrock 602]

Whether or not the pigs take to the air, tomorrow's proceedings at the Four Courts in Dublin look like they will be interesting :)

Here's a more detailed report of yesterday's hearing (Tues 10th May), from The Irish Times (normally accessible with subscription only).

Shamrock

Ryanair pilot seeks jail order against O'Leary
Irish Times, Wednesday 11th May 2005

The High Court will tomorrow [Thursday 12th May] hear a fresh bid to jail Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary for allegedly failing to obey a court order directing the airline to restore a senior pilot to flying duties.

Leave was given by Mr Justice Barry White yesterday to lawyers for pilot John Goss to bring an application tomorrow for the attachment and committal [i.e. jailing] of Mr O'Leary, Ryanair director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien and the airline's chief pilot, Ray Conway.

An order may also be sought for the sequestration of the assets of Ryanair.

The judge granted leave after being told by Hugh Mohan SC, for Capt Goss, that Ryanair, despite a court order of April 27th last directing the company to restore Mr Goss to flying duties, was still refusing to allow Mr Goss to resume flying, although Mr Goss had been certified as fit to fly by doctors.

The judge heard that Mr Goss had also been assessed as not suffering from any stress such as to impair his ability to fly. The doctors who had examined him included a medical examiner used by the Irish Aviation Authority to assess the suitability of pilots to fly.

Mr Mohan noted that when the High Court had on April 27th last made a mandatory order directing that Mr Goss be restored to flying duties, Mr O'Leary had said in radio interviews that same evening that Mr Goss would be returned to flying duties as soon as possible. Counsel also told the court that Ryanair had sent two letters yesterday seeking to dissuade the bringing of the latest contempt proceedings.

In an affidavit, Mr Goss said he believed Mr O'Leary would go to any lengths to ensure a message was sent out to other pilots and employees that any person who challenged Ryanair's industrial relations and anti-trade union employment policies would suffer.

Mr Goss has alleged in proceedings initiated last February that Ryanair is conducting a campaign of bullying and harassment against him because he is seeking to use normal industrial relations procedures in his dealings with the airline, and to have his concerns represented by the Irish Airline Pilots' Association.

Ryanair has denied those claims. A full hearing of Mr Goss's challenge to disciplinary procedures taken against him has been fixed for May 31st.

On April 27th last, an application by Mr Goss to jail Mr O'Leary and Mr O'Brien was deferred when the judge found that a secretary within the company, rather than they personally, had been served with notice of contempt proceedings. It was submitted at that hearing that Ryanair had breached an order made in February restraining the airline from conducting a disciplinary hearing with him.

However, also at the April 27th hearing, Mr Justice White granted a mandatory injunction compelling Ryanair to reinstate Mr Goss to his flying duties.

Mr Goss had taken those earlier contempt proceedings after Ryanair, in a letter of April 12th last, said that in its view it was sensible and operationally appropriate that he should not engage in full-time duties and he was suspended on full pay until the legal action fixed for May 31st (of Mr Goss' challenge to disciplinary proceedings against him) and any subsequent disciplinary process was concluded.

Yesterday, Mr Mohan told Mr Justice White that regretfully his client still had not been rostered to fly and that was why the contempt proceedings were being brought. In an affidavit, Mr Goss said that on May 3rd last he had attended a meeting with Capt Conway and the chairman of Ryanair's air safety committee, Michael Horgan. Mr Goss was accompanied by Turlough O'Neill, a Ryanair colleague.

Mr Conway said the meeting was exploratory and was to discuss the position with regard to Mr Goss's return to flight duties and that no decision would be made at the meeting to allow him return to flying duties.

Mr Goss said he was astonished and very disappointed to hear this as he had obtained the court order allowing him return to flying duties.

Mr Conway said he agreed with the decision of Mr O'Brien in relation to Mr Goss' suspension and that there were flight safety implications due to what Mr Conway had referred to as "escalating legal and industrial issues."

Mr Conway said he had not been aware of Mr O'Brien's decision to suspend Mr Goss from flying duties until the day of the hearing of the previous court application on April 21st, and that he had not reviewed the file until after the making of the April 27th court order, Mr Goss said.

Mr Goss said he had informed Mr Conway that he was ready to go back flying to which Mr Conway replied that he, Mr Conway, wished to "disengage from the legal process" and that he had to observe the protections that were in place for flight safety implications.

Following further correspondence, he had received a letter from Mr Conway dated May 5th informing him it was impossible to assign Mr Goss to flying duties. In the letter, Mr Conway referred to having allegedly consulted with two unnamed international experts. Mr Goss said Mr Conway had not stated those persons' areas of alleged expertise.

Mr Conway did not make any reference to Mr Goss's previous medical certification of fitness to fly, nor did he explain the basis for his opinion.
© The Irish Times

[CarltonBrowne the FO]

Fakepilot's suggestion that all CEOs should be sent to prison is an interesting one. In fact, it would be good for their health: as Ernest Saunders proved, after a stay in prison it is in fact possible to recover from terminal Alzheimer's Disease!

[GGV]

I suppose that the reality is that Ryanair and its executives will continue with this nonsense, once again, until they are, once again, found to have behaved badly. No news there for seasoned Ryanair watchers. They will then apologise which, I'm told, is the way of "purging their contempt". Then, with one bound our heros will be free to repeat the same games once again. So we will discover that, for MOL at least, prison is once again not quite on the cards. What a pity.

But, surely, there must be an end to all of this? Do shareholders not get fed up at some point, or even the courts? Let's not kid ourselves - it is not Ryanair but ONE man that does these things. Surely it cannot go unnoticed that Ryanair is not finding these expensive hearings at all sympathetic to its arguments. In the end there will be serious problems for MOL. I'm hoping that it will be as soon as tomorrow, but I'm prepared to wait. He will be nailed in the end.

In the interim we have the fascinating prospect that we will be seeing some creepy-crawly middle management types under cross-examination. It will be interesting to see how they explain their actions. As with any good soap opera, it looks like there are months of excitement still to come!

[Shamrock 602]

GGV...

Surely it cannot go unnoticed that Ryanair is not finding these expensive hearings at all sympathetic to its arguments.

You mean today's latest court ruling (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0511/ryanair.html) in France?

Shamrock

[the grim repa]

it is my honest belief that o'leary is now hiding his ineffective management style by throwing up smokescreens.
the share price is garbage.
the passenger figures are below that of easy despite the fact that they fly to real airports.
the inflight entertainment was a flop.
ryanair telecom went tits up two days ago citing large losses.
we are hiring third world pilots and cabin crew to shore up the holes.
now they are starting to flog alco shots on board.
the scratch cards are a dead loss and there was ever only one car to be won,which has long since gone but I believe the cards remain for sale.
the company failed to honour its agreement to double flight crew contributions to the tsunami appeal.
there is no record of charitable donations from the scratchcards,which was promised.
they are systematically raping the employee terms and conditions.
the slave labour crew manning agencies are run from within higher management.
illegal aid in in france and belguim.
the ceo,head of ops and the CHIEF PILOT also now up in court for bullying and contempt.
the chief pilot and base captains are afraid to say no to the megalomaniac,so all the **** is hidden in return for a sweetener.
failure of fuel hedging policy.
crew so pissed off that they will do anything but do the company a favour.

what's o'learys answer,throw his toys out of the cot because he cannot have his own terminal at dublin and lead some crusade in his head against the pilots and the union.

this company need a quality management team or there is trouble ahead and soon.not a bunch of bluffers,bungers and bullies.
the pilots of this company are tired of directing their efforts in an aimless way and are crying out to be lead and allowed to make this company great.we need real management to lead this company forward and management/pilot dialogue.

[Sunfish]

Told yer so repa, "magical" business strategies usually aren't. The act can only be carried on for so long, then reality intrudes.

[The Sandman]

'Twas magical - for a while, then megalomania set in... Like I said, MOL you've cut thru all the fat in sight. Now you've cut into muscle and bone. Expect that's the way to make the corporate body work better? Not.

[atse]

Yes, the tone from the Ryanair team is ever so slowly changing. Signs of unease from the henchment (worrying about their court appearances?) along with ever increasing irreverance from the press. The Court system in Ireland is clearly less and less amused at doing Ryanair's industrial relations for them.

The stories about Ryanair apologists being told to withdraw from participation in PPruNe would also appear to be true. An outbreak of nervousness about some of their postings perhaps? Or just a change of strategy?

We rely on somebody in Dublin to bring us news of today's High Court appearance by the Ryanair team and what effect this may have on the Ryanair E.G.M. (also due today, right?). That would be appreciated.

[maxalt]

I think whats most remarkable about the sudden silence here from Ryanair management fans is that it would indicate there was indeed a concerted and organised propaganda campaign being waged on these boards until recently.

We might all have suspected it, but its still amazing to see it this clearly.

[Shamrock 602]

Here's the first report of the High Court hearing in Dublin in which the "attachment" of Michael O'Leary and others is being sought. It's adjourned for the day, and will resume tomorrow, (Fri 13th...)

If anyone wants to follow events, the fastest updates are generally on the website of RTE, the Irish public service broadcaster (www.rte.ie/news). Here's their version:

Ryanair pilot seeks O'Leary jailing
12 May 2005 17:15 [GMT=1]

New proceedings seeking the jailing of Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary and two senior colleagues for alleged contempt of a court order opened before Mr Justice Barry White in the High Court today.

Pilot John Goss is seeking the imprisonment of Mr O'Leary, David O'Brien, the head of flight and ground operations, and Ray Conway, the chief pilot.

Captain Goss claims they are in contempt of court because they failed to restore him to flying duties with the airline.

On 27 April the High Court made a mandatory order compelling the airline to reinstate Captain Goss, who is also seeking an order directing the sequestration of Ryanair's assets.

Captain Goss said on affidavit that he was shocked at the behaviour of Ryanair and the extraordinary lengths to which it seems to be prepared to go to prevent him returning to flying duties, and to thwart the orders of the High Court.

In their affidavits Mr O'Leary and his colleagues reject the allegations that they are in contempt of court.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

They reported earlier (http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0512/ryanair.html) that this morning's EGM in Dublin approved the purchase of the 737NGs.

Will try to post any update tomorrow if I see them, although I'm in the wrong hemisphere and time zone right now :confused:

I'll now indulge myself with some idle speculation for a moment, but at least openly so. ;) I can't help feeling that although this isn't their first appearance, the court may not throw the book at them yet. That's because they're accused of failing to comply with an interim injunction, rather than an injunction issued after a full hearing. That hearing of the substantive issues won't come up until May 31st. But what would I know...

Shamrock 602

[Bart O'Lynn]

Slightly off topic.maybe worth a different thread.
Some one mentioned in an earlier post that they are hiring useless third world pilots. I dont know about useless but i am aware of an example of a pilot with an african atpl form a dodgy authority being offered a job. They must be confident of an easy route to a jar licence being issued , if you know what i mean,wink wink bejasus. No uk operator would touch this guy or guys like him with his/their current qualifications and "hrs".So their poison infiltrates on all levels. They may be registered in ireland but they are lowering the standards of qualification in England by virtue of their main base. Got to be another court case in there somewhere with enought digging. Remember the airtours blagger!! Now either Jar is a micky mouse licence to be given away or someone knows something i dont. Easier country same licence for example. Can we all have our training money back please as it seems it wasnt necessary. All you need is two dodgy yrs on a dodgy jet with a dodgy licence in umbongo and an equally dodgy irishman. For eastern europe add the suffix "ski" to the above requirements.

AAAh thats better

[Irish Steve]

Rte are reporting that "the hearing continues tomorrow"

Looks like if nothing else, it's being looked at very closely.

More details
here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0512/ryanair.html)

[Aloue]

Shamrock 602, I am 99% sure that it is a MANDATORY INJUNCTION. According to RTE the hearing will resume tomorrow.

I suspect that sparks may yet fly ... watch this space ....

[ElNino]

What truth to the rumour that the IAA recently sat in on sim checks in Poland for prospective FR pilots and found virtually all of them unsuitable?
With FR now the airline of last choice, the employment market doing well, soon to be one new aircraft a week arriving (i.e. 10 new pilots required a week) and already a serious shortage at FR, it looks like the party is over for MOL. I guess the sudden realisation that they are about to find it impossible to crew the aircraft is behind the sweetener being paid to those who recommend a friend.
How long before they need to up the Ts and Cs considerably in order to attract, other than the desperate, anything near the numbers they clearly need?

[Shamrock 602]

Shamrock 602, I am 99% sure that it is a MANDATORY INJUNCTION.

You're right, Aloue, it is mandatory. The court did not suggest or recommend that the pilot involved be re-instated to normal flying duties - it ordered it.

The question is how the court will react to its injunction being breached. They often give people "one more chance" to comply - the question is, starting from when!

Just to make it clear again, I'm not a laywer, so this is mere speculation. I'm sure that Akerosid could put us right on the legal matters. But I've watched a few of these go through the courts, and it is rarely quite as cut as dried as it might seem, based on what is of necessity an abbreviated account.

But you're right, sparks may yet fly, and it'll certainly be interesting...

Shamrock

[Charley]

With FR now the airline of last choice, the employment market doing well...I guess the sudden realisation that they are about to find it impossible to crew the aircraft is behind the sweetener being paid to those who recommend a friend.

I'm currently going through the ATPL training and there are a number of guys on my course who said they'd be looking at Ryanair once they've graduated. Anecdotal stories from others in the group about the variety of issues raised here and elsewhere seemed only to raise the interest of a couple of them. The rest remain unperturbed, with "it can't be that bad" or "it's worth putting up with for a year or so" being the cornerstones of their mindset.

I'd wager that MOL will still manage to find enough folk within the industry willing to work for him, it may just result in a dilution of the experience levels within the FR crews to do it.

[Irish Steve]

it may just result in a dilution of the experience levels within the FR crews to do it.

Given the very high pressure, short sector fast turn round nature of the FR environment, that could be very problematic. There's no room for passengers on the flight deck in that environment, and a fATPL with 200 hrs in a light single, and a few in a ME piston, then signed out on an 800 is not going to be comfortable flying a 17 minute sector from DUB to LPL, it's all going to be happening at a speed that will be way beyond the experience level. So, that means a safety pilot on board as well, and that's a resource that is already in short supply, and can you see MOL paying 3 people to fly an aircraft that needs a crew of 2? I can't, not on a regular basis, unless he's desperate, and if he's desperate, that means the LoCo aspect of the operation has been compromised, and they've started down a slippery slope.

To ban charging mobile phones in the office, and then be faced with the sorts of costs that are implied here is "interesting" in the extreme. It suggests that someone has lost the plot, which I suppose is what quite a few people here have been trying to say for some considerable time.

Time will tell. Exactly what it will tell is still open, and it could go a number of ways.

[the grim repa]

charley,you can tell your buddies that they don't know anything about bad until they join and not to come crying in their cornflakes to us when they realise what its all about.other than that tell 'em to get the cheque book out.

[ElNino]

I'd wager that MOL will still manage to find enough folk within the industry willing to work for him,

Low time FO's, yeah of course. Low time FO's with an fATPL are ten a penny. BUT big difference between having the licence and being capable of passing a type rating. Have money doesn't bestow one with ability. So maybe capable low timers are only 2 or 3 a penny. Probably still enough, but the big problem for FR is going to captains. If there aren't enough people with the ability to do the job coming through, that's it, period. You can't buy command ability like you can buy a TR. And if the IAA are taking an interest in the quality levels, which they appear to be, there will be troubled times ahead for FR.

[Flying Fiona]

Irish Steve is dead on! Low time Pilots are slow and DO NOT fit into the low cost model.

MOL has screwed up big time and my best guess is HE WILL BE IMPRISONED TOMORROW. The excuse for a human being has lost the plot and I for one have the fizzy wine on ice tonight.

What a great day for Aviation Friday the 13th will be.

[Shamrock 602]

Here's a newspaper version of the opening day of the contempt proceedings against MOL et al. It's from The Irish Times (requires subscription, but breaking news carried on www.ireland.com (http://www.ireland.com))

Looking at the last few pars (in bold), it seems as if the judge's patience is wearing a bit thin. Whether these particular tea leaves mean anything is another matter.

No doubt MOL will appeal to the Supreme Court if it goes against him. More today...

Shamrock 602

Ryanair's O'Leary denies being in contempt of court
The Irish Times, Friday 13th May 2005

Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary denied an allegation in the High Court yesterday that he was in contempt of a previous court order in relation to a pilot who claims the company has failed to restore him to flying duties.

Mr O'Leary, in an affidavit, said he absolutely rejected the contempt allegation and said there was no basis for his attachment or committal to prison or for the sequestration of the company's assets.

He said the previous court order specifically did not prevent Ryanair from making decisions about the suitability of the pilot, John Goss, to fly on bona fide safety grounds.

Mr Goss has brought an application to jail three Ryanair executives for alleged contempt: Mr O'Leary; the director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien; and the company's chief pilot, Ray Conway.

The airline told Mr Goss in a letter of April 12th last that it was sensible and operationally appropriate that he should be suspended on full pay until a court hearing previously fixed for May 31st and any subsequent disciplinary process were concluded.

In submissions yesterday, senior counsel Hugh Mohan, for Mr Goss, said that since earlier proceedings, his client had not been put back on flying duties.

In his affidavit, Mr O'Leary said he rejected the allegations by Mr Goss that he was attempting to thwart or breach the court order.

Also in an affidavit, Mr O'Brien said he had no hand, act or part in the decision to stand down Mr Goss from the flying duties for which he had been rostered.

Mr Justice White at the end of yesterday's hearing commented: "I have observed Mr O'Leary chewing on a biro from time to time. Is that indicative of stress on the part of Mr O'Leary or lack of respect for this court? Please get instructions."

Richard Nesbitt SC in reply said: "He understands absolutely the importance of this court and is entirely understanding of your lordship's powers and is fully respectful of the court."

The hearing continues today [Fri 13 May].

© The Irish Times

[FlyingIrishman]

Low hours pilots have worked well so far and produced better captains than some of the contractors that are coming in. The problem is that when conditions hit rock bottom, only low hour pilots and those not good enough to go elsewhere are attracted by the package reducing the overall experience and quality with obvious implications. Roll on the hearing and good luck to JG!!!

[Hudson Bay]

Any news yet? I bet MOL is a very nervous man this morning. I wouldn't like to be him. Even if he remains on the outside he'll be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He has too many enemies to walk down a Dublin street on his own.

[sky9]

Did he take an overnight bag with him?

[Shamrock 602]

Ryanair's side of the story has been getting an airing the High Court today. No mention so far of Michael O'Leary's biro, though... ;)

Full report (incl TV pics if you have RealAudio) on the RTE News website (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0513/ryanair.html). Here's an extract...

Shamrock 602

Court hears from Ryanair executives
13 May 2005 12:34 [GMT+1]

Three Ryanair executives have told the High Court that the decision on whether pilot John Goss should be allowed to fly is inextricably linked with the issue of safety.

However counsel for Captain Goss said the pilot has been certified medically fit to fly and there was no corroborative evidence to ground him.

Mr Justice Barry White said that a form of blackmail was being applied to the court where it would be on the court's conscience if anything happened to an aeroplane flown by Mr Goss.

He said the issue was whether there is a court order and whether it has been disobeyed.

Counsel for Ryanair Richard Nesbitt SC said there was no issue of blackmail. ...

[PIGDOG]

Latest here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0513/ryanair.html

[trustno1]

The case has been adjourned until Wednesday 18th May.

[akerosid]

He shouldn't chew that biro too much; the hotel will want it back!

I guess the chickens will come home to roost. The one question I have and perhaps someone could help: does having a criminal conviction (which would be the case if one were jailed for contempt) exclude one from any duties within an airline? Could the IAA say that because these individuals (particularly the Ops guys, rather than O'Leary) have convictions they can no longer hold their positions?

Also, if the IAA is responsible for quality and safety, as it clearly is, I wonder if the US example of Frank Lorenzo might be a suitable example to follow; you'll remember FL was a former CEO/ Chairman of CO and was excluded from airline management by the FAA. Not sure of the entire reasoning, but I believe that one of the contributory factors was that he had such a bad effect on morale that it felt that the airline's safety/procedures were undermined by having such a person running an airline (perhaps someone can clarify the reasons). Could the IAA take this view in relation to MO'L and exclude him from management of an Irish registered airline?

[sammypilot]

Contempt of Court is not in fact a "Crime" per se. You will not find it in any statute books therefore whatever the outcome Mr. O'Leary will not have a criminal record. Wishful thinking by some I'm afraid.

[atse]

The case finished yesterday according to "normally reliable sources" who indicated that the judgment will be provided on Wednesday next. The judge directed that Captain Goss appear from Thursday next on the flying roster due to be published yesterday (Friday).

[RAT 5]

If John Goss was suspended on 'fullpay' that begs another question. RYR pay, so I believe is made up about 50/50 of salary & sector pay. No sectors = half income. If so, it does not matter whether J.G. was suspended legally or not, he would have taken an income penalty, undeservedly. Surely this loss of income leads to another claim, (compensation), even more so if the suspension is proved to be illegal.

All in all it would seem that RYR's action in suspending an IAA authorised captain will create stress levels and negative effects in the individual far in excess of what it claims to be trying to avoid on safety grounds. That is a totally bogus argument.

[Shamrock 602]

This report from The Irish Times (http://www.ireland.com) (subscription required) gives a bit more detail. A few key points:

1. The evidence has now been presented in this interim hearing, and the next move on Wednesday 18th will be the judgement at 1100 local (GMT+1).

2. The judge's patience does indeed seem to be wearing thin. His reference to a certain Liam Lawlor concerns a politician who made history a few years ago by being the first ex-government minister to be jailed for contempt of court - for failing to obey a court order.

Next installment in a few days...

Shamrock 602

Decision on jailing of Ryanair executives next week

Irish Times, Sat 14th May 2005


A decision is to be given by the High Court on Wednesday next on an application to jail Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary and two other company executives for allegedly failing to reinstate a senior pilot with the company to flying duties in breach of a previous court order.

At one stage during yesterday's proceedings, Mr Justice Barry White said he wished to have the matter finalised.

He did not want the matter coming back to court on a daily basis and have somebody from Ryanair, "like Daniel O'Connell", working out how a "coach and four" might be driven through an order of the court.

Referring to previous High Court judgments involving Judge Brian Curtin and former TD [member of parliament] Liam Lawlor, he said it had been made abundantly clear that nobody in the State was above the law, and he certainly was not going to allow that in the present case.

At the conclusion of a two-day hearing on the application yesterday, the judge said that he had "a lot of reading to do" in connection with the case and he obviously wished to deal with it as soon as possible. He would give his decision at 11am on Wednesday.

The court instructed that a slot should be left open on the company's roster from Wednesday next to restore John Goss to flying duties in the event of him being successful in the judgment that day.

It is claimed by Mr Goss that Ryanair is in contempt of the earlier court order and he is seeking the attachment and committal of Mr O'Leary; the company's director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien; and its chief pilot, Ray Conway.

An order for the sequestration (seizure) of Ryanair's assets is also being sought.

Ryanair denies there is a breach of a court order. It had told Mr Goss that in its view it was operationally inappropriate that he should fly while the court proceedings are pending and that it was suspending him on full pay.

Two suggestions were made during yesterday's hearing to try to resolve the situation over the weekend but were not agreed to.

Initially, it was proposed that an independent medical expert from abroad might medically examine Mr Goss over the weekend to determine any aspect of stress on his part and report to the court.

Three names were suggested and, following an adjournment, counsel for Ryanair said it appeared that one of them was available to carry out the examination and that the company was agreeable to such a course.

The judge suggested that the case might be adjourned to allow the medical examination take place, with Mr Goss being rostered for duty but agreeing to waive his right to fly in the intervening period.

Richard Nesbitt SC, for Ryanair, said he could see sense in that suggestion. But Hugh Mohan SC, for Mr Goss, said he would not be happy with that course.

Mr Mohan said the previous court order was in place and had never been appealed.

Two medical examiners had given his client a clean bill of health to fly, and a psychiatrist had given a favourable report. All the medical evidence was in Mr Goss's favour.

In his submissions, Mr Nesbitt proposed that there was no contempt and referred to an affidavit of Mr Conway that at all times his decision in relation to Mr Goss was based on operational considerations for safety and in accordance with best practices.

© The Irish Times

[RAT 5]

Not being a lawyer, but looking at this in a simple straight forward way, I ask one question.
The order was given by the judge not to penalise J.G is anyway and indeed to reinstate him to flying duties. That seems plain and simple. If RYR deemed it prudent, for safety reasons, not to allow JG to fly, then surely it would have been the correct procedure to appeal the ruling, explaining its reasoning. Their defence that they ignored the ruling for this reason, but did not see fit to alert the judge to their expert judgement, may or may not be contempt but it sure is naively & blatently rude to someone who doesn't give 2 figs for the egoes involved.

[Flying Mech]

When you are playing a high stakes political poker game involving a third party(the judge/court) and Lawyers who are only there to maximise thir cut through either winning or a negotiated settlment in which everybody except the Lawyers loose things don't always pan out as you planned them. I hope O Leary & his sidekicks go to jail but if the case goes against him will he be able to worm his way out of the proceddings by shafting his Ops Manager/Chief Pilot & denying all knowledge,hand,act or part in the proceedings ? Where are all the other crews who should be standing uo in court along with John Goss fighting for their T & C instead of paying for thir NG conversions & uniform rentals from O Leary and Co.:ok:

[worldwidewolly]

Given that Capt. Ray Conway is facing a possible commital to prison I would have thought given the stress he may be under that Ryanair should have decided that it was 'operationally inappropriate that he should fly while the court proceedings are pending and that it was suspending him on full pay.'

[the grim repa]

or that the ceo and head of filght ops should be relieved of duty and responsibilities during this time.

[Flying Bagel]

This is all turning a bit South Park...

[delwy]

Well, well... it turns out that the very point about the Chief Pilot flying under stress was made in court by the Goss legal team. Guess what, he said that he DID suspended himself two days after the mandatory injunction was granted (a few hours after his last flight). Interesting orientation given Ryanair's, ehh ..... history. (The CP continues to perform his other duties).

Apparently Ryanair are very conscious of the stress that pilots can suffer and appear to be particularly alert to the safety consequences. So there's one for everyone to think about! Some of us may have mis-understood them over all these years.

[captplaystation]

If you suspended everyone "under unreasonable stress" in RYR it wouldn't half go quiet!

[737]

The Ryanair Ops Manual was ammended on March 24 2005 to remove all mention of MOL.

The CEO/Accountable Manager is now listed as Mr Howard Miller.

[sky9]

You could all have a mass "stress in" and the CP would have to suspend you from flying until the stress stopped!

[RAT 5]

The exchange rate is another of RYR's figment of imagination. They have the idea that living on the continent is cheaper than UK. Now that really is a myth. The euro changed all that a couple of years ago.
I believe each overseas base has a different salary, all less than UK. If so, I would love to hear how Sweden or Dublin can be cheaper to live than Prestwick or Norfolk.
This is another anomoly which should be removed.

[captplaystation]

If any Line Capt (or maybe even LTC /TRE!)can earn 100K EURO after tax on a European permanent contract I'll eat my hat, sorry forgot I don't have one!Actually it might be possible but paying your tax in your country of residence(if yours is "sympathetic"tax-wise to our profession)but no way paying in the "emerald isle";and then of course you need a second residence so all the lovely lolly gets spent?!Current rumours are that we need to recruit 10 pilots per week over the next 5 years to implement the master plan;Thanks in no small way to PPPuNe there ain't 2500 informatically challenged pilots out there so the chicken is finally coming home to roost;time to start talking the same language you guys in the "white-house"(sh**e- house/jail?)before you have a line up of shiny metal to rival Mojave desert,even with these soopah-doopah winglets you still need two w*nk*rs up front, so sorry Mikey!

[BEagle]

Further evidence of Ryanair's union bashing stance from yesterday's edition of Ireland's Business World:

"Ryanair pays staff 3pc, not pilots

Tuesday, May 17 13:09:12

(BizWorld)

Irish low-cost airline, Ryanair, today said it had paid a 3pc increase to all staff who had negotiated directly with the company but not pilots.

The carrier is currently embroiled in a dispute with pilots with one pilot attempting to have the airline's chief executive, Michael O'Leary jailed for alleged contempt of court.
Last week, leave was given by Justice Barry White yesterday to lawyers for pilot John Goss to bring an application tomorrow for the attachment and committal of O'Leary, Ryanair director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien and the airline's chief pilot, Ray Conway.


Today, Ryanair said the door was still open for the pilots to forego union representation and negotiate directly with management."

[Miles Hi]

From the Irish independent website.

High Court delays ruling on request to jail Ryanair boss



12:04 Wednesday May 18th 2005



The High Court has delayed its ruling on an application by Ryanair pilot John Goss to have the airline's chief executive jailed for contempt.
Mr Goss has claimed Mr O'Leary and two members of his management team have breached a court order requiring the airline to lift his suspension from duties.

The airline has insisted it is maintaining the suspension for safety reasons because of the strain of an impending court action Mr Goss is due to take against Ryanair later this month.

The court was expected to issue judgement on the matter today, but instead decided to delay the ruling until tomorrow.

[One Step Beyond]

From the Irish Indo:

Ryanair says that its average salary is €49,992 while the average salary of Easyjet was €46,901; of Lufthansa was €41,912 and British Airways was €41,423 based on the last available annual reports.

Hmm, considering BA's starting salary is about £42k and EZY's FO salary is about £36k, this seems to be a rather creative exchange rate.

[Chippie Chappie]

Ah.. but you're not counting the cabin crew and cleaners.... :ok:

[FlyingV]

Back to work tomorrow for Mr Goss. But MOL not quite out of the woods yet.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0518/ryanair.html

[One Step Beyond]

Chippie Chappie, fair point. On the other hand, BA cc earn, as has been discussed ad nauseam, relatively large salaries. And I find it hard to imagine FR are generous enough with cleaners, engineers, ground staff etc to explain such odd figures.
No matter how you look at it, and considering the weak value of the euro to sterling, these figures look totally inexplicable.

[GGV]

Inexplicable - a good word. Anybody who has seen previous Ryanair use of statistics could hardly be surprised. Whether it be airport charges, comparative salaries, their profits, or anything else, Ryanair are totally self-serving in their use of numbers (and of the English language).

They are also utterly deadly in their abuse of anything and everything that stands between the truth and what they want the story to be. There is nothing new here. Claims about "superiour" pilot pay in Ryanair are made repeatedly and they want, positively want, a public debate about pilot salaries.

Their comparative table should be treated with the derision it deserves.

[Dylsexlic]

It seems to me that MOL is just an unsophisticated, parochial bare-knuckle fighter where the only rules are that there are no rules; and the only reality is MOL's reality.

On that basis, why does anyone ever complain? It will never change. You pay your money and take your choice. If folk don't like the "Ryanair way", then don't go near 'em.

You're either in the "Alba" market, or the "Sony" market. They both do the job but arguably Sony do it with more style.

Ryanair do it with a poke in the eye and frankly, there are people out there who actually like that.

But isn't it really because of my first point that many want to see MOL get a bloody nose?

[Shamrock 602]

A little more detail from The Irish Independent of Thursday 19 May:


Grounded pilot airborne again but O'Leary ruling delayed

Grounded Ryanair pilot Captain John Goss had been re-rostered by the airline and is back flying, the High Court heard yesterday [Wed 18 May]

Mr Justice Barry White was also due to have given his decision yesterday on an application by Mr Goss to jail Ryanair chief executive, Michael O'Leary, and two other company executives, for alleged contempt of court but said he would not now do so until Wednesday next, May 25.

Mr Goss is also seeking an order for the sequestration of Ryanair's assets.

Hugh Mohan, counsel for Captain Goss, argued the airline bosses had failed to reinstate him with the company to flying duties in blatant breach of two previous High Court orders.

Mr Mohan said Captain Goss had undergone and passed final medical and psychiatric examinations and, as earlier, had been passed completely fit to fly.

Mr Goss would be on flying duties that day (Wednesday) or today. Richard Nesbitt, counsel for Ryanair, said the issue in the case had always been one of flight safety.

The airline's chief pilot, Captain Conway, was now happy Captain Goss could fly. Judge White said he would give his decision on the jailing of the Ryanair executives next Wednesday.

Shamrock 602

[BillHicksRules]

Shamrock,

Has the judge given any idea as to why the continued delay in making a decision?

I am wondering if he is giving MOL and FR chance to make amends before he dumps them in the pokey.

He can now say to Capt Goss, "well you are back on flight status and that is what you wanted". It then makes Goss look to be a troublemaker if he takes it further.

I am not saying that Goss is, I am just showing how it may play out in court.

Cheers

BHR

[Shagtastic]

Wishfull thinking on my part but I am looking forward to some of our newer members of the pilot community growing a spine and saying 'F..... OFF!' when asked to pay for a Ryanair approved 737-800 rating.

The shortage of pilots will become an amusing reality at last.

We'll all benefit.

Ciao
Shaggy

[Aloue]

BillHicksRules, the judgment on the Contempt of Court issue was delayed because the judge was not ready and at least one supplementary document was submitted to the court on Wednesday last. The press reports also make it clear the judgment is due on Wednesday next. The contempt, if it is found to have taken place, is not removed by virtue of Captain Goss going back flying, but rather the contempt will simply have ceased on the day he went back flying. In other words, the contempt issue cannot go away and there must be a finding by the judge.

Also, there is still another Contempt of Court issue still to be heard in the High Court. Here again the fact that the contempt will have stopped when the trial takes place is not the issue. The issue will be: was there contempt, and for how long did it last? This saga has still got legs and we can expect it to take us into June.

[BBT]

John Goss flew for Ryanair on Thursday evening and will fly again today (Friday). That says all that needs to be said. Congratulations to Captain Goss and family.

[the grim repa]

well done john goss,a man,a shining example to all.

[Gorgophone]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." Edmund Burke 1729-1797

Well done 'good person' John Goss in 2005:ok:

[Shamrock 602]

Hi BillHicksRules,

I think Aloue answers some of the questions you raised... the fact that further documents were lodged on the day the ruling was due seems to be significant. It was also reported that the court was told that Capt Goss underwent further tests in the Netherlands since the earlier hearing last week to assess concentration, and had passed.

I'm actually relying on various press reports, but court reporting does tend to follow a rather dry and factual approach. (That's partly because reporters can be hauled before the judge for contempt if they sensationalise, or report only one side.)

With Capt Goss's return to flying duties, it seems the contempt would have ended. That makes a prison sentence less likely, but a fine is still an option. We'll know next Wednesday.

And the main case is due to open on May 31st. The events of the last few weeks can not have done Ryanair any good in that regard. When there's a result in the substantive case, that may of course be appealed to the Supreme Court.

Below is a piece from The Irish Times on the various legal challenges mounted by and against Ryanair in the Irish courts. (Have to paste the whole thing as it's subscription only.)

Reference to the Labour Court, by the way, is to a statutory industrial relations tribunal. A small minority of employers have also chosen not to attend its proceedings.

This thread has life in it yet...

Shamrock 602

Ryanair set to have long, hot summer in the courts
by Siobhán Creaton Finance Correspondent

The Irish Times, Friday 20th May 2005


Ryanair is becoming a fixture at the High Court. This week Michael O'Leary was in court 15 sitting close to Capt John Goss, one of the airline's eight most senior Dublin-based pilots who was seeking to have him jailed for contempt of court. Goss is also seeking an order for the seizure of Ryanair's assets.

Mr O'Leary will have to don his smart shirt and blazer again on Wednesday to hear Mr Justice Barry White's decision on the matter and for the many more court appearances scheduled over the coming weeks and months.

Justice White closely observed Mr O'Leary during recent appearances. At the end of one hearing he said: "I have observed Mr O'Leary chewing on a biro from time to time. Is that indicative of stress on the part of Mr O'Leary or lack of respect for this court?" he asked. Ryanair's counsel, was quick to assure him that O'Leary "understands absolutely" the court's importance. " is entirely understanding or your lordship's powers and is fully respectful of the court."

One source amongst the airline's pilots quipped that given the raft of cases pending that involve the airline, the High Court is rapidly becoming Ryanair's industrial relations department. "They are using the courts as an instrument of corporate policy" he suggested.

Its a costly business and is a time consuming exercise for O'Leary and his top executives charged with running one of the world's most profitable airlines.

The Goss case is one of a series of courtroom battles in a bitter row between Europe's biggest low-fares airline and its 100 Dublin-based pilots.

Goss was suspended in April after he was accused of being involved in the intimidation of pilots. He sought and obtained an injunction against Ryanair and on April 27th a judge ordered that he should be returned to flying.

Leaving the court that day, O'Leary told journalists he expected Goss would be back in the cockpit as soon as possible. But this didn't happen. Ryanair explained that Goss hadn't been rostered for duty on safety grounds and that he was suspended on full pay until a court hearing scheduled for May 31st and any subsequent disciplinary process was concluded.

Goss returned to the High Court this week claiming Mr O'Leary, David O'Brien, head of flight and ground operations, and chief pilot Ray Conway, by their actions were failing to obey the court orders. Yesterday Ryanair explained to the Judge that Goss was now on the roster and would be flying.

In his dispute with his employer Goss is alleging that Ryanair is conducting a campaign of bullying and harassment against him because he is seeking to use normal industrial relations procedures in his dealings with the airline, and to have his concerns represented by the Irish Airline Pilots Association.

Separately Goss and some of his colleagues have made 170 claims of victimisation to the Labour Relations Commission, many of which are multiple complaints. Ryanair's eight senior pilots, including Goss, were the first group to take this action last November on foot of a dispute over their right to training on Ryanair's new Boeing 737-800 fleet of aircraft and their contracts and rights where redundancies are sought.

Other claims subsequently followed, including fresh complaints in the past week, with Ryanair's decision to withhold a 3 per cent pay increase for the pilots while awarding it to the rest of its staff. The airline said the pay rise was awarded to staff who negotiated directly with the company adding that the pilots had chosen not to.

Under the terms of the new Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, each pilot could be awarded compensation of up to €260,000, equal to two years pay. It has been suggested that a further 70 such complaints may still be filed.

The first of these claims is due to come before a rights commissioner in mid-June when Ryanair and Ialpa will be invited to discuss it.

Ialpa has taken a claim on behalf of the Ryanair pilots to the Labour Court seeking to obtain a copy of their contracts of employment, the terms for their switching to the new aircraft and an agreement on redundancy terms. Ryanair argued that the Labour Court was not entitled to hear this claim but lost and is now taking a judicial review.

Ryanair has staunchly defended its right to stop the Labour Court from interfering in the running of its business. It claims these tussles are all about the pilots wanting Ialpa to represent them in their negotiations with Ryanair and about the carrier being forced to recognise trade unions.

All of Ryanair's Dublin-based pilots are members of Ialpa and the airline's pilots across Europe have formed their own association, the Ryanair European Pilots Association (Repa). They claim this battle is not about union recognition but is about clarifying and protecting their terms of employment and working conditions.

Yet another legal action is due at the end of June. This time Ryanair is claiming that the Repa website is being used to intimidate its pilots. The airline is seeking to discover the identities of some of the site's contributors it claims have been intimidating other Ryanair pilots.

O'Leary can be assured there will be plenty of journalists and cameras around in case he is carted off to jail on Wednesday. The man who views all publicity as good publicity seems set to keep making the headlines as the court battles continue.

© The Irish Times

[Flying Mech]

The Vultures are circling for O Learys scalp which they truly deserve.If FR looses these court cases as they probably and hopefully will they & their beancounters will realize that the "Low Cost" option would have been to pay the crews the T & C that they wanted in the first place. I hear that FR are going through Lawyers as often as most of us change socks so sooner rather than later theywill have fallen out with all the availible Lawyers to represent them which again will not do them any favours. I am suprised that the FR Board don't bin O Leary,Conway & O Brien as they are or have already become"high Cost" employees by their managment style of battling all the dirty laundry in the Courts.The only people making money as usual in these situations are the Lawyers.. I wonder what theAmerican shareholders who have Millions of Dollars invested in this Co make of all this?If they start to walk away & the share price goes south the FR 3 mentioned above will be binned quicker than you can wink.

[bentover]

Shamrock, the labour courts descision is binding since november of last year.

[MarkD]

chewing on a biro? If this is what concerns this judge no wonder he's taking so long getting the judgement finalised. cop on!

[The Sandman]

Bit late to hear the news, but we heard you (no doubt about that!) departing LGW Thurs night Capt Goss. Well done. Now if management could just step back a few paces and realize that winning is not about employees losing...

[Say again s l o w l y]

Sandman, that's about the most sensible thing I've seen written on this board for a long time.

[jokova]

. . . . and Bruce, down here where some battle-scarred Aussie pilots look wistfully at justice's wheels grinding on in Dublin.

The Goss case is no doubt a landmark one in the making. Whatever industrial relations lessons are learnt and advancements made, I harbour the faint hope that a few, a few with remnant spine, among the ranks of those entirely self-serving pilots and airline employees scrabbling away on their respective mouldering heaps, will look in your direction for codes of conduct and other object lessons besides. Then there are those that are legion, our brothers and sisters who can never, will never, enjoy the benefits of a fair arbiter, available to redress the wrongs they must daily endure. Spare them a thought.

John Goss, Sir, you are an inspiration. May you continue on in the face of whatever adversity the elements throw at you and your allies, at home or away, and like a good Irish oath, keep on keepin' on, whatever the gradient. (And con the far horizon from your wheelhouse, knowing that there's some good in this poor old world.)

[Flying Fiona]

I think you will find that good will triumph over evil every time.

Sorry MOL but you are the most misdirected human being and your time is drawing near. You need to change the way you lead your life before the drop you are heading for is so far you will never get up.

[worldwidewolly]

Breaking News.

High Court adjourns O'Leary decision

25 May 2005 11:04
The High Court has adjourned a decision on an application for the jailing of Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary for alleged contempt of court order.

Mr Justice Barry White was expected to give his decision on the application in relation to Mr O'Leary and two other company executives this morning.

However, he announced that he didn't propose giving his judgement in this action until the full trial has concluded.


The full trial is due for a 3-day hearing on 31 May.

[MaximumPete]

John Goss

It's great to hear that you are back flying again.

I just hope that the Ryannair management has learn a lesson from this action. I very much doubt it as they appear to be somewhat lacking in that department.

Justice will prevail.

MP;)

[FlyingIrishman]

The Whitehouse has been suspiciously quiet lately...

[jayteeto]

Interesting to see that RyanAir profits are supposedly up this year. Please dont get me wrong, I would never fly with them on principle, but shareholders/money people will not be hacked off with the management if they keep the cash rolling........

[Finman]

Wasn't MOL back in court today? Any news? A good financial report (congratulations as due) will not keep him out of jail if the Judge says he is guilty of contempt.

[the grim repa]

check out the latest recruitment ad. in flight international.

outstanding earning potential.
best paid short haul pilots in europe.
5 on,3 off.
rosters published 4 weeks in advance.
command EVALUATION process within 3 years or 6 months.
share options worth 250,000 euros each.
must speak english fluently.
charges for entry listed on ryanair website.
base at any of our many european bases.

well it sounds too good to be true.

you will break your balls for every euro.
no pension.
no loss of licence cover.
pay for your medicals and do it on your day off,after you have personally arranged it.
pay for your uniform.
pay for your type rating.
pay for your transport.
pay for your accomodation.
roster fixed for one week but changes daily.
not every base has 5 on,3 off, roster pattern.
EVALUATION is not a guaranteed command or no where near it.one good thing about ryanair is that the monkeys are kept out of the left seat.
you will be based where ryanair want you and not negotiable.
pay for your own tea,coffee and water.
bring your own sandwiches to work.
when you do overnight,you have to pay for accom. and transport and claim it back.
no operational backup.photocopied jepp plates,no weather/notams when you need them.
no pilot management,all cap in hand to m.o'l.
may sign on for left seat and find that after training you are right seat bound.
bullies for managers.
filthy aircraft and crew area.

other than that it is fine.welcome aboard.

[Dutchie]

May I add that the 6 months to upgrade is a laugh. Some friends off mine are still waiting a year onwards due to an growing shortess of trainers.... at the same time RYR has started to do their own TR internally.... :confused:

[sky9]

Anybody like to report the advert to the Advertising Standards Authority?

[Shamrock 602]

First day in court yesterday. It's set to last several days. Judgement is normally "reserved" in these cases, to be delivered some days or weeks later. Then there's the likelihood of an appeal to the Supreme Court....

There has also been a change in the judge hearing the case.

Shamrock 602 (from afar)


Pilot claims Ryanair initiated action against him in bad faith

Irish Times, Wednesday 1st June 2005

A senior pilot who is seeking a number of orders against Ryanair claimed in the High Court yesterday [31st May] that a disciplinary process instituted against him by the airline had been embarked upon in bad faith.

The action, by pilot John Goss (51), Malahide, Co Dublin, against Ryanair began yesterday before Mr Justice Declan Budd and is expected to last several days.

Over the past two months, the court has heard a number of related issues between the sides, including a claim by the pilot that the company is in contempt of a court order by taking him off flying duties. He has since been restored to flying duties. Ryanair denies it is in contempt.

Among orders being sought by Mr Goss in his present action are an injunction restraining the company from continuing with a purported disciplinary procedure against him and an injunction restraining it from treating him as other than as a captain employed by the airline.

Senior counsel Roddy Horan, for Mr Goss, said his client had an exemplary record with Ryanair, which he had joined in 1986. Before that he had worked with the Air Corps. In the 1990s, he was flight safety officer, a position he later voluntarily relinquished.

Counsel said the company had a well-known antipathy to trade unions and steadfastly refused to engage with the Irish Airline Pilots' Association, which was a branch of the Impact trade union that represented commercial pilots in Aer Lingus and CityJet.

In his statement of claim Mr Goss said that in 1988/1989 he joined a trade union which had not been recognised by the company. He and his colleagues were asked by Ryanair to attend a meeting on November 4th last.

At the meeting, it was claimed, they were threatened that if union activities did not cease, they would be excluded from any pay increase, access to the company's share option scheme, promotion, staff travel privileges and loss of licence insurance. They would also be required to pay for training and retraining.

On November 12th last, Mr Goss claims, he and other pilots, who had been asked to attend the meeting, received a letter from Ryanair offering a place on a conversion training course for a new aircraft. However, they would be required to pay back €15,000 in training costs to the company if they left within five years or if the company was "compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any pilot or trade union".

By letter on December 10th last, the company purported to commence an investigation into allegations against Mr Goss that he made threatening and intimidating phone calls in an attempt to persuade pilots in Stansted from accepting positions on new planes to be based in Dublin, it is claimed. Those allegations were denied.


© The Irish Times

[Shamrock 602]

Belatedly, here are some reports of days two and three in the High Court last week, in the Capt Goss v Ryanair et al case.

Apologies for the long posting: when I first posted these reports separately, they were automatically combined into one message by the system, with junk characters added for good measure. The Irish Times website from which the reports have been borrowed is password-protected.

The hearing is due to resume today (Tuesday 7th June)

Shamrock 602


Goss says Ryanair's decision to suspend him was a vindictive act
Irish Times, Thursday 2nd June 2005

Ryanair pilot John Goss told the High Court yesterday [Wed 1st June] that the airline's decision to suspend him from flying was "a vindictive act" in light of there being overwhelming evidence that he was fit to fly.

Roddy Horan SC, for Mr Goss, said Ryanair had breached his client's constitutional rights to natural justice and had acted in breach of legislation dealing with disciplinary procedures.

Ryanair's complaints about Mr Goss were never really clear, counsel said. The company had made serious allegations in a letter to Mr Goss of December 10th, 2004 from David O'Brien, the company's director of flight and ground operations.

This alleged that Mr Goss had intimidated pilots at Stansted airport but did not give the names of any of these pilots or the nature of the complaints.

The letter stated that Ryanair had received a" number of complaints from pilots based at Stansted alleging that you have made telephone calls warning pilots not to accept positions on the new 737-800 aircraft based here in Dublin".

Counsel said solicitors acting for Capt Goss never got any answer from Ryanair when it was asked to confirm that those pilots alleged to have made complaints would be in attendance at a meeting between the company's representatives and Mr Goss on February 16th, 2005.

Fundamental information about the nature of the complaints were never furnished.

If Ryanair was correct, then the complaints were either in writing or someone in Ryanair management took a note of them, Mr Horan said.

Mr Goss's solicitor had sought such information.

Mr Horan said a subsequent letter of January 28th this year saw a shifting of ground by Ryanair.

It had sought to elevate claims that there had been evasion and lack of co-operation on the part of Mr Goss.

An employer had to act reasonably and in good faith towards an employee, even in the context of disciplinary proceedings, and in Mr Goss's case the good faith requirement was singularly lacking.

Counsel contended that Ryanair's entire disciplinary process as initiated in the letter of December 10th, 2004 arose because Mr Goss had complained of victimisation to the Labour Relations Commission.

The December 10th letter was despatched by the company to counter the emergence of IALPA (Irish Airline Pilots' Association which is affiliated to the trade union, IMPACT), he said.

IALPA had written a letter on November 3th, 2004 which raised with the company issues of concern to pilots.

There was a categorical rejection of that request by Ryanair's chief executive, Mr Michael O'Leary. In reply to Mr Justice Budd, Mr Horan agreed there was no constitutional requirement for an employer in Ireland to negotiate with a trade union.

Mr Horan said the letter of December 10th had been a reaction by Ryanair to Mr Goss's querying of a letter from the company imposing a €15,000 training levy on pilots.

The letter of December 10th made extraordinarily serious charges and yet failed to provide any detail.

The company denies these claims in its defence. Ryanair states it did not threaten Mr Goss or wrongly accuse him of having failed to co-operate with a company inquiry into the Standsted complaints.

The company also denies Mr Goss's allegations that it acted negligently or in breach of its duties; denies that it sought to make an example of Mr Goss.

It denies it is in breach of contract or that it inflicted emotional suffering on Mr Goss.

The decision of the chief pilot to refuse to permit Mr Goss to return to flying duties was not taken on an improper basis.

The hearing before Mr Justice Declan Budd continues today.

© The Irish Times


Day three...

Ryanair intimidated pilots in training row, court told
Irish Times, Friday 3rd June 2005

Ryanair told its pilots that if it was forced to negotiate with a pilots' trade union within five years of the pilots undergoing a training course, the pilots would have to pay the costs of their training, the High Court heard yesterday [Thursday 2nd June]. The pilots also believed Ryanair had made an "open threat" of possible redundancy.

Capt John Goss, a senior pilot with the airline, said the offer by Ryanair in November 2004 to place pilots on a conversion training course for the Boeing 737-800 was regarded by senior pilots as punitive. The pilots believed they were being bullied and intimidated.

Capt Goss said the Dublin pilots were briefed by Ryanair management on November 4th last that the company had to make harsh decisions because of trading conditions.

The company had said the amount of money it was making per aircraft seat was down and that pilots should be grateful that they had employment, he said. The pilots voiced their anger at the way they were being treated.

David O'Brien, the director of flight and ground operations, had indicated an austerity situation and said the company was making certain changes in order to save the airline and preserve employment.

In proceedings before Mr Justice Budd, Capt Goss of Malahide, Co Dublin, claims Ryanair made serious allegations against him in a letter on December 10th, 2004, which stated he had intimidated other pilots at Stansted airport, warning them not to accept positions on the company's new aircraft, the Boeing 737-800, based in Dublin.

He claims the company alleged he failed to co-operate and it had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.

In evidence yesterday, Capt Goss denied that he made threatening or intimidating telephone calls to pilots at Stansted or that he had warned pilots not to accept positions on the new aircraft to be based in Dublin. He was horrified at the allegations.

Capt Goss said that on April 1st, 2004, Dublin pilots received a document stating the company would not pay for pilots' medical examinations in the Mater Private Hospital (which they undergo every six months or annually to show they are fit to continue flying). The medical fee varied between €200 and €300.

The company had also reduced pilots' pension coverage by effectively putting less money into the pension fund. It almost halved the insurance cover (from €190,000 to €100,000) which a pilot might receive if he lost his flying licence for medical reasons. The company also outlined that the "loss-of-licence-insurance scheme" would terminate on March 31st, 2006 and that, from that date, it would be up to pilots to insure themselves.

Capt Goss said the airline management portrayed a difficult period ahead and difficult choices. Pilots voiced their abhorrence towards the way the company was making the changes with no attempt to hold discussions with the pilots.

Ryanair also wanted to brief pilots about the introduction of the Boeing 737-800 to Dublin. The airline said that initially it would be training four senior pilots. Staff were informed that if the company was forced into dealing with the pilots' association/union (Irish Airline Pilots' Association or IALPA), the pilots would be forced to pay for their training and that annual leave would only be given in "blocks of five days" - basically one week at a time.

The change also meant the pilots were "bonded" for five years following the training. This meant that, if they left within five years, they would have to pay €15,000 to the company. The pilots were also required to pay for their own accommodation while attending the training centre at East Midlands.

At a November 12th, 2004 meeting with management, the pilots received a letter stating: "It has been Ryanair policy - for so long as our people deal directly with the company - that pay will be better, pay increases higher and training costs shall be met by the company. We wish to remind you that should this policy be altered and Ryanair be compelled to engage in collective bargaining with any pilot association or trade union within five years of commencement of your conversion training, then you will be liable to repay the full training costs."

There was also the suggestion of possible redundancy when the "200" Boeing (the old aircraft) was withdrawn from service in Dublin. The eight senior pilots (including Capt Goss) who met management on November 12th, 2004 felt this was an "open threat" and an appalling approach to senior persons in the company. This was not negotiation but a take-it-or-leave-it situation. The eight staff got seven days to make up their minds.

In the meantime, the president of the IALPA wrote to the Labour Relations Commission formally complaining of victimisation of the eight pilots by the company.

"We regarded ourselves as being bullied and intimidated," he said. He had no difficulty moving to the new aircraft but opposed the company introducing punitive contracts.

Capt Goss said all the staff in Ryanair had worked hard to contribute to the airline, which was making reasonable profits to say the least. Why the company would cause hardship or operate to the detriment of staff was beyond him.

He said there had also been an issue about the maximum number of hours a pilot was allowed to fly in a given year. Ryanair had sought changes in how flight time was calculated.

After he had raised the issue on November 15th, 2004, he got a letter from Capt Shane McKeon, the deputy chief pilot, on November 16th, 2004, stating that Capt McKeon understood that Capt Goss had indicated he would not complete assigned duties.

Capt Goss said he regarded this letter as intimidatory and expressed his displeasure to Capt McKeon.

He had never indicated he would not work.

The hearing before Mr Justice Budd continues today.

© The Irish Times


Day four...

Day Four

Ryanair and pilot are advised by judge to settle outside of court
Irish Times, Saturday 4th June 2005

The High Court judge hearing an action brought against Ryanair by one of its senior pilots has suggested both sides examine the possibility of settling their dispute outside the court.
Mr Justice Budd suggested at the end of Capt John Goss\'s direct evidence yesterday [Friday 3rd June] that there was "a small opening for people to steady themselves and take a look at their long-term best interests" before cross-examination of the pilot begins next Tuesday.

He said that if it was going to be left to him to decide the dispute, it could have a serious effect on people\'s lives and their business. That would apply to both sides, he said.

If there was any basis for discussions which might lead to an outcome benefiting both sides, he urged they take such an opportunity because "airlines need pilots and pilots need airlines".

Capt Goss, of Malahide, Co Dublin, claims Ryanair made serious and unfounded allegations against him in a letter of December 10th, 2004 to the effect that he intimidated other pilots at Stansted airport, warning them not to accept positions on the company\'s new aircraft, the Boeing 737-800, based in Dublin.

He claimed the company alleged he failed to co-operate and then initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. He also alleged the company, without notice, suspended him from duty and that he was reinstated following other High Court proceedings.

The company denies the captain\'s claims.

Capt Goss, in evidence yesterday on the fourth day of the hearing, said that at a meeting on December 23th, 2004, an issue about the Ryanair European Pilots Association (REPA) web site was introduced by the management representatives.

He declined to view documents produced by the company as he believed the subject of REPA was outside the remit of the meeting. He believed the meeting was held to discuss telephone calls he was supposed to have made to intimidate pilots at Stansted.

David O\'Brien, the director of flight and ground operations, asked if persons had telephoned Capt Goss and he had replied he did not make any phone call or intimidate anybody.

Capt Goss said that, during the summer of 2001, he attended a company investigation, at which Ryanair chief executive Michael O\'Leary was present. It concerned a colleague, Capt Martin Duffy, who was later dismissed. The investigation followed an allegation that Capt Duffy refused to travel on a "jump seat" on a flight from Dublin to Stansted.

Capt Duffy had been elected chairman of the Ryanair pilots\' group in early 2001.

Capt Goss said there had been a number of similarities in the situations which arose in relation to Capt Duffy and himself. They both had been invited to company investigations and, in both cases, no evidence was preferred by the company.

He was shocked by a letter he received from Mr O\'Brien on December 10th, 2004, alleging intimidation of pilots at Stansted, and he consulted lawyers.

He attended a meeting with management on January 10th, 2005, following receipt of a letter which stated it was felt he had not been "fully open" at a December 23th meeting. The letter stated that, should he refuse to answer reasonable questions, this could lead to disciplinary proceedings for non-co-operation.

Capt Goss said he advised that he had received four telephone calls from one pilot, Capt Gale, the first in mid-to-late November 2004, when Capt Gale said he had received an offer of a position in Dublin operating the Boeing 737-800. He told Capt Gale he could not advise on whether to accept or reject the offer. Capt Gale phoned at a later date to say he had accepted the offer.

Capt Goss said the company was suggesting intimidation was being conducted on an organised basis. He told them on a number of occasions he had no knowledge of, and would not be involved in, any intimidation.

A letter was written to him on January 28th, 2005, but he did not receive it until February 13th/14th because he was out of the country on leave. The company would have been aware of this.

His solicitor contacted him on February 7th and advised him of the existence of the letter. It stated that the company had reviewed the contents of preliminary investigation meetings and, based on Capt Goss\'s response, had decided this matter required a disciplinary meeting.

Capt Goss said he had no idea from that letter what charges were being levied against him. This was the first information he had received since the January 10th meeting. He had considered the matter as having been dealt with.

The hearing was adjourned to next Tuesday [7th June].

[FlyingIrishman]

Hang on in there Capt. Goss!!! Don't let the matter get out of court.

[sammypilot]

If this matter is settled out of court then all that Captain Goss has had to put up with will be in vain. He will not have advanced the cause of Ryanair employees one iota. As the Flying Irishman says "Hang on in there."

[Shamrock 602]

And then of course there are the other cases before the courts, one of which opens today.

This time it's Ryanair challenging the right of the Labour Court to make a ruling in relation to the company, under new legislation. As reported by RTE (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0607/ryanair.html) ...

Shamrock 602

[Ryanairpilot]

oleary must feel confident. from the same RTE (http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0607/ryanair.html) website.

[BillHicksRules]

To any Ryanair pilots,

Can I ask how wage negotiations are carried out now and how they have been done in the past?

This is not a troll or giving you a chance to vent I am just asking for informations sake.

Cheers

BHR

p.s. I am not a journo

[A330driver]

O'Leary getting worried? It would seem so - he's just sold a large tranch of his shares in his beloved company:

http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0607/ryanair.html

[Shamrock 602]

It's now being reported by RTE's website (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0607/ryanair.html) that a deal between the parties is being negotiated.

It says that lawyers for Ryanair told the judge "that the two sides hope to agree terms for a settlement by this evening. The two legal teams will reconvene before Mr Justice Budd at 11am tomorrow morning" [1000Z Wednesday 8th June].

Shamrock 602

[Flying Mech]

Is this another case of FR settling on the steps of the court & paying John Goss €250,000 to go away and retire and FR to admit no liability. As usual the Lawyer Vultureswill make a nice fat slice of comission which John Goss will have to pay FR's costs as well in this scenario as he took the high court action in the first place, or is Ialpa funding this challenge behind the scenes?

[FlyingIrishman]

Everything JG went through to fight for what's right, and now we're - yet again - down to an out of court settlement by the looks of things and thus another victory for Molly and his gang. I hope for everyone's sake, particularly the -200 gang in Dublin, that it's not true.

[One Step Beyond]

out of court settlement by the looks of things

Say it ain't so. What a disaster if so. Surely JG, having gone this far, is not going to back down now? We can only hope so.

[DFC]

Perhaps now we will see if JG is in this situation because of and simply for JG........or if there is some puppet action going on.

I believe that the Justice was very wise to suggest such an outcome which I beleive would reveal if this was JG v Ryanair or simply a cover for A. Another v Ryanair using JG as the potential fall guy.

regards,

DFC

[the grim repa]

it might be a sensible solution.lets just wait and see what the outcome is before gobbing off.

[Camel Killer]

With respect, DFC, you miss the point entirely:confused:
Perhaps now we will see if JG is in this situation because of and simply for JG........or if there is some puppet action going on.

JG is in this situation because of MOL's now pretty stupid looking decision to make an example of him "pour encourager les autres"

NOT because of any actions on John's part
NOT even because of any Ialpa actions, except to back him to the hilt, and, obviously, that came AFTER the event.

The only puppet or proxy action is MOL taking on JG to try get rid of Ialpa. They haven't gone away, you know.............

[atse]

John Goss a puppet? Not from what I have heard! What a telling comment from DFC.

[GGV]

Camel Killer

Based on DFC's earlier contribution to this thread and the cynical interpretation he provides above, I would not bother taking his post - or his bone fides too seriously.

A pilot, respected by all, was accused of behaviour nobody believed he was, or could be guilty of. He defended himself and he may have decided to come to a suitable arrangement (though I notice that nobody has said this is a fact). I don't see any puppet strings here. The cynical suggestion that there were "puppet strings" tells you all you need to know about DFC. Image putting yourself into that position as a "puppet"! I think somebody pointed out earlier in this thread that to acquire the DFC medal requires personal attributes which our current DFC does not appear to possess. He also dodged the explicit request to condemn the threatening Ryanair memo near the begining of this thread that Leo Hairy and all the other Ryanair apologists refused to condemn. ‘Nuff said??

the grim repa is actually speaking the most sense. We just need to wait to hear what the real situation is.

[One Step Beyond]

Ryanair and pilot settle High Court case

08 June 2005 12:37
A High Court case taken by a Ryanair pilot against the airline has been settled.

Captain John Goss had challenged Ryanair's attempt to invoke disciplinary proceedings against him.

He claimed he was being victimised for his trade union activities. Ryanair had denied the allegation.


Under the settlement Mr Goss will continue to fly with the airline and will be trained to fly its new fleet of aircraft.

It is understood that Mr Goss and the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association will not pay costs.


Mr Goss has withdrawn his complaints against Ryanair, while the airline has withdrawn allegations which originally gave rise to its attempt to hold disciplinary proceedings against him.

Mr Goss said he was pleased to be returning to flying duty with Ryanair.

He said that he was delighted that his good name was vindicated but expressed regret that his difficulties with Ryanair management had to be resolved in the High Court.

Ryanair's Director of Flight and Ground Operations, David O'Brien, said he was delighted that Mr Goss had withdrawn and abandoned his claims against the airline, and described the settlement as excellent.


So thats it. Now what?

[Shamrock 602]

Links to reaction from Capt Goss and Ryanair, and a more detailed report, are on RTE's website (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0608/ryanair.html). (You need RealPlayer).

If Ryanair are paying their own costs and at least part of the other parties' costs, that is as close as you will get to an admission they were at fault.

The title of this thread has been in need of change for some time.

Shamrock 602

[maxalt]

Captain Goss stood up to Ryanairs bullying and saw them off.
He retains his job and rank at FR.
He gets his conversion course.
They pay his and IALPAs costs.

Thats a win for the good guys! :ok:

Now, on to Round 2 - the real issue - Representation.

[The_Bean_Counter]

Maxalt

The facts are somewhat different to your account

Ryanair have agreed to pay a sum equivalent to 50% of the complainants costs, meaning JG is not out of pocket but IALPA are.

JG has agreed to sign the conversion course letter in its original form, ie with the 15,000 bond intact and the representation clause intact.

Probably as close to a nil all draw as you could get at this point.

BC

[delwy]

Sources tell me that the TV3 news in Dublin is saying the Ryanair costs are around €1,000,000 and IALPA and Captain Goss paid no legal costs. An interesting contrast to the Ryanair spin!

Does anybody know how to get a link to the TV news report from TV3? Apparently the report is delivered by a rather nice "lady in red!"

[maxalt]

The RTE news at One said Ryanair were hit for the costs. Whats your source?

And by the way, anyone worried about IALPA's funds shouldn't be too concerned. They are affiliated to IMPACT which is one of the largest umbrella unions in the country.

[i_need_cider]

Hope the other -200 pilots were looked after in the deal



http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/5704793?view=Eircomnet



Ryanair pilot Captain John Goss has reached a settlement in his High Court action against the airline, the high Court heard today.

Mr Goss brought the court action to challenge disciplinary procedures against him, which were instigated by Ryanair over claims he made intimidating calls to fellow pilots in Stansted.

Mr Goss had said he was being punished for trying to involve the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA) in negotiations between the company and pilots - a claim denied by Ryanair.

Ryanair would not comment on the details of the settlement but it is understood the company was pleased the matter had been resolved.

Sources said the airline would not be paying costs under the terms of settlement but would be making a contribution towards legal fees of up to 50 per cent.

Under the terms of the settlement Captain Goss withdrew his claims against the company, including claims of intimidation.

The pilot has agreed to undergo conversion training for the new 737-800 planes under the terms of the original offer made last November.

Mr Goss will be guaranteed a Dublin-based job flying the planes and Ryanair will pay for the €15,000 training, subject to a five year bond, sources said.

He will undergo the retraining shortly.

Today David O'Brien, director of flight and ground operations for the airline, said he was delighted with what he described as "an excellent settlement".

[delwy]

The Bean Counter
I take it your statement above on costs is a deduction, as IALPA sources are emphatic that neither IALPA, IMPACT or John Goss are liable for any costs, now or in the future. There is to be a meeting sometime next week, so more may come out then. Since my posts above the range of costs to Ryanair cited by the media have been €750,000 to €1,000,000, depending on the source.

[maxalt]

Leo's gone all quiet again.

I've seen these kind of 'deals done on the steps' before, and one thing they tend to have in common is a 'gag' on the plaintiff - in this case, John Goss and IALPA - preventing them talking about the settlement.

This allows the losers - in this case Ryanair - to save face by putting a positive spin on the settlement to the media.

I've listened to a Mr.D O'Brien (of Ryanair) on the radio almost falling over himself to declare how happy he is with the settlement. As clear a case of positive spinning/damage limitation as I've heard.

The media are probably ill-informed and not a good source for the facts. Nothing new there then.

Lets wait and see.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

The pilot has agreed to undergo conversion training for the new 737-800 planes under the terms of the original offer made last November.
Objective accomplished.
This allows the losers - in this case Ryanair
And you accuse Ryanair of Spin? Max, you are truly the pinup boy for hypocrisy, and a credit to dementia. This is a stunning victory for Ryanair and those of us within it who hold the prospect of union recognition in the same boundless joy usually reserved for pancreatic carcinoma.

We should take a moment, though, to thank the good lads and lasses at Aer Lingus flight crew, without whose deep pockets and staggering appetite for futility, the unfortunate Captain Goss and his REPA puppet masters, might not have achieved their fifteen minutes of infamy. How must MOL feel, I wonder? Reflecting on the experience of being savaged by a ferocious guinea pig, I expect.

[maxalt]

IMPACT has 50,000 ferocious guinea pigs Leo.
We're comin' to eat ya! :E :E :E :E :E

[Faire d'income]

This is a stunning victory for Ryanair

This isn't even a spinning victory for Ryanair.

the good lads and lasses at Aer Lingus flight crew, without whose deep pockets

I thought FR were the best paid? You can't spin it both ways.

Might I suggest setting up a low-cost legal/spinning firm as FR shareholders must be getting tired of watching mountains of cash being spent on more stunning victories.

Maith thú John. :ok:

[delwy]

LeoThis is a stunning victory for Ryanair Whatever about you Leo, none of the press seem to agree. So it looks like you are again out of step with both your so-called "pilot colleagues" (really!!??) and public opinion. You must think we are all complete idiots to believe anything you say. BTW, do you happen to know this fellow:

The_Bean_Counter who saysRyanair have agreed to pay a sum equivalent to 50% of the complainants costs I cannot track down the source of this notion. Can you advise where this bit of news comes from ....??

[The_Bean_Counter]

delwy

Happy to oblige, the source was an RTE Aertel teletext report of the case outcome which appeared yesterday, unfortunately it is no longer there and I cannot provide a link as the RTE website appears to have no archive

[Shamrock 602]

Here's some reaction from the main morning news programme on RTE Radio (Morning Ireland, Thursday 9th June):

170 complaints against Ryanair says IALPA
Captain Evan Cullen of the Irish Air Line Pilots' Association discusses the implications for other pilots of the settlement for pilot John Goss following High Court action against Ryanair.
Audio file here (http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/2050386.smil)

And below is a more detailed report from The Irish Times. Interesingly, the lawyers did entirely wrap up the main case: it comes up again in a month's time, at which point they can seek to "vacate" the orders and abandon the contempt proceedings (don't ya just love legalese?). So if there's any rowing-back by Ryanair, or if they don't comply with the agreement, the proceedings will not have be re-started from scratch.

Then there is the earlier case, in which attachment/jailing of MOL et al were sought for non-compliance with the interim injunction(because Capt Goss had been restored straight away to flying duties while the main case was pending, as ordered by the Court). This will have to go back to the other High Court judge who originally heard it, in order to be terminated. But that's a technicality, as abandoning it is clearly covered in the agreement. A deal which, as has been pointed out, clearly has the standard non-disclosure clause. So any crowing or spinning has to be done rather cleverly or indirectly...

Shamrock 602

Ryanair row with senior pilot 'entirely resolved'
Irish Times, Thursday 9th June 2005

The legal dispute between Ryanair and one of its senior pilots, Captain John Goss, has been "entirely resolved", the High Court was told yesterday [Wed 8th June]. The terms of settlement were not disclosed.

On the sixth day of the hearing of the proceedings yesterday, Mr Justice Declan Budd was told that the parties had agreed the terms of settlement, which were received by the court but not outlined.

It is thought that Ryanair has agreed to pay the legal costs of Capt Goss which, together with the airline's own legal costs, could amount to legal fees of as much as €800,000. It is also believed that the company's disciplinary proceedings against the pilot have been withdrawn and that he will be trained on new Ryanair aircraft at Dublin.

It is understood the pilot has been given a guarantee that he will be based in Dublin for the period ahead.

Mr Justice Budd was also told told that an application will be made to another High Court judge, Mr Justice Barry White, not to give his judgment in related proceedings brought by Capt Goss seeking to have Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary and two other company executives jailed for alleged contempt of a court order.

Mr Justice White heard the contempt proceedings last month but deferred his judgment until the outcome of the hearing before Mr Justice Budd.

In the case before Mr Justice Budd, Capt Goss claimed Ryanair made serious allegations in a letter of December 10th, 2004, that he intimidated other pilots at Stansted airport and had warned them not to accept positions on the company's new Boeing 737-800 based in Dublin. He denied making any such allegations and denied any intimidation. He claimed the company alleged he failed to co-operate and they had initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.

He was suspended by the company but reinstated after he brought the High Court proceedings heard by Mr Justice White.

After yesterday's settlement, Ryanair spokesman Capt David O'Brien, director of flight operations, said he looked forward to Capt Goss flying again with the company.

He said he was pleased the pilot had withdrawn and abandoned all his claims and was delighted with what was an "excellent settlement". Asked if the company would recognise Ialpa - the pilots' organisation - Capt O'Brien said it never had and was not expected to in the future.

Capt Goss told reporters that he was very pleased to be returning to flying duties and delighted that his good name had been vindicated. He regretted that his difficulties with Ryanair management had to be settled in the High Court.

Earlier, when announcing the settlement to Mr Justice Budd, Mr Roddy Horan SC, for Capt Goss, said they were not looking for an order from the court but asked for the matter to be adjourned to a later date when they would apply for the vacation of various orders and for abandonment of contempt of court applications as part of the settlement.

Mr Justice Budd said one of these applications had been adjourned for him to hear at the end of the proceedings brought by Capt Goss. The judge also asked counsel not to lose sight of the fact that one of the contempt motions was before Mr Justice White.

Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for Ryanair, said that the latter issue was being dealt with in the settlement agreement. Counsel for both sides would need to mention it to Mr Justice White and would be asking him not to deliver his judgment. Mr Horan said the sides had devised a mechanism which they hoped would address the matter.

Mr Justice Budd adjourned the matter until June 29th. He said both parties were to be congratulated on the settlement and on taking a "cool look" at the matter.

[Idunno]

The grape vine is buzzing with further details of this deal.

The pilot has agreed to undergo conversion training for the new 737-800 planes under the terms of the original offer made last November. Not quite true Leo. Can't say more than that right now - I'm waiting for further corroboration, but the terms are NOTHING LIKE the original offer if my info is correct.

Care to comment now, before the whole truth is revealed and you get egg on your face? ;)

[captplaystation]

Maybe somebody(LEO?)can educate me in the finer detail of tax-deductable items for corporate tax,but I fail to see what the **** Ryanair think they achieved by giving 800,000 bloody Euros to these parasites(with deepest apologies to"Flying Lawyer" if he is reading this thread )when all that seems to have been achieved is more bad press in PPRuNe & the press in general at a time when new aircraft are coming at us from Seattle like a scheduled service; sorry if I'm missing something obvious Hairy but are we not supposed to be attracting new bums-on-seats not convincing them that RYR is "not" the place to go?

[Shamrock 602]

As a postcript to the last few months down at Four Courts, the threat to jail Michael O'Leary for contempt of court has been lifted. It had to go back to the original judge in order to terminate the process. Report from RTE here (http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0610/ryanair.html) .

Interestingly, the report says:

"Judge White said that if he had concluded there had been a serious contempt of court he would not agree to the application [to end the contempt proceedings] made to him by both sides, but he had not reached that conclusion and therefore acceded to the application.

Shamrock 602

[LTNman]

Ryanair’s Director of Flight and Ground Operations, David O’Brien, said: "I am delighted with this morning's finding which follows this week's excellent settlement of the dispute between Captain Goss and Ryanair.



"Captain Goss will shortly commence retraining on Ryanair’s new 737-800 series aircraft on the exact terms that were offered to him last November and which were opposed by IALPA (the pilots' union).

"This morning’s decision is another defeat for IALPA in its continuing effort to mislead Ryanair’s Dublin pilots. I look forward to resuming direct negotiations with our Dublin pilots without any further intermeddling by IALPA in this process".

[captplaystation]

Yeah right! can someone explain why 800 000e is a bargain price to get back to square one when the coal face workers are constantly harassed to save every last centime?

[the grim repa]

i love the way both wilson and o'brien use the phrase "intermeddling" in interviews.a phrase not so original as it was coined by their boss m o'l.the only difference being he can make up his own speak whereas the good ol' boys just try to imitate him.pathetic losers!

[Camel Killer]

This is a stunning victory for Ryanair and those of us within it who hold the prospect of union recognition in the same boundless joy usually reserved for pancreatic carcinoma.

Jaysus, Leo, all I can say is that I truly and sincerely wish you many, many more stunning victories just like this one. ROFLMAO :ok:

[Hansol]

Don't see how this can be regarded as anything other then a victory for FR, what exactly did John Goss and IALPA gain from the process?

[Shamrock 602]

Here's a bit more detail about the settlement, from yesterday's High Court hearing in Dublin in which contempt proceedings were ended at the request of both parties.

The extract is from the report in The Irish Times of Saturday 11th June 2005

Shamrock 602

Mr Justice White said that, had he come to the conclusion there had been a serious contempt, he would not agree to the application not to give judgment.

The judge said he had concluded it had been appropriate for Capt Goss to bring the matter to the court's attention.

However, the judge said he had not concluded there had been a contempt of court and, in the circumstances, he would accede to the application.

It emerged yesterday that the terms of settlement between Capt Goss and Ryanair contained a clause that Capt Goss's employment "as a pilot in command will continue", and that Ryanair would make a contribution of €200,000 towards his legal costs, plus VAT.

In respect of the company's offer of conversion training on its new aircraft, the Boeing 737-800, Capt Goss had accepted the offer in the terms of a company letter of November 17th, 2004.

Accommodation during training would be at Capt Goss's expense.

(In evidence during the hearing before Mr Justice Budd, Capt Goss had said senior pilots regarded the offer in that letter as punitive and believed they were being bullied and intimidated. Under the terms of the offer, the pilots argued they would be bonded for five years following training and, if they left within that period, they would have to pay €15,000 to Ryanair.)

The settlement also contained a statement that Ryanair would not initiate disciplinary/dismissal action against Capt Goss "in the absence of valid and substantial grounds as would apply to all Ryanair employees".

Captain Goss also agreed to withdraw all his claims of victimisation or intimidation.


Ryanair judicial review


In separate proceedings involving Ryanair yesterday, Mr Justice Michael Hanna reserved judgment on the airline's challenge to a Labour Court finding that it had jurisdiction to hear complaints by pilots against Ryanair.

The company is challenging a finding by the Labour Court that there is a trade dispute between Ryanair and the trade union IMPACT, which represents the Irish Airline Pilots Association.

[GGV]

Welcome back Hansol.

Now can you tell me something? Why is that yourself and a number of other members of the "Ryanair supporters club" suddenly disappeared, literally overnight? As the coincidence would have it, that was around the time Ryanair started having some problems with the courts in Dublin, if I remember correctly.

Then, suddenly, you all start appearing over the week following the settlement of the case against Captain Goss, clearly with a view to declaring victory in that disasterous enterprise! Leo led the charge and you, like a proper courtier, follow obediently. Is there is no sense of shame or embarassment to be found anywhere in the organisation!?

[FlyingIrishman]

The big question now is what this deal means for the rest of the -200 gang.