Ryanair/Channel 4 dispatches Programme

[Global Pilot]

Press release due on www.ryanair.com this afternoon concerning an upcoming Channel 4 investigation into the airline. Programme alledged to use covert footage including conversations between crew members which bring the airlines safety into question.

Ryanair's request to reply to the allegations via an unedited interview have been denied by the tv station. Two undercover journalists worked for Ryanair in late 2005 in order to compile the story.

Here is the offical Ryanair response:
Some ten letters posted on their website so here is the link:
http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/inpage.php?partner=DISPATCHES

[jevole]

when can we see this program

[Fuzzy112]

Not surprised that something like this has finally happened. - there is no smoke without fire though. I suspect that there will be elements of fact and fiction in the show. Either way publishing these letters will do only one thing and that is make sure that many more people will watch the program than might have done without all the extra publicity. I would think Dispatches will be delighted.
I also wonder what it would actually take to convince a bully like MOL that there might be something wrong with his airline and the issues of fatigue that the program appears to be about raise are very much part of the industry today. People should be aware that those at the pointy end are often shattered and fatigued - most airlines seem to see legal limits as targets rather than guidelines but I am sure that debate has been had somewhere else before on pprune.

[Global Pilot]

Due to shown Monday February 13 at 8pm on Channel4 Television (UK).
Will be interesting to see if it is pulled before that.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Let the nitpicking begin! :}

Whilst no love is lost between the airline pilot fraternity and the Channel 4 Dispatches program there is definitely a whiff of schadenfreude with this one. Oh what a pleasure it will be to watch the Ryanair management squirm under the scrutiny of this programme.

In the correspondence published on the Ryanair website we can see the masters of spin within the Ryanair hierarchy spouting their nonsensical rubbish in a feeble attempt to smother the negative publicity that is heading their way like a hurricane approaching a low lying (pun intended) beachfront community. They've been caught with their pants down and are attempting to get their audience to look away rather than pull their pants up. How predictable! :}

[OpenCirrus619]

Channel 4 page on the program (http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/R/ryanair_caught_napping/index.html)

[VIKING9]

The last letter from FR cracks me up............. where do they get an average of 18hrs a week from ????

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Having read the initial correspondence between the maker of the program and Michael O'Leary, I hate to say it but it looks like it the program has come up with just about nothing of any note or substance. Is there anything in those 20 points that raises one pilot's eyebrow? Not mine chaps. Load of tosh. And I have to say, that is one robust response from MOL.

Just stand back and forget it's Ryanair under the spotlight. If this garbage was raised against another airline, we would all call it what it is: sh!te.

I said it before elsewhere, this is likely to be one big waste of air time.

[cwatters]

The channel 4 web site claims "inadequate safety and security checks, dirty planes, exhausted cabin crew"

Having flown with Ryan Air asveral times over the past 5 years I can't say I've noticed the above. The pax security checks seem to be similar to the other airlines I've flown with, the planes have never appeared dirty (on the contrary they have been very clean and tidy). If the cabin crew are "exhausted" they seem to do a good job of hiding it.

[strafer]

elements of fact and fiction in the showIt's not just that, the program can be edited with shots of crashed planes, menacing music and Danger! in red letters without actually making a verbal point.

Without taking sides, I do think that MOL (or whoever) should have a right of reply.

[the grim repa]

Oh mol is one to cry HUMAN RIGHTS.What about the rights of his workers.Save me the bleeding heart.
With all those letters,no wonder leo is away a lot at the moment.

[tom de luxe]

The last letter from FR cracks me up............. where do they get an average of 18hrs a week from ????
simple maths:
900 hrs
---------- = 18 hrs/week... innit? Not?
50 weeks
OK so that's 2 weeks shy of a year.
:p

[THOMAS DUCK]

One must assume with YOUR maths that they dont have leave/training/sims etc........

[tom de luxe]

One must assume with YOUR maths that they dont have leave/training/sims etc........
It's called sarcasm.
I am also aware that 900 hrs (block) flying time does not equal 900 hrs worked...
:rolleyes:

[Voeni]

Is there any way to watch the programm outside the UK, e.g. through the internet?

Is there any way someone can record it and make it available for all of us?

[EI-CFC]

Having read the correspondence, I'm beginning to suspect that while C4/Dispatches may have some points, they've had to try and puff a lot of it up. If it was any other airline other than FR, I don't think this program would have even been comissioned. I'll reserve judgement until after the screening, but I would have thought more of C4 and Dispatches who normally put out some good programming.

[banana head]

EI-CFC

I'll reserve judgment until after the screening, but I would have thought more of C4 and Dispatches who normally put out some good programming.

You don't watch a lot of C4 mate, do you! :suspect:

While I am no raving fan of RyanAir/ MoL, poor customer service etc, I doubt that this particular dispatches 'investigation' will be any more enlightening than previous ones.

Gutter Journalism at its best.

All it will serve is to further hammer home the mantra "that RYR is Europe’s no fares airline" or whatever....

I do wonder will they roll out the three Muppets from Embrey riddle who were used on the BA program to demonstrate the effects of Alcohol on flight crew - a so called 727 crew who didn't appear to be able to fly a standard profile sober, had no idea of location of switching etc, and who were all obviously students at the college whom C4 put forward as an experienced and qualified flight crew. :mad: :mad:

Anyone know if there will be something entertaining on the other sides? Live footage of some paint drying perhaps?

[Hand Solo]

....they've had to try and puff a lot of it up.....C4 and Dispatches who normally put out some good programming

Sounds exactly the like the hatchet job they did on BA. Very litte in the way of real evidence and fifty minutes of filler in a poorly produced program. I'm amazed you think Dispatches put out some good programs. If this is the standard of the two programs on a subject we understand think what guff they must be producing on subjects we know nothing about! Lazy, sensationalist TV from people who've set out to make a program and don't care if the facts don't support it.

[EI-CFC]

I'm amazed you think Dispatches put out some good programs.

Maybe I've just been lucky with the ones I have watched over the years !!!!!! :D :D :D (granted the more recent ones I haven't seen many of - perhaps they've begun to deteriorate in quality since then!)

[Memetic]

This is shaping up to be a great case study on crisis communications.

From where I sit it looks like RyanAir are getting and taking good advice. I doubt this will go legal, C4 would love to screen "the programme they tried to ban".

However if they do show it, which after the promotional effort I expect they will, and fail to provide some balance then in a month or two we will see some "Equal promenance" coverage for RyanAir.

The big question, who has bought the ad breaks?
A low cost rival?

A "full service" rival?
A train operator?

[Mike Oxbig]

Don't think I am doing anything wrong but I cannot get the letters on the Ryan Air website to open. Has anyone else had the same problem? have the letters been withdrawn?
:confused:

[rudolf]

Work fine for me.

Have you got Adobe Acrobat Reader installed?

www.adobe.com

[Camel Killer]

Yes of course C4's investigation will not produce any surprises for those of us who know this airline all too well. Nor should we expect a high standard of journalistic excellence. And, yes indeed, some of the allegations are fairly lame and irrelevant giving MOL (and no doubt LHC in due course, YAWN....) easy rebuttals while ignoring the really meaty stuff. But, there are pearls among the swine and at last the issue of pilot fatigue is getting an outing. Nice of Michael to open up his internal studies on that one;) Interesting that he had it readily available. (Handy for the AAIU when THAT evil day dawns....) Like a naughty child covering his eyes when caught out, it is symptomatic of a guilty conscience, me thinks. Even if dispatches seem to have missed the most blatant abuses of the FTL scheme, it has now entered the public domain and the great unwashed will gradually absorb the fact that a tired pilot may kill them. I don't think MOL's aggressive, overly legalistic and heavy-handed response to C4 will impress the public.

[Sunfish]

Can someone please save a copy of the Ryanair correspondence before it is pulled? Because it will be.

From my humble perspective, Ryanair has written those letters in a particular manner so as to be able to use them to obtain an injunction against the TV station, or as evidence for a defamation lawsuit later.

The letters provided by Ryanair are full of sweet reason, and give the impression that Ryanair is a workers paradise. The trouble is that no matter what the facts are according to Mr. O'Leary it is the corporate culture that is the real issue.

It is perfectly possible to have a wonderful operating manual and rules, but if the corporate culture does not support them they are dead letters.

Ho Hum, we are going to see a legal ****fight where both Ryanair and the program will win from all the free publicity.

[Penguin2000]

I've seen the advert, i've read the letters on the Ryanair website and to cut a long story short i think its a bunch of old CODSWOLLOP!!

Any excuse to get a story and make money!!

As for pilots being over worked erhh where did they get that!! My other half is a pilot and it feels like hes never at work!!

[ILOVEMCO]

i've just found this article from the Belfast telegraph

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=678622

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Anyone note the striking similarities between the style of prose in MOL's letters to the C4 producers and Leo Hairy Camels posts on this website?

Also, very noticeable is the Ryanair management philosophy that if you repeat a mistruth often enough the great unwashed public will start to believe it is true. It is so obvious to us in the business that by his repeated claims of pilots only flying to the maximum of 100 hours in 28 days equates to only 25 hours a week is designed to put across the impression that Ryanair pilots are mollycoddled and hardly work at all. It surely is a double edged sword in that he would like the public to believe that pilots hardly work at all but at the same time he insults his pilot workforce by trying to make out that they are underworked, lazy and inefficient.

Also, in the letters published is one comparing "average salaries" between Ryanair, easyJet, BA and Lufthansa. Anyone notice the blatant untruths in that one? In very small print at the bottom it mentions "excluding social, welfare and pension". Well, considering that Ryanairs pay is it and they don't include any "social, welfare or pension", they are obviously lying blatantly in their claims of being the best paying airline. Also, by claiming an "average" salary the figures mean nothing without knowing the range of numbers between the highest and the lowest, never mind how many of each.

The blatant audacity to claim that the cabin crew have to pay for the duration of their employment for their uniforms at £25 a month is just one more example of the thieving bar stewards utterly contemptible attitude towards their employees. I mean, c'mon, are you claiming that your cabin crew go through £300 worth of uniform a year? Only slime like Leo and his ilk could admit that they increase their companies profitability by hacking away at their employees benefits and wages.

So, whilst C4 and Dispatches are no friends of airline pilots, we do see here an attempt to put one over on Leo Hairy Camel and his miserable band of bullies. It is time that the public got to see a bit of what has been exposed on here for years, that Ryanair are one of the most profitable airlines because in reality they are one of the lowest paying airlines when you add up all the benefits and allowances when comparing them to any other airline. There is a management culture that relies on bullying, insults and threats that all cause financial pain to the employee should they so much as question some of their practices.

[EI-CFC]

This is shaping up to be a great case study on crisis communications.


Well I should hope so. Ryanair have been dealing with a sometimes hostile media for years and know exactly how they are going to play it. I'm sure they've been expecting something like this for a while!

[TwinAisle]

I've been in a version of what Michael O'Leary is going through, when an airline I was working for was subject to 30 minutes "trial by television" - basically, a load of disgruntled ex-employees, venting their spleen with a series of provably wrong claims that a gutter media - who had clearly committed to filling 30 minutes of airtime before they had done any research - were happy to lap up.

I hate to say it, but this is another symptom of the dreadfully low standards of journalism that we see in the UK. It is but a small step from "terror jet seconds from disaster over orphanage" to "sit in the front row of a 737 and you will die in the event of an accident". From a journalist's point of view, both grab the reader's/viewer's attention, and therefore "make good television".

If a journalist wanted to make a name for themselves, what better way than to feed on any public uneasiness about flying (better still, to generate some) and get as public a figure and as public a company as Michael O'Leary and Ryanair pilloried "in the public interest"?

I wish Michael O'Leary all the luck in the world with this, and I hope he sues them until their teeth fall out.

[GGV]

I'm with arewenearlythereyet? on this. Anything in the Ryanair materials that I can independently check is a distortion or a manipulation of the facts or a play on words. This does not make C4 right, but it suggests that Ryanair have decided on a "bad news management" strategy which has little to do with the merits of what C4 have to say. Also, it is a clever little stategem to involve the various Aviation/Safety authorities by proxy! (copying them letters, citing their approval of various things, etc).

For me, all that C4 seems to have uncovered is the basic stuff familiar to any FR employee - but as somebody above pointed out, this is not familiar to many people and the programme cannot really do any harm.

What I do know a litle about, namely the demotion of the Ryanair captain in highly disputed circumstances, is absolutely mis-represented in the correspondence. However, we have yet to hear a word from the IAA about this and clearly Ryanair believe that the IAA will go along with their interpretation of events. History suggests that the IAA will avoid this matter like the proverbial plague - but that does not make Ryanair right. What Ryanair pilot of any length of service doubts what took place? (Sorry Leo but you don't qualify as a real line pilot).

TwinAisle - you consider yourself the "Scourge of Bad Airline Management"! AND "wish Michael O'Leary all the luck in the world with this.... ". What part of "Bad Airline Management" do you specialise in scourging !?!?

[TwinAisle]

Which bits?

The bits that don't make any money...! :rolleyes:

[Camel Killer]

Which bits?
The bits that don't make any money...! :rolleyes:

OK, interesting answer. What if the bits that DO make money have eroded the safety margin to the point of being unsafe?? Or even if industry professionals have a suspicion that this may be so? AND if there's a lack of confidence in the regulating Aviation Authority to grasp the nettle?

[TwinAisle]

Perhaps I should say at this point that I do not, nor have I ever, worked at Ryanair, so I shall leave Camel Killer's question to be answered by those who have or do. Suffice it to say, if there was something wrong at ANY airline, wouldn't the aviation authorities be better judges than "tabloid style" journalists?

My only real point on this thread was that I hate to see trial by television. Whether Ryanair and/or Michael O'Leary have a case to answer wasn't my point.

[Camel Killer]

Perhaps I should say at this point that I do not, nor have I ever, worked at Ryanair, so I shall leave Camel Killer's question to be answered by those who have or do. Suffice it to say, if there was something wrong at ANY airline, wouldn't the aviation authorities be better judges than "tabloid style" journalists? In an ideal world, yes, of course. They have the industry knowledge and experience. But, when there IS "something wrong" and the aviation authority's regulatory oversight has failed to put it right, then maybe "trial by television" is the least bad option. If only to alert the public that all's not well, thus leading to a wake up call to the Authority.
My only real point on this thread was that I hate to see trial by television. Whether Ryanair and/or Michael O'Leary have a case to answer wasn't my point. They have, and it's the failure of the IAA to deal effectively with the case that has led to trial by television. With all the warts and all sensationalist approach that no doubt we will see on Monday.

[Loose rivets]

I've had a quick read through...have I missed something?

How the bloody blue blazes did a camera crew, despite a camera being small enough to be worn in the lapel, get their equipment through security?

Did they get some sort of permission?

And the $64,000 question. Was it running during a critical stage of flight?

[Topslide6]

I'm with twinaisle on this one.

Ryanair or not, this is gutter journalism at it's absolute lowest and is completely beyond contempt. Whichever 'aviation expert' controbuted to this wants stringing up as well.

Whatever you think about Ryanair, this could easily be done to ANY airline in this country if it was edited cleverly enough. I know that some people on these boards rate Ryanair as the lowest of the low but at the end of the day people don't have to work for them. There are plenty of other airlines out there recruiting at the minute. I have some good friends at Ryanair who are bloody good pilots and are perfectly happy.

Can anyone who flies for a loco/no frills carrier honestly say that they are not working 850-900hrs a year? I know I can't...and what's more, if this is the absolute hardest I have to work in my career then I can't complain.

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on MOL or Ryanair but I hope he takes 'Dispatches' to the cleaners. It's patenly grasping at straws filling an uneducated public's mind with utter rubbish. There may well be some issues at Ryanair (although the 'evidence' presented by the TV company does not hint at any) but this kind of rubbish is doing nothing to air them in the correct way.

Looserivets,

How the bloody blue blazes did a camera crew, despite a camera being small enough to be worn in the lapel, get their equipment through security?


...and how could CC supposedly carrying out their duties possibly be filiming. The production company's assertions on this score don't really cut the mustard in my opinion.

TS6

[Flap 5]

Am I missing something here? Doesn't anyone find it extraordinary that Ryanair publishes private letters to and from Channel 4 on their website? Letters that say 'Strictly Private and Confidential' on them? :hmm:

If some of you think this programme can't do Ryanair any harm then you are wrong. Hearsy and inuendo are not things the CAA or IAA can act on, video evidence is. Furthermore this programme is high profile to the traveling public who will judge it as they see it, and it doesn't look good for Ryanair.

[flash8]

All this talk of "Gutter Journalism" etc etc etc

Perhaps its best to actually WATCH the program first before passing judgement?

Just a suggestion!

[Say again s l o w l y]

The problem with this sort of program is that while we can see it from one angle, the travelling public have no idea what is really a problem and what is just sensationalism dressed up as fact.

This could be damaging to RYR and all the damage control they try will only be of limited value, since if it's on the telly its got to be true....

We all know that there are issues at RYR, but it would be nice if when any company is dragged through the mud, it's done correctly. If a company starts hurting, who are the ones who have to pay for it?

I didn't read anything in the letter on the RYR website that surprised or even concerned me, it all seems to be inuenndo and hearsay, though we'll have to wait for the program to give a real opinion on it.

[Maude Charlee]

I'm no great fan of Ryanair, and MOL in particular, but for those who are rubbing their little hands in undisguised glee over the programme there may just be one point you wish to bear in mind.

To Joe Public, Ryanair is virtually indistinguishable from any other airline, so if Dispatches do a hatchet job on FR, then they do a hatchet job on us all. Any doubts raised about the safety of lo-co travel, or crew competence, will be applied across the board (and not just in lo-co). After all, one a/c or airline is pretty much the same as any other a/c or airline to the uninitiated.

Don't think so? Well, how many times have you seen the lobotomised drooling morons come tumbling out the terminal and wander off to the a/c of their choice, despite the fact the one right in front of them has the airline logo plastered down the side in 6 foot letters and the other one hasn't. It happens with monotonous regularity.

[PAXboy]

Flap 5 Doesn't anyone find it extraordinary that Ryanair publishes private letters to and from Channel 4 on their website? Letters that say 'Strictly Private and Confidential' on them? Looking at their previous reaction to attacks they will do and say and print anything, irrespective of source or ownership.

In advance of the event, I predict that this programme will make no difference one way or the other - in the wider world. There will be hoo-hah throughout the European airline industry but the vast majority (wild guess, 99.5%) will not notice or care. The only thing that will change their minds is multiple loss of life. I base this view on observing human beings for a number of decades.

[powdermonkey]

I have never had any issues with Ryanair as a pax, and would be only too happy to fly for them in the future, but never having worked for the company, I cannot comment onsafety or working conditions. All I know is that I have a number of friends flying for them, and they have no complaints whatsoever..... Now as far as this program is concerned, I would love to watch it, but at the same time, feel that it will, like most of these programs, be an negatively edited piece, what would be the point otherwise? Good news doesn't sell!!! The fact that any interview, live or otherwise has been refused by Dispatches, means that their program is most probably based on very little that is concrete and factual, and that they would not stand a chance in a live debate. It's all too easy to make programs like these, we have seen it over and over again, clever editing can accomplish just about anything that you wish to convey, so whatever this prog says, it won't stop me flying with Ryanair. This type TV and Tabloid :mad: make me :yuk: , it's all :mad:. Lets face it, I'm sure things are not perfect in Ryanair, for pilots, CC, groundstaff etc, but they will not be perfect in any airline, but a Dispatches program stating " All is great in Ryanair, no scandals to report " will not make " good TV "

[AUTOGLIDE]

It'll probably be the just the usual cynical rubbish that shows just how little journalists know about aviation, and how good they are at making up sensationalist tosh. It's just like that stupid sensationalist BBC program about security at MAN - the one where the silly cow involved informed the viewer in hushed, awed tones that she could drive around past aircraft on her own, as you'd expect as a security employee with a full airside pass etc, etc. All junk for plebs basically.

[EI-CFC]

Doesn't anyone find it extraordinary that Ryanair publishes private letters to and from Channel 4 on their website?

Not really. They're doing exactly the best thing they can do at the moment, PR wise, by going "look, we've got NOTHING to hide, it's the journalists who have been sneaking around". Remember what they say about any move that isn't an attack is ground lost - seems especially apt in this case.

[Flap 5]

If an employee was found reading company mail in their office labeled 'Strictly Private and Confidential' they would be disciplined and probably sacked, but it's okay to publish on a website where everyone can read it? I think Channel 4 would be very annoyed that their 'Strictly Private and Confidential' letters are published for all to see.:(

I presume those of you who are apparently justifying it are saying that Ryanair would act this way because that is the way they are? I certainly hope you don't think it is alright to publish these letters or it tears at the very fabric of our society.

[Hand Solo]

I'm sure Ryanair are extremely p***ed off that C4 have been snooping around training manuals that are presumably company confidential and recording and reporting private conversations on company property.I really don't see why journalists think they can sneak around under the guise of an investigation but should then be immune to having their actions exposed to the public. Perhaps if Ryanair had placed an undercover employee at the offices of the TV company and obtained the letters illicitly than that would have been acceptable to you.

[Flap 5]

So all these tv companies that investigate wrong doing in our society, like the BBC's Watchdog, are wrong to do so? Tell that to the people who have been helped out by these tv programmes.

Of course we are all annoyed as professional pilots when we see reporting which is incorrect. It would be far better if they used people who were familiar with the industry and, in this case, with flying 737-800's. But don't shoot the messenger if you don't like the message, make it more accurate.

[bermondseya]

Only the Ryanair correspondance was marked 'Private and Confidential' and one assumes they can decide their own correspondance no longer fits that bill. Nevertheless, why not fight fire with fire?

The correspondance is indeed fascination. My comments would be that employee bitching is common in all organisations, and certainly I hear the same every day at my airline. I am sure a six month undercover investigation at any newspaper could reveal employees saying how poor their employer was too, and come up with off the cuff remarks that could be very juicy taken out of context. Fleet Street is known as 'The Street of Shame' for a reason.

The only thing that airlines need to take note of here is the danger of outsourcing. If you outsource, keep close managerial control of the service provider. You need to be on the inside. An airline as respectable as BA found this out recently to their significant cost and embarrasment.

Ryanair come out of this looking like a very well run company with procedures and controls very few other non-airlines have in place. I suspect this production company would fail to come even close to the standards set by Ryanair.

Let Ryanair have their unedited response.

[Hand Solo]

They can investigate all they want, but they shouldn't expect to be immune from similar practices themselves. They're not hypocrites, are they?

[wingman863]

I'm sure Ryanair are extremely p***ed off that C4 have been snooping around training manuals that are presumably company confidential and recording and reporting private conversations on company property.I really don't see why journalists think they can sneak around under the guise of an investigation but should then be immune to having their actions exposed to the public. Perhaps if Ryanair had placed an undercover employee at the offices of the TV company and obtained the letters illicitly than that would have been acceptable to you.

If something is judged to be "in the public interest", you would be suprised what can be got away with. In my opinion rightly so.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Gee, there are some real nerds on here with comments like How the bloody blue blazes did a camera crew, despite a camera being small enough to be worn in the lapel, get their equipment through security?WTF has that got to do with anything about this programme? We are talking about some reporters who actually trained as Ryanair cabin crew and filmed their experiences.

You must be a real ninny to go around shrieking with horror at the fact that they managed to get miniature cameras on board. I mean, they will really cause a lot of terror and damage with those now, won't they? Perhaps you were one of those regulars who dive in to these threads without having read all the associated links and detail because you will have read that they didn't film during take off or landing just as the PA says. But of course, they managed to get those dangerous, no, lethal, cameras on board and all you can do is wring your hands in terror at the fact that they were able to get them past security. We all know how feeble the current security system is anyway.

Next we have the morally outraged posters who are astounded that Ryanair have published their own "private and confidential" letters. What has that got to do with this programme? Even if they published letters from the producers that were "private and confidential" so what? Do you think they can be sued? Get a life and start to understand the world we live in. Short of publishing something covered under the official secrets act there is nothing you can do about it. Anyway, it is just typical of the Ryanair management to try and steamroller their way out of the embarrassment that will no doubt be highlighted in this programme.

Yes, as mentioned earlier, C4 and Dispatches don't have a lot going for their reputation amongst airline pilots but in this instance they are focussing on the bullying and ruthless management of a company that is very good at disguising its poor quality of man management and its greedy reputation of garnering even bigger profits off the backs of its workers. What we are satisfied with here is the fact that this programme will focus on Ryanairs rip off and lying culture. Forcing employees to fund their own training and paying for their own uniforms and everything else whilst claiming that they are the highest paying, easiest working airline will be exposed as just more Ryanair management untruths.

The documents they have provided about the demotion of the captain who refused to work extra sectors because he was tired and their publication of their version of the facts shows to what lengths they will go do put down anyone who challenges their bullying. The publication alone is typical of how they get their message across to the rest of their workforce in a manner that is designed to warn against questioning their authority.

This programme will no doubt sensationalise some things but then that is expected even if we don't like it but it's about time we had someone air Ryanairs dirty laundry even if it only makes the rest of us feel good for a while. Schadenfreude. ;)

[Flap 5]

Do you feel better now? :ok: :)

[Coolcarbon]

The big question, who has bought the ad breaks?
A low cost rival?
A "full service" rival?
A train operator?

Stagecoach/Megabus.com would be a good bet....

They seem to operate to a similar ethos...

[Aloue]

There is always something on pprune to keep one marvelling. Like this gem from powdermonkey:All I know is that I have a number of friends flying for them [Ryanair], and they have no complaints whatsoever ..... powdermonkey gives his location as Dublin, where a rather vicious battle between Ryanair and its pilots has been on-going for months. There has been the John Goss case, over 250 victimisation complaints by pilots and the recent fatigue/demotion case (among many other issues) ..... and yet he hears "......... no complaints whatsoever ... " .... just who is he talking to?

Likewise for bermondseya - whom I seem to remember making similar smoothing noises about Ryanair in the past - and who is now saying, in effect, that since all companies have complaining employees this must be so much hot air. He concludes that Ryanair come out of this looking like a very well run company with procedures and controls very few other non-airlines have in place. The practices and realities of Ryanair are what this is about bermondseya, not the fine words and manipulated statements.

[BEagle]

It will be interesting to note whether C4 will focus on Ryanair's unique interpretation of the '900 hours in 12 months rule'.....

[EI-CFC]

I certainly hope you don't think it is alright to publish these letters or it tears at the very fabric of our society.

You have got to be kidding, right?

They are perfectly within their right to release it if they so feel like! As someone else pointed out, the production company didn't put any such clause on their letters, while Ryanair did when they were trying to resolve the matter with the producers. After they failed to meet an agreement, or gave Ryanair the chance of an unedited interview and/or statement, Ryanair did the best thing they could: release the documentation to the public, and let the public decide.

[powdermonkey]

Aloue Why is my statement a gem? Is it not possible that there are some happy Ryanair pilots? Spare me your condescending /flippant attitude. The pilots I mentioned are not based in Dublin, so my statement is not a gem, just feeback from pilots based in the UK. Again, my post also stated that I did not think Ryanair was a perfect company, but nor are any other airlines and there will always be complaints from individuals, and those complaints will always be heard louder than everything else, as no one gives a toss about the " non-sensational stories ". The simple point I am putting across is that in every company, airline or otherwise, someone at some time will find fault and complain, if you choose to highlight this then it is easy to show a company to be found lacking.
I am not defending Ryanair, just trying to show that not all their employees are overworked and stressed out. I am aware of the difficulties which arose in EIDW, but did not know anyone involved. OK?

[bermondseya]

My dear Aloue,

Likewise for bermondseya - whom I seem to remember making similar smoothing noises about Ryanair in the past - and who is now saying, in effect, that since all companies have complaining employees this must be so much hot air.
Your memory needs working on. I have made 12 posts, one of which relates to Ryanair (the one you quoted). You have made 83 posts, 48 of which relate to Ryanair. Obviously one of us has an axe to grind, and it isn't me. Perhaps my post count would be higher here if there wasn't a propensity to play the man and not the ball.

You also misunderstand me. People complain in all jobs and it doesn't always prove there is something wrong. It is my opinion that the accusations made by Despatches do not demonstrate a problem at Ryanair. The robust, credible and detailed rebuttals of these accusations (with supporting documents) demonstrates to me that Despatch have spent three months and come up blank.

Their letters consist of many accusations (I see no supporting evidence, purely suggestions that they have things on tape) and in my opinion amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition. They are simply trying to find out what Ryanair's defence is so they can edit their programme accordingly in order to bolster their weak case.

From reading the correspondance, it is clear to me that the standard required to become a CEO of a major airline is greater than the standard required to become a producer of a small TV production company.

If there is a problem at Ryanair, it is clear to me that this TV production company has not found it.

Perhaps one of the many journalists who frequent this site can let us know how these TV production companies get paid. Do they only get paid if they produce the show? i.e. if they don't have a case they get nothing, so there is a financial incentive to provide 60 minutes of programming no matter what?

[egbt]

If there is a problem at Ryanair, it is clear to me that this TV production company has not found it.

Would it not be a good idea to actually watch the program before making up your mind?

[Aloue]

powdermonkey, most people who edit their posts do so to soften remarks that might have been a bit hasty. You went the other way and added Spare me your condescending /flippant attitude.You are indeed entitled to your opinions, but there was nothing either "condescending" or "flippant" in what I wrote. I just took your first post - which differs in tone from your second - at face value and responded accordingly. Apart from the condenscending/flippant bit I can better see your position from the second post.

bermondseya, you also are entitled to you opinions, especially when you say that Perhaps my post count would be higher here if there wasn't a propensity to play the man and not the ball. There is, however, a bit of a difference between pointing out inconsistencies and "playing the man", is there not? You also seem to confuse the number of posts with what they contain. If you did not make a similar "smoothing" sounds about Ryanair in the past - a point you did NOT address in your reply - you would indeed be entitled to have the remark withdrawn.

But both of you seem to miss the point - which is that by posting here your logic and the content of what you write is open to scrutiny and criticism, no less than it is for myself. I will leave it up to others to make up their own minds about where you and I are coming from. In that regard bermondseya I really do find it exceedingly strange that you feel able to say the following It is my opinion that the accusations made by Despatches do not demonstrate a problem at Ryanair. before the programme has actually been transmitted. I think it is not "playing the man" to observe that this is a remarkable position to take, particularly given the Ryanair news management techniques already discussed by several contributors to this thread. Interestingly, it is also consistent with taking a "soothing" position regarding Ryanair.

[powdermonkey]

Just a question here....how many Ryanair bashers on this forum actually work or have worked for said company? It's easy to slate a company using facts and figures quoted in newspapers/tv programs and looking all clever and important but yet having never worked for that company. It may well be that some of the posts here are from genuine sources who have had real problems in their dealings with the company as employees, but it's highly likely that some simply like to bitch about things they know nothing about, because they read it in the tabloids.

[powdermonkey]

Aloue, I don't get it, there is no difference in mood in my first and second post, the reason I took ( ever so slight ) offense to what you wrote and describing it as condescending and flippant was that you chose to refer to my post as a gem, like it was some priceless/hilarious and completely innacurate comment. I clearly state that I was not working for the company and that I only was saying what present employees have told me, not ALL employees, just the few that I know, and they indeed have NO complaints at the moment. So forgive me if I appeared to get a little tetchy, you are absolutely right, all posts are open to scrutiny and I shall do my best to make my posts as clear as possible to avoid any misunderstandings.
Anyway, before someone slates me for the other post I just made, let me simply say I wish genuinely to find out if all these complaints I have been reading are from people who have ACTUALLY been involved?

[Aloue]

powdermonkey I did not intend my use of the word gem to be interpreted as "priceless/hilarious and completely innacurate comment". The word, which I withdraw, was more intended to underline the sharp distinction between what you reported and the reality that so many Ryanair pilots have to contend with. In that regard I still have a (personal) problem with the contrast between the volume of posts about Ryanair which repeatedly confirm the same messages about the realities of life in Ryanair but which some posters here seem to completely discount. I just have difficulty is reconciling the shear volume of negative evidence with the soothing "Ryanair is no different from other airlines" type of post. In summary, we just had a clash of perspectives, but seem to have mutually recovered.

[powdermonkey]

If only all PPruners could resolve their differences so amicably as you and I!:ok: no worries Aloue.
Yes, the volume of complaints about one company is impressive and I do personally think that MOL is pushing things too hard, but that is a personal opinion based on what I see and read, NOT from experience, hence why I do not bash Ryanair, and also why I am willing to accept that not all is as gloomy as what one reads on Prune. I am a pilot in training and hope to qualify for a job before the end of 2006, and I rightly or wrongly believe that Ryanair is responsible in part for creating a very healthy job opportunities market for people such as myself. I may be wrong but again, I state this is opinion not experience, and I just question how many of the complaints we read about on PPrune and elsewhere are genuine and from injured parties, and how many come from people like reporters who are not in the airline industry, but know that anything touching the airlines in a negative way sells a lot of newspapers.

[Jetlegs]

A surprisingy large number of people here seem to have no or very limited knowledge of operating short haul, 737 inter-european.
Having just read the entire posted correspondence between MOL and the production company, many things jump out fro discussion.

Lets start with a very simple and straightforward one; 25 minute turnaround times.
How long does it take for a full pax load to disembark a 738?
How long does it take for a new load to come onboard, stuff away their carry on bags and sit down?
Deduct the above from the 25 minutes, how many minutes does that leave with cabin crew to do everything they are obliged to do. Obliged either by their company SOPs; clean away the rubbish not collected during the approach, tidy the aircraft and prepare the galleys for the new arrivals plus their tasks under the law like the cabin security check & the life vest check.
There simply isn't enough time.

As Sunfish so rightly says, all the manuals in the world won't help you when the company culture is not conducive.

In the case of MOL, I strongly suspect that he has all his paperwork regarding cabin SOPs in order. And when the crew are caught out not following the impossible-to-achieve SOPs, he does exactly what he is doing in this case, namely blaming the individual crew members for failing to do their task properly.
Thereby neatly circumventing having to raise his costs by allowing the crews enough time to do the things properly.

MOL knows that the underfunded and understaffed regulatory bodies wil mainly concentrate on the paperwork, and as long as that looks good they will be happy.
The odd time that his practices are shown to be faulty, he will blame his crews rather than his impossible SOPs.

Neat, clever and utterly dangerous.

[Flap 5]

Further to Jetlegs post Ryanair state in their letters that they respect a pilots right to not fly if they are fatigued. So the present court case where a pilot was suspended for not flying two extra sectors because he was fatigued is a figment of our imagination then?

They can not give out drinks because the bar is sealed on the ground and can not be opened? That is for alcoholic drinks. What about soft drinks, or even bottled water?

Their answers are just too glib. Those of us who fly the 737 on shorthaul low cost turnrounds know that the answers might fool someone who doesn't know but are just an embarassment to those who do know.

For sure other low cost airlines (e.g. easyJet) also have short turnrounds and passenger problems, you only have to watch their tv programme, but Ryanair really take the p*ss.

[bagpuss lives]

I'm a very, very frequent traveller with Ryanair and I've just finished reading through the downloadable letters on their site regarding this matter. I have to say, it all seems a little overblown to me and the replies given by Ryanair seem to make perfect sense - with an obvious hint of spin.

It certainly hasn't worried or discouraged me, in any way, as a regular passenger with RYR.

I think though that, one the programme goes out, "Joe Public" may be alarmed a little bit, probably thanks in no small part to a clever editing process.

I remember, not too long ago, a similar programme reporting supposed security lapses at EGCC. That went out with a damp squib too and I think this may well do the same.

[TwinAisle]

Just a thought....

I recognise that programmes like "Watchdog" etc have done a lot of good in the past, shining a little light into dark corners. Accept that.

I also recognise that until we see the programme on Monday, we are all speaking from a position of conjecture.

BUT. What if, for argument's sake, the programme makes an accusation against Ryanair, of commercially damaging proportions, which turns out to be completely untrue? Is that situation that far-fetched, given that it is being made by lay people in the media?

Will MO'L get anything other than a 30s read statement in three months time, at the tail end of an unrelated programme, saying that "yeah, we're really sorry, it was all untrue. And if you lost your job because we frightened all your passengers away, we're really sorry about that too."

With power comes responsibility. Perhaps the programme makers should consider that.

[powdermonkey]

Let's all wait and see, however, what I am curious about is what the two "CC" in training were asked to look for during their time at Ryanair.
If the object of the exercise was to find fault and scandal, talk to disgruntled employees and basically dredge up anything negative, well that is exactly what will be served up. Judging by the tone of what is advertised, that seems to be exactly what the producers are looking for.....that's easy to do!
If this was a program about the day in the life of a trainee CC and as result of making a genuine program, shocking standards were discovered, then yes, the report would have value and would be more credible. The same program could be made about everything that is positive in Ryanair, and edit it in such a way that no bad facts are released. My point is, it's all about the mindset of the producer, if you want to create a negative image, you'll achieve it.

[GGV]

TwinAisle you clearly don't know much about Ryanair. MOL will sue if he gets even half a chance. I have no doubt that C4 has already been threatened with legal action, as has been virtually everybody who has ever planned to publish an article critical of Ryanair, or who has opened a website critical of Ryanair, etc., etc. The most recent case was the magazine that published an article containing information about an under-reported and under-investigated Ryanair incident - they too were threatened. Ryanair never hesitates to go to court if it believes it to be in its interest. (I should mention that nobody seems to have noticed that this means that C4 is very unlikely to make any claims for which it does not have evidence).

[TwinAisle]

GGV - No, you are right, I am not a Ryanair expert, just an interested bystander. But surely, if MO'L will sue if he gets even half a chance surely the half chance he needs is for the programme makers to make an untrue statement? In which case, perhaps they deserve to be sued?
As for C4 is very unlikely to make any claims for which it does not have evidence this may be true. But how many times have you seen a statement of the type I outlined in my previous posting, where the programme maker has screwed up, but has only to apologise at some later date?

Is that really fair?

[GGV]

TwinAisle, to twist what you have said into a different orientation: How many times have you seen a misleading Ryanair statement that coloured perceptions and was never effectively refuted, even after the damage had been done. Only with Ryanair there never is an apology (this from the best employer in the universe of best paid paid pilots in Europe who only work an average of 18 hours a week and who enjoy the best rosters, always get their leave, get rapid promotions, etc. etc.). And that's avoiding the more disgraceful statements about individual pilots over the years.

Balance (like fairness) is a two-way business.

[d71146]

Would it not be a good idea to actually watch the program before making up your mind?

I agree I think it best as many of us as possible watch it then come onto the site and have a good old argy bargy about what we thought of the program and its implications if any.

[Ryan_not_fair]

One of the most insightful posts I have ever read on this forum recently asked, from a safety point of view, if the aviation industry was actually ready for the low fares airlines (in general). For generations, the commercial aviation industry was policed by a model that we were familiar with. State run airlines, employing hand picked war heroes as crew, and money no object. Well folks, today the skies are now full of guys and gals who fulfilled their dream very differently. They didn’t have to clamber into a hawk or a hurricane but still had to endure the “old farts” from the old schools. The musty old warriors have to go somewhere and the reality is that they have ended up in the administration of the current system. They are in the local aviation authorities as executives or testers or examiners or AAIB’ers etc. but one thing is sure, they are totally out of there depth. They have no qualifications what so ever to police and govern the new environment, and what’s more they have no comprehension of what it takes to run a modern day commercial aviation business. They need to clamber to a dictionary to look up what a four-sector day means. A good dictionary will enlighten them that its not a three day, all expenses paid lay over at three different locations but a very tiring and trying days work. The fastest growing technological revolution to hit the modern age has left behind the very people that police it so the only alternative for most of them is to bitch about it. That they have such a ready made audience on these pages leaves me to conclude that most of you remember the good old days. Well let me tell you folks, while we havent been to war, we have had to work extremely hard to get here so push over and stop complaining.


So in short, my point being.....

Dispatches or any other programme is always going to target a sucessful model such as Ryanair because it has nothing to benchmark it against. It also has nothing to lose. It dosent tell you that many of its employees travell by Ryanair every week to get to its locations. Oh no that wouldnt be good journo. However, just remember, in Ryanairs history nobody has ever died - NOBODY (repete after me all the competition who can boast that fact - oops.. forgot that not many of you can, can you. Certainly not any of you in service for over 20 years, ..??? Pls do comment

[Capt Hook]

Have personally witnessed passengers disembarking forward doors as passengers embark rear doors; would love to know what rules are being worked to? Are they not now reaping their harvest! I am not being critical of individuals, as I know like myself, they are under pressure to make it work; I more blame the company cultures that are purveying the industry as a whole whilst preaching the "safety is paramount". If this was the case, why do we end up working a 60 hour week combined with unsocial hours.

[Tartan Giant]

I've seen the advert, i've read the letters on the Ryanair website and to cut a long story short i think its a bunch of old CODSWOLLOP!!
Any excuse to get a story and make money!!
As for pilots being over worked erhh where did they get that!! My other half is a pilot and it feels like hes never at work!!
-----------
I've done the same and I agree with you Penguin2000 - and others of similar leanings.

Karen Edwards and her band of twisters should be sued!
So Ryanair is a tight-ass operation, but it's within the law.

Some of Karen Edwards choice of words (item 7) like, "critical" boarding checks are just pathetic........... stir up alarmist lies why don't you.

Item 15 - If CC fall asleep whilst airborne it's highly unlikely it is due to the complexity of their in-flight duties! Examine their 'rest' habits for the previous few days might tell all and approach the truth.

Item 16 - shows the lamentable grasp that Karen Edwards has of the subject.

Item 18 - a "potential" DIV. Get real Ms Edwards. How about a "potential" stab at getting to the truth of how you make your money through stirring up tripe and falsehoods?

Item 19 - 3 hrs delayed.... phhhw..... chicken feed. Some clever dick trying to tell the Captain the score; crap happens and the skipper appears to have done all he could - breaking the seals does not enter the equation.

Item 20 - you pay for what you get....... what car do you drive Ms Edwards? I suppose she can afford to fly, the company pays. When it does not, then her big buck salary will cough up.

I'm not a great fan of Ryanair, but when I see yet another example of deception being played out for some sick gain, by the deplorable Ch4, on the say so of a couple of undercover 'bent' reporters then I object to this deciet. If Ch4 want crap on their airtime, then busy being amongst the MEP's in BRU.

Sue :mad: Ch4 Mr MOL

TG

http://www.ryanair.com/site/promos/dispatches/03.%20Ryanair%27s%20first%20response%20to%20Dispatches%20%5B 2006-01-23%5D.pdf

[Ryan_not_fair]

QED. You are using traditional methods to judge a new industry.

Here is a quote from the WHO

"Using published data as a base, the World Health Organisation estimates that there are over a million deaths as a result of road crashes."

So why arent we stopping the production of all auto vehicles as I speak?? Please tell me why. Oh but no - an alumium tube with 80 plus consenting adults must be immediately interfered with and regulated - I dont get it

[bermondseya]

Why do we need to see the programme?

The matters of concern uncovered by Ms Smith and Ms Nash during their time secretly filming while working for Ryanair, and on which we would like to give you the opportunity to comment, are as follows

and

Our statutory obligations require us to fairly summarise our evidence in order to seek an appropriate response

It's all in their letter to MOL. We know what they are going to say, and it's not very much. If they throw anything else into the programme, they haven't told Ryanair, and according to them would have breached their 'statutory obligations to fairly summarise their evidence' (not that I can see any evidence in their letters, lots of accusations though).

That's the interesting part for me, the fact that they appear to be having a go at an airline when they should really be examining their own conduct.

Come on, the GPS isn't working and they claim it's a safety issue.

And anyway, it's a rumour network.

[atse]

bermondesya you ask a question Why do we need to see the programme? but it's not a real question because your mind is obviously made up. I think you are here for other purposes than to comment in a "fair and balanced" way - kinda like Fox News. Maybe you should wait and see (not that it looks will make any difference to your opinion) before telling us anymore of what you think. I presume we will be having lot's of "I told you so" stuff from you after you have seen it.

[skysoarer]

This kind of program is just so unwelcome. Typically Channel IV will barely let Ryanair get a message in sideways. Despite their assurance, I'm sure Channel IV will edit/reword or otherwise do something with Ryanair's statement. If they were genuinely unsafe, the IAA or the CAA would have jumped all over them by now. There are far more worrying airlines out there.

Graeme

[atse]

If they were genuinely unsafe, the IAA or the CAA would have jumped all over them by now. Really!!!??? It's such a relief to discover that I have been so confused for the past couple of years. At least I can stop worrying now. Thanks skysoarer for pointing out the errors of my ways.

[eng123]

Have personally witnessed passengers disembarking forward doors as passengers embark rear doors; would love to know what rules are being worked to? Are they not now reaping their harvest! I am not being critical of individuals, as I know like myself, they are under pressure to make it work; I more blame the company cultures that are purveying the industry as a whole whilst preaching the "safety is paramount". If this was the case, why do we end up working a 60 hour week combined with unsocial hours.

Capt Hook,

There are so many posts on here about Ryanair like your's that just make me shake my head and laugh! Boarding on the rear steps whilst passengers disembark on the front? What a load of tosh. There are certainly bigger statements made on here that make me want to reply involving things far more important than passenger boarding issue's but your statement almost take's the biscuit. When and where did you witness this? In 10 years being involved in Ryanair Engineering, attending turnarounds in UK and Europe, I have NEVER witnessed this! If people such as yourself would stop posting such utter tripe then maybe the occasional genuine issue that is raised would be able to be discussed in a rational manner.

[Marvin the Robot]

I don't think I'll be forming an impression of Ryanair based upon the "revelations" of a biased, heavily/cleverly edited, sensationalising TV documentary (hey, OK, I admit, I'm just guessing, based upon 99.999999% of undercover, true to life, ever so real, honest this is the real thing, not kidding, Scouts honour TV documentaries).

Some people will believe anything they see on TV.

Brainwashed! :rolleyes:

[Capt Hook]

Capt Hook,
I have NEVER witnessed this! If people such as yourself would stop posting such utter tripe then maybe the occasional genuine issue that is raised would be able to be discussed in a rational manner.

Sorry, because you haven't witnessed this then it hasn't happened. The issue I raised is relevant; I acknowledged that we are all under increasing pressures and there, for the grace of god, could be any operator on that programme; even the best, remember the BA bar team in Spain.

That said thank you for your polite reply, it goes a long way to foster open and free discussion on this forum.

[Avman]

What amuses me the most is that we're on page five and the program hasn't even been aired yet!!! :bored: :zzz:

[powdermonkey]

Monday 9pm......PPrune is gonna be a crowded space

[Marvin the Robot]

What amuses me the most is that we're on page five and the program hasn't even been aired yet!!!
No need to watch it then, is there.

As per most of the drivel on TV. :*

[ifleeplanes]

I was trying to read the letters on the Ryanair site but all I have up is a list of numbers (1-13) and a series of dates one against each number. I cannot see any letters and I cannot click on anything to view the letters ....any ideas?
ie
1. Feb 10
-- ------
2. Jan 12
-- ------
3. Jan 23
etc etc

[vintage ATCO]

ifleeplanes

Are you running Norton Ad Blocker, or something similar? You need to configure it to accept content from the Ryanair site. I had this problem at first.

[ifleeplanes]

Thanks Vintage ATCO that worked....seems to recognise them as adverts for some reason...thanks again

[LGS6753]

Or 'who watches the watchers?'
This production company was commissioned by Channel 4 to make a programme 'exposing' Ryanair. If they found nothing wrong, their commission would not pay their wages. So they had to find something wrong.
What they found were a few grumbling staff, a couple of practices they didn't understand, and a few minor misdemeanours.
So they edit their videotapes to reinforce their initial prejudices (that Ryanair must be 'exposed') and create an hour's TV entertainment.
They are forced to offer their victim a right of rebuttal, but in a very limited way, so they hide behind Ofcom guidelines.
If they were genuinely convinced of the strength of their allegations they would want to interview MOL live on air (like Roger Cook who wanted an interview NOW with the con-men he exposed)
Their 'reporters' who infiltrated Ryanair were probably experiencing the first training of their lives. Journalists can wield their pens/video cameras without control, training, accountability, discipline or moral judgement.
They found a tightly regulated world of procedures, record-keeping, training, checks and accountability that must have come as a surprise.
But still they had to make a TV programme. And because C4 relies on advertising, it had to promise sensational exposures, safety-critical horror stories, and shocking revelations.
Let's hope someone exposes this grubby little outfit for what it is - a peddler of the drug of sensationalism. An organization unwilling to open itself to the scrutiny it happily applies to others. An arrogant bunch of creeps who consider the airtime to be their own, to be used to further their own uneducated prejudices.
But of course that won't happen unless MOL sues them. Let's hope he does.

[Boy]

LSG6753 says If they found nothing wrong, their commission would not pay their wages. So they had to find something wrong. That, I guess, is impeccable logic. Here's a similar logic: LSG6753 has made a post attacking Channel 4 and hopes that Ryanair will sue them. LSG6753 has not seen the programme. Therefore LSG6753 is biased aganst Channel 4.

This thread is fascinating as a study in biases. At this rate we will see 50 pages on this thread and very little light at the end of the tunnel.

[LGS6753]

Boy,

Am I biased, or do I have an opinion?

I have an opinion. It is based on:
reading through the correspondence on the FR website,
looking at the Channel 4 website,
personal experience of dealing with 'investigative' journalists (not as subject matter)
knowing the aviation industry
knowing several journalists, and having professional dealings

You may think this makes me biased. I think bias is different to reasoned opinion. Feel free to differ. I'll try to watch the programme tomorrow, but I don't expect it to alter my opinion. Of course, it might (because I'm not biased...):D

[snaga]

The C4 programme, 900 hours per annum, recent Ryanair incidents, etc, etc were all discussed in an Irish paper today. The consensus on Irish Radio this morning among the radio pundits was that Ryanair has done a great pre-emptive job on Channel 4, but that the programme could be the start of something. In other words, it is all to be played for, but Ryanair have done well in PR management terms.

Interestingly the pundits had a lot of trouble getting their minds around the 900 hours maximum for pilots in the light of reports that some pilots can actually exceed 900 hours in a year. It was encouraging to see that pundits are as confused as the rest of us about the operation of the IAA 900 hour limit. One pundit, a Russian economist, speculated that 900 hours was really designed for long haul pilots and that it needs to be increased for short haul pilots.

[Flap 5]

The point has been made that this programme will cause unfair harm to Ryanair. In fact the mudying of the waters on this forum, by Ryanair's letters and by other means has just caused the judgement to be of reasonable doubt and therefore Ryanair can not be found 'guilty' and will continue to tread their fine line. However I would hope if any serious assertions are made in the programme, with apparent factual backing, that the IAA and the CAA will investigate. I believe that they would have to, to clear Ryanair and themselves of 'allowing' such wrong doings to happen.

[Penguin2000]

The way i see it is if Ryanair are willing to do a live or unedited interview with Channel 4 then it seems they really dont have anything to hide especially when they haven't seen the programme. However the fact that channel 4 who are not willing to do a live or unedited interview makes one wonder what they have got to hide!!



P.s well said Tartan Giant!!

[Marvin the Robot]

However I would hope if any serious assertions are made in the programme, with apparent factual backing, that the IAA and the CAA will investigate. I believe that they would have to, to clear Ryanair and themselves of 'allowing' such wrong doings to happen.
The damage will have been done by then! :*

Are they going to broadcast the IAA and CAA findings, clearing Ryanair's name, in the form of a follow-up documentary at Channel 4 prime time?

Of course they aren't! As far as the viewing public are concerned, Ryanair will remain guilty of whatever is claimed, or hinted at, or insinuated on Monday.

It stinks.

I hope Ryanair find a way to take Channel 4 to the cleaners, including a claim for revenue lost as a result of so called "impartial journalism".

[Rivet gun]

Short of publishing something covered under the official secrets act there is nothing you can do about it.
Of course Ryanair can publish their own "private and confidential" correspondance. However the published material includes an extract from Ryanair's security manual which is classified RESTRICTED on security grounds.

The GPS issue is a red herring. Two GPS are fitted in a B737-800 and the MEL allows one to be inoperative, or even both if BRNAV RNP can be met from other sources. There are many B737 aircraft flying in Europe that are not fitted with GPS at all.

The only really valid point they have is the crew fatigue issue. "Average 18 flying hours per week" is meaningless in fatigue prevention terms. This is because (so I have been told) Ryaniar zero the counter on 1 April. The fact that a pilot spent most of February and March on standby will do nothing to mitigate his fatigue at the end of August having been flying very close to 100 hours in each rolling 28 days throughout the summer. Ryanair operate to a Flight Time Limitations scheme agreed with the Irish Aviation Authority that is less stringent than the United Kingdom regulations for the Avoidance of Fatigue in Aircrew (CAP 371). This gives them a commercial advantage over their main rival at Stansted.

[GGV]

Am I the only person who is having a problem reconciling the string of anti-C4 posters here who seem to feel that whatever is going to appear simply must be misleading?

Just to reorient my mind I revisited the Ryan-be-fair website a few minutes ago to remind myself about the realities of cabin crew life in Ryanair (see: http://www.ryan-be-fair.org/messagebd.htm (http://www.ryan-be-fair.org/messagebd.htm)). The usual claims about anonymous and biased remarks, etc. notwithstanding, this site is no different from PPRUNE and other sources in providing a host of material that should generate at least some suspicions in any impartial visitor that all is not entirely well in the Ryanair Empire.

All websites, newspapers, TV companies, pilots’ associations, etc. must act in a manner that anticipates a Ryanair legal attack (PPRUNE has had several). What is known and what can be said and proved are different things. I am disappointed by the venom towards C4 in respect of a programme that has not even been transmitted. Caution, or suspicion, or whatever may well be merited, but the Ryanair PR machine has apparently already done a good job in muddying the waters to a sufficient extent that no matter what the programme says, it may well get lost.

I am very much with those who (a) want to see the programme first, and (b) want to see the evidence before reaching a conclusion. I would even hazard a guess that it might even be necessary to read between the lines on occasions, something which will require a bit more detachment than has been demonstrated by some posters.

[skysoarer]

Really!!!??? It's such a relief to discover that I have been so confused for the past couple of years. At least I can stop worrying now. Thanks skysoarer for pointing out the errors of my ways.

Ha! Well there are other more scary airlines out there... especially one that ran out of fuel shortly after vacating the runway at LHR a few years back (MAS). I'm certainly not in a rush to believe any half-baked 2% content (98% crapola) doc on C4. Infact C4 seems to be breaking boundaries for documentaries that just have no bounds for grossness whatsoever. *pulls number *4* out of remote* Don't need that any more...

Anyway... even when I joined pprune 5 years back there were numerous Ryanair rants. It's exactly the same now! *sigh*

Lets just watch the programme, have a good laugh, leave the PR to MOL and carry on. They're at the bottom of my list to send applications to as I simply couldn't afford the TR with their deal.

Sky

[Camel Killer]

If they were genuinely unsafe, the IAA or the CAA would have jumped all over them by now.

ROFLMAO How touchingly naive!:D You have obviously never dealt with the IAA, those world champions of acquiessence to the Bart Simpson defence - "they didn't do it, you never saw it and you can't prove it"

[PAXboy]

Perhaps part of the problem is:

Airline Pilots do not understand Television Production and staff.
Television Production staff do not understand Airline Pilots and their ways of working.
Or is that, actually, all of the problem?

I reiterate that:

This documentary will do nothing to enlighten either side about the other because adversarial tactics rarely do. Both sides will retire stating that they have won and NOTHING will change.
This documentary will make ZERO diff to FR and their clients. Only a smoking hole will do that.

[Wedge]

There are, as always, two sides to every story. And I am not an expert, nor do I claim to have any more knowledge other than what I have read on here about Ryanair or the industry in general.

Both Ryanair and Journalists are frequent targets for 'bashing' here, due in no small part to the fact that this is a website for pilots and like all professions they have an agenda, which is frequently at odds with the agenda of the aforementioned. Mr O'Leary's agenda is to maximise Ryanair's profits, and to protect the PR interests of the company from bad publicity that could affect profits. C4's agenda is to put out programming that will be both balanced and factual and entertaining to Joe Public, and as we know those two are often mutually exclusive. However, if C4 have uncovered company practices that are unscrupulous, or worse, compromise safety, then it is in the public interest that their findings are published.

There is no doubt that MOL has done extremely well at Ryanair, from the 'bottom line' perspective, and no doubt also that there is a great deal of ill feeling towards him among staff, some of which looks to me to be entirely justified. He runs the company in a 'bottom line' style, and while this undoubtedly achieves the goal of getting short term profits up and keeping shareholders happy, I'm not at all convinced it's the best way to secure a company's future from the long-term perspective. An unhappy workforce is bad for business, staff turnover will be higher, costs of recruiting and training new staff will always offset the benefits gained from slashing costs and in doing so causing unrest in the way that MOL appears to have done at Ryanair.

MOL has made a fortune out of Ryanair, the Sunday Times Rich List 2005 estimated his wealth at £297 million. When he presides over a company notorious for low pay and workforce bullying, I can't help but think that there is something wrong, and moreover that as a member of the public (and potential Ryanair customer), I have a right to know about what goes on in the company, and that's why I will be watching C4's documentary tomorrow. Maybe it would be better for all to actually watch the programme first before passing judgment on it. But reading excellent and well informed posts like Jetlegs' only makes me more intrigued to see what really did happen when C4 sent undercover journalists inside. The evidence that they have will no doubt be sensationalised to some degree (that's the job of the journalist, they have to sell advertising space and get viewing ratings up the way airlines have to sell seats.)

As for "If they were genuinely unsafe, the IAA or the CAA would have jumped all over them by now." - a one word answer: Valujet.

[GGV]

Ahh..... just when I was getting solidly depressed there is an outbreak of commonsense, balance and even perhaps a bit of worldy wisdom. Thanks wedge.

[skysoarer]

ROFLMAO How touchingly naive!:D You have obviously never dealt with the IAA, those world champions of acquiessence to the Bart Simpson defence - "they didn't do it, you never saw it and you can't prove it"


LOL! Well I'm certainly not in a rush to believe Channel IV over the IAA! C4 is the home of Big Waste of Transmission Time. Ryanair do have problems but, with a search on Google or BBC News, they don't seem to have many serious safety implications? We've had a naff few years for aircraft safety, but we're (in our corner of Europe) still very safe for commercial aviation. I wouldn't bat an eyelid at flying on Ryanair as a passenger, and why should I?

I can't work for them anyway due to the shear cost of getting in there. Just about every profession under the sun has issues with long-hours, which seems to be the only thing with substance that C4 have to present. Well Whoppee doo, I've had long hours for the last 8 years, and my folks have had it for Many more. We have it pretty good here in the Uk in terms of safety, and we should appreciate it and be thankful.

As for Naive? I'm more likely to deal with the CAA than the IAA, but my comments about the general safety of aviation here stand. I'm far more in fear of my safety driving on the motorway. C4 not allowing a decent Ryanair response speaks for itself and *that* point should be highlighted over all else with regards to this television. I'm certainly not wasting any more time posting *here* until the programme has aired.

[egbt]

Re Live interviews.

There is also the problem that the interviewer would presumably be a journalist with an incomplete understanding of the airline business and therefore unable to refute counterclaims by a Ryanair expert.

Could C4 get credible experts who would be seen as impartial to enter into such a debate on their behalf?

[yamaha]

As for "If they were genuinely unsafe, the IAA or the CAA would have jumped all over them by now." - a one word answer: Valujet says Wedge.

Unfortunately that is incorrect. Valujet as is often the case were only shut down after the worst had already happened. Again unfortunately the authorities do not really react until its too late. Thats what history tells us because money does the talking and nothing else.

As for the IAA, the warning signs have been there for a while that they have become ineffective.

Ryanair long term in my opinion, will not revolutionize the industry, they will destroy it.

Who is strong enough out there to take them on?

[Streamline]

I have followed this tread from a distance. Ryanair is complying with the law and maybe even beyond.

They are being watched very closely and as such are performing better by the day, not to mention the experience they have gained in this environment.

If anyone is to blame to the alleged destruction of aviation by RYR it is the lawmakers themselves.

[woodpecker]

I find the safety briefings from the cabin crew on Ryanair totally unacceptable on the Bournemouth - Gerona route (they all seem to be of Spanish origin).

Their command of the English language is appalling and they don't help their cause by rushing them, added to which they combine the safety briefings with the hard sell of in-flight sales.

I am looking forward to this program. I flew for BA for 35 years and since retiring have flown with FR on about 20 occasions. It will be interesting to see FR from the inside. I accept they are a no frills airline but that should not apply to the safety aspects of the cabin crew job.

No smoke without fire? Lets wait and see!

[Faire d'income]

I have followed this tread from a distance. Ryanair is complying with the law and maybe even beyond.

They are being watched very closely and as such are performing better by the day, not to mention the experience they have gained in this environment.

If anyone is to blame to the alleged destruction of aviation by RYR it is the lawmakers themselves.

This is the sort of spin you would expect from Ryanair itself. They are not being watched very closely at all. Even if the IAA had the manpower to do so I doubt if they would adopt a different position.

Iriah airlines are effectively self monitoring. The IAA carry out very, very occassional audits on flights. Over 90% of flights are hassle free experiences for crew. The IAA audit a tiny proportion of FR flights. The odds are that the IAA never witness anything unusual.

That does not mean everything is fine.

[Main_Tenant]

You all really shouldn’t get in stress so much. I don’t need a television programme (dubious or not) to tell me what to think. You only have to look at the facts. Take their apparent priorities, extremely low fares to get you on board - followed by poor attitude to customer problems. (a la ValueJet) I have to wonder what corners do they cut to achieve such foolishly low fares? I understand (and like) as passenger that other low cost airlines treat their staff more respectfully, and do not object to union representation. I don’t want anything to do with an airline that exploits hard work staff and penny-pinches right left and centre, emotional television journalism or not.

[captjns]

captjns just a couple of points. Burke was an Irish politician. I think it could fairly be stated that he viewed the role of the Fourth Estate to be in doing exactly what Channel 4 is now doing, which is watching like a hawk how those with power actually use their power and in informing the public. While Burke is a politician beloved of conservatives, I think anyone familiar with this life would be inclined to suspect that he would have looked upon Ryanair's behaviour with an exceedingly sceptical eye.

Also you ask for equal time for Ryanair. Even if a right of response were merited, is that not just a little generous? Today I spoke to a Ryanair pilot who has suffered quite badly at the hands of Ryanair and is currently planning to leave. He will not get any right of reply. He will be given a very hard time if he seeks redress through the courts. He will not be entertained by the IAA. Who speaks for him?

I agree, like Ryanair, the indivual you spoke to has the right to rebut his/her posistion. Nobody is forced to work for any company they feel is not providing them with equal pay, or treatment, for services delivered. There are is an over abundance of lawyers who can provide proper legal services to individuals mistreated by employers. Perhaps, you can advise the individual, to whome you spoke with, to retain proper counsel.

representation, I am sure

[EI-CFC]

I think drawing any parallels between Ryanair and ValuJet is being quite distinctly unfair to FR to be totally honest. Ryanair doesn't even come close to being in the same league as ValuJet.

[Sunfish]

I expect that Ryanair will institute legal proceedings within milliseconds of the completion of the TV Show - and they will win, because the court will consider facts, not the illusive corporate culture of Ryanair that will probably be depicted in the documentary.

One word of caution to some of you. Calling your customers "Self Loading Freight", and the general, "non aviational" public, "morons" is not likely to advance the reputation of your profession.

[PAXboy]

I see that Sunfish has now:
Judged the TV programme
Judged RYR's following action
Attended the court case
Judged the outcome of the court case
:p

[Topslide6]

This thread could end up competing with Jet Blast if it carries on growing like this...any publicity is good publicty :confused:

Anyway, those advocating watching the program before forming an opinion...I don't really get where you're coming from.

We can read the correspondence from the TV company and see how weak their 'evidence' is and the utter c:mad:p they're attempting to peddle. They can't have anything else in their arsenal of 'evidnce' as by their own admision, they'd be breaking their industry guidelines if they withheld it from Ryanair. The fact they will not allow Ryanair ANY sort of unedited response stinks too.

As such there are two outcomes as far as I see it regarding the program:

1) They broadcast what they have got and it's going to be a complete damp squib, or;
2) Edit what little they have heavily to attempt to create something from nothing.

It's obvious from the way C4 have advertised the program that it's going to be the latter of the two. :yuk: If i'm not mistaken they've been taking out adds in national newspapers showing actresses dressed in Ryanair unifom asleep. That's not a balanced approach to anything and sums up to me exactly what dispatches are planning to do with the program. It's a hatchet job, simple as that.

Remember, they could do this to ANY airline in the country and doubtless come up with the same rubbish.

It's not so much the fact that they're making the program that gets me, it's the way they've gone about it, their utter ignorance of the industry and the fact that they can broadcast this rubbish to an understandably and rightly ignorant public. There is the potential to cause damage to a business that has every right to operate the way it does within the law whether we like it or not and as such I hope they are made to pay for it in the courts. :ouch:

Bloody fools.

[Taildragger]

Here we are... Page 7 on this thread, BEFORE one minute of the programme has been aired. All we have so far is a load of "He said" "She said" letters, from Ryanair and CH4, and a huge amount of (As they say in Glasgow) Heavy Shoulder work.!
Have a look at the Programme tonight and then lets see what Channel4
says. They are Masters of the hidden camera stuff. Dont forget their expose of heavy drinking of crews on overnights. The damage that did to the fraternity was incalculable. This has the same potential.
I suspect that had Channel 4 chosen any Uk Airline they could put together a "story" in the same fashion. I look forward to seeing what they do or don't do. Will they read MOL's statement in full.?? Let's see. :*

[Sunfish]

Thank you for your comment Paxboy. I'm not judging anything, however I have actually been sued in a commercial dispute and also handled about $60 million dollars worth of complicated legal agreements in the last few years.

Ryanair's letters are beautifully constructed in a particular way in that they are designed not just to convey information, but to be used as evidence.

[BBT]

Topslide6 - your reaction is a tribute to the masterful Ryanair P.R. strategy. You have hopped straight onto "the right" of reply bandwagon. You even write to say that .......... those advocating watching the program before forming an opinion...I don't really get where you're coming from. With respect, that is not a particularly wise position to take. Just for starters, had you considered that the correspondence between Ryanair and C4 is part of the jousting for position that comes with this territory? Impressions are created, notions are perpetuated, bad news is spun positively, weak points from the other side are exaggerated, court cases are prepared for, etc. etc.

All I know for certain is that the claims about the demoted pilot in the correspondence are a complete misrepresentation of the situation. I have read the letter from the IAA to the pilot telling him that he made the correct decision. The Ryanair version of this serves their purposes, but is seriously misleading.

I think we should watch carefully and comment afterwards about what was persuasive and what was not.

[Topslide6]

BBT,

Don't get me wrong, we all know there are obviously internal issues at Ryanair that need addressing and the demoted Captain is a prime example. I reiterate my point earlier, however, that although there obviously are some real problems, I know guys working there who are as happy as anyone in other airlines....it's just that their gripes are not with crewing and pay ;)

My point is about this program, the 'evidence' they have amassed and the subsequent points that they are trying to raise. It's half-arsed sloppy journalism that is doing nothing to address the real issues, but instead has gone to try and sensationalise things that are pretty much the norm in every airline everyday.

It makes me laugh that they seem to be outraged at Cabin Crew paying 1400 Euros for their training, yet there's no mention of the FO who's probably 70K plus in debt and had to pay £50 to get his CV looked at!! :*

[bermondseya]

I think people are perfectly entitled to read the correspondance, form an opinon, and comment on it. With respect, you have done so yourself... Just for starters, had you considered that the correspondence between Ryanair and C4 is part of the jousting for position that comes with this territory?

Whether this web site is a suitable arena to discuss the correspondance is purely up to the owner, and seeing as this thread is allowed to remain, I assume he grants consent.

If there is evidence that contradicts that which Ryanair has presented, for example this letter from the IAA to the demoted pilot, it should be sent to the programme makers to be included in their show. Until we see it your assurances are heresay. All the 'wise' people have said is the evidence presented so far does not prove Ryanair has a problem - that is not to say there is no problem, just that these two reporters do not appear to have found anything wrong with the organization itself. It appears that they have found disatisfied employees, and a well trained and professional captain who will now be more careful when he jokes with cabin crew in case they are reporters breaching his trust . May this be a lesson to us all, yet another barrier between us and the people on the other side of the locked door.

As for this being 'he said, she said', nothing could be further from the truth. One side has made accusations with no supporting evidence, the other has rebutted those accusations and supplied supporting evidence. You may not agree with or like the evidence, but the only way to counter it is with evidence of your own. Saying 'I have seen a letter' is less persuasive than having sight of the letter (or memo) itself. Ryanair have presented evidence that can be tested in court, none of their letters were marked 'without prejudice' and I am sure they would not have included the evidence if they could not have it withstand robust 'cross examination' by the other side. They come over as being pretty smart.

Those who have evidence which would support the programme maker's case (or should I say 'bias') should supply it to the programme maker. It looks like they need all the help they can get.

[Flap 5]

Anything can be 'tested in court' ... it just might not pass the test. :)

[bermondseya]

That's not true Flap 5, there are rules dictating what can be introduced as evidence, not everything can get in.

lol powdermonkey. Well, I will not be watching it as got other things to do, so will be dependant on the well known reporting impartiality of the pprune crowd :) I would be interested in knowing whether they edit Ryanair's response (and if they introduce anything new, which would be very naughty of them as they are supposed to let Ryanair know in advance if they do)

[BBT]

bermonseyaAt the beginning of you post you say that “With respect, you have done so yourself...” implying incorrectly that I did as you did. Please read my remarks carefully. I commented on the exchange neutrally (my remarks applied to BOTH sides). By your comments you make it clear you accept one version and reject the other. You also sayfor example this letter from the IAA to the demoted pilot, it should be sent to the programme makers to be included in their show. Until we see it your assurances are heresay.Just for the record:
1. The letter has been published on REPA.
2. There is no reason to believe that the letter has any direct relevance to the programme, or that C4 do or do not have it.

Finally, you are prepared to conclude that “One side (Channel 4) has made accusations with no supporting evidence …. ” without first seeing the programme.

[cliste]

Morning Ireland RTE Radio

www.rte.ie Download Interviews.

The Channel 4 Programme Producer and MOL were both interviewed on Morning Ireland this morning worth a listen.

The proverb “ every Cloud has a Silver Lining “ is very apt on this occasion. The Programme Producer was most unimpressive when challenged by RTE there was clearly no substance to the allegations made except minor infringements “ Boarding Staff not checking Passports on boarding” “A burst vomit bag not been cleared up properly “, “Cabin Crew asleep on the job” untrue per MOL comment ! footage not on a Ryanair Aircraft. Alleged that Cabin Crew did not having proper security checks !! Trainers not supervising internal examinations correctly !!

MOL fielded all the questions put to him in his usual professional manner Safety is Ryanair’s top priority and went on to compliment on more than one occasion the 3,500 Profession Aircrew who work for Ryanair delivering an excellent service on a daily basis.

In response to the Channel 4 Programme Ryanair are to launch one of their biggest marketing campaigns !!


So Who is the Winner ??


Cliste

[RogerIrrelevant69]

If I was the program maker and/or Channel 4, I would be getting nervous by now. Bermondseya summed it up well earlier - the program maker’s evidence (based on their correspondence to date) is very weak. Whereas Ryanair appear to have all the evidence they require. Ryanair have displayed no shyness when it comes to pursuing court cases. In fact I think Ryanair could potentially save themselves some overhead if they moved their HR department to somewhere near the Four Courts in Dublin, as so many of their dealings end up in there.

That aside, some objectivity may be required here. There is a tendency by some to link the gripes of a number of Dublin based pilots to other issues - namely safety. Surely they cannot be directly linked. Surely every pilot flying in Ryanair is a well trained professional dedicated to excellence in their field. Regardless of problems the pilots may or may not have with management on the ground, I cannot believe these problems come into play when it comes to flying the aircraft safely. I cannot find anything in the evidence presented by the program makers (and roundly contradicted by Ryanair) to suggest safety is being compromised.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

RogerIrrelevant69, thank you for that point you have made in your second paragraph. Objectivity!

None of us are claiming that Ryanair are unsafe even though the C4 programme will try to persuade Joe Public otherwise. We all know that the issue of the 'open book' exam or the checking of the passports or clearing up vomit in the aisle or storing gashbags in the loo are just going to be hyped up in the usual media manner accompanied by dramatic music or a serious sounding voiceover with scenes of disaster spliced into it.

No, we are not saying Ryanair is unsafe. What those of us on here are happy about with this programme is the fact that it will highlight the sh!te man management that goes on at Ryanair. It will hopefully highlight the bullying and ripping off of their staff that goes on. The atmosphere of intimidation towards their employees and lack of customer care or attention is what we should be rejoicing about.

So, will the amateur lawyers and amateur TV critics please put their tackle back in their pants and stop harping on about Ryanair suing C4 or any of the other cr@p about secret documents being published. It is not about that. It is about the practices of making the Ryanair employees pay through their noses for everything that is considered normal elsewhere. It is the the exposure of the Ryanair spin machine and the total warping of the truth by their vicious and bullying management.

Ryanair pilots are well trained and are safe. The cabin crew, who knows? The programme will highlight all the issues that MOL and his cronies try to brush aside with bull manure and spin to reveal, hopefully, the retrograde practices adopted by Ryanair management. The amateur lawyers/producers/TV critics can all bog off as far as I and my fellow pilots are concerned. They're not the ones going to be affected by bad management and even worse employer/employee relations as practiced in Ryanair. It is the rest of us who have to worry about them trying to get their bad practice accepted as the norm.

[Idunno]

It said in yesterdays Sunday Times that Ryanair management are planning a mass 'Oscars' type screening of the show to their employees in Stansted, at which the individuals who appear (criticising the company) will be called up and presented with fake awards for their acting, plus 'prizes' of holidays and spending money. Sounds like a suspension with pay pending 'investigation' to me!

Is that for real or just another Ryanair management jibe?
What if you don't wanna go to their film show? Is it compulsory to attend?

I think C4 is indeed getting a chill wind at the moment. But thats good. They've probably started getting a REAL feel for the intimidation the employees live under.

As to C4 being 'afraid' of MOL - well, all I can say is, you'll never win a fight with the media. They have all the cards. Usually the guns are turned against aircrews (they drink on duty, they only work 2 hours a week, they're overpaid etc etc...perpetuating myths) but this time the airline itself is feeling the heat. MOL might even win a court case - but that ain't the end of the war, its just the first skirmish. They'll keep digging, and eventually the dirt will stick.

[atse]

I cannot find anything in the evidence presented by the program makers (and roundly contradicted by Ryanair) to suggest safety is being compromised. But you have yet to see the program!

[RogerIrrelevant69]

arewenearly there
That’s all very well but I think the aim of this program is very definitely to raise concerns in the public mind about the safety of flying with Ryanair. If you have seen the trailer for this program you would be left in no doubt about that.

If I owned/ran/represented Ryanair and it was being wilfully misrepresented, I don’t think I would wait around too long before I got on the blower to my lawyer. You don’t have to be a professional lawyer to know when to hire one.

On a separate issue, the terms and conditions of the staff of Ryanair or any other airline are not going to stop Joe Public booking with them. Joe Public buys from companies on a daily basis that have much worse terms and conditions than Ryanair or anywhere else most of us would care to work – supermarkets, call centres, junk food outlets, anything produced in China, etc, etc,.

atse:
But you have yet to read my message, at the start of it I said:
the program maker’s evidence (based on their correspondence to date) is very weak.
Perhaps you forgot that bit by the time you reached the 2nd paragraph.

Don't get me wrong, I am not some sort of Ryanair worshipper, I wouldn't work for them based on what I heard elsewhere a long time ago, but it wasn't anything to do with safety issues.

[Topslide6]

atse,

...we haven't seen the program. Correct. We have, however, seen the evidence on which the program is based. Where in that have you got an issue? Unless C4 is going to pull something outrageous out the bag thus breaking their own industry guidelines/regulation then we are perfectly capable of making an assumption as to what's coming. If we're proved wrong at 9.00 tonight so be it. I highly doubt it, however.

Having listened to the radio interviews on RTE (link on page 8), MOL wants to be a bit careful claiming his pilots work only 18 hours a week. Hours flown DOES NOT = hours worked. I'd have thought that was perfectly obvious!!

If this is the kind of thing the producer was fishing for,

falsely declaring low-fuel status, overtaking preceding aircraft on approach(!)

then I think it sums up their attitude rather well. Again, they just show a complete and utter ignorance of the industry and its workings.

arewenearlythereyet

The atmosphere of intimidation towards their employees and lack of customer care or attention is what we should be rejoicing about

As long as the management are acting within the law then surely they can run their company any way they like. I'm not claiming the way they do so is correct...just that they can do it. If it really is that terrible then the employees can look elsewhere. Take a look on any recruitment website at the moment and you'll see a worldwide lack of experienced 737 rated crews.

Maybe the spotlight should be pointed at the regulatory authorities, and why they let this alleged 'bullying' take place. Just a thought.

[Faire d'income]

If this is the kind of thing the producer was fishing for,


Quote:
falsely declaring low-fuel status, overtaking preceding aircraft on approach(!)


then I think it sums up their attitude rather well. Again, they just show a complete and utter ignorance of the industry and its workings.


Atc control approach so that is non-sense but I would dig deeper if I were you on the fuel issue.

While many errors occur at lots of airlines the unique culture at Ryanair would seem to produce unique rumours. Fuel is one of the biggies. De-icing is another procedure in vogue this season.

[acbus1]

No, we are not saying Ryanair is unsafe. What those of us on here are happy about with this programme is the fact that it will highlight the sh!te man management that goes on at Ryanair. It will hopefully highlight the bullying and ripping off of their staff that goes on. The atmosphere of intimidation towards their employees and lack of customer care or attention is what we should be rejoicing about.

Best not to try to pretend that there aren't other companies who fit that description! Some of those other companies fit it at least as well as Ryanair.

So how come they pick on Ryanair? Why not undercover reporters in other companies as well? Some other companies have very poor reputations! Combine them all in one programme.

Or would that project too balanced a view to suit Channel 4?

[PaxmanwithInfo]

I urge anyone who is as outraged as myself to complain. There seems to be quite a number based on this discussion thread.

I have already complained to Ofcom in the UK and [email protected] in advance of tonight's screening based on the communication between C4 & Ryanair. C4 seem to have their backs to the wall. I hope that the advertising revenue is worth the legal bill!

C4 should refrain from airing this travesty that mocks investigative journalism.

When I saw the Channel 4 promo where they have copied the interior of a Ryanair aircraft and uniforms and staged an announcement - I was shocked and appalled - had they obtained permssion to do this? This is tabloid TV at its worst.

No right to reply, eh? We shall see. The blind-folded lady is already counting the cash... and the sword of justice is being sharpened.

"Death" (figuratively) to Channel 4 for defaming the image of Ryanair. ; )

[Faire d'income]

This is tabloid TV at its worst.

While I'm obviously not a fan of O'Leary I'm not particularly a fan of tabloid journalism either and I agree that this looks decidedly like the gutter press at work.

I would ask you though in a country where tabloids are the highest selling publications and exist apparently with the approval of society, why should only Ryanair be immune from their misinformed wrath?

[GGV]

I notice a lot of outraged people here (including one who has decided to make a formal complaint before the programme even goes out). How does one generate such passion without ever having seen the programme?

So far nobody has mentioned the substantial Business Opinion Editorial in today's Irish Times, which I found to be a balanced and entirely sensible piece. Among other things it says (to pick but two): based on the correspondence released by Ryanair, it is hard to see the programme doing the airline any lasting damage. and But what the Dispatches programme is doing is seriously challenging this assumption that low cost carriers don't compromise on safety issues. I cannot know the motivations of those who seem to feel it important to paint C4 negatively and I am sure that many are sincere. But neither can I fail to notice that many of the posts here are entirely in keeping with the Ryanair P.R. effort to paint C4 as being wrong and on the defensive.

We simply cannot know how the evidence stacks up until we see this programme. Is that really such a radical suggestion as some seem to think?

[VIKING9]

As an ex FR employee, I shall watch the program with interest and the fact that I don't watch Corrie. Having flown with them only last Friday, it will be interesting to see/hear what the program covers in terms of the use of the English language amongst their cabin crew.
I could not understand a word the cabin crew said, apart from the Purser (she was Irish) and she was very easy to understand. One cabin attendant came through the cabin at a rapid rate of knots muttering something like "mezzaeenes, iptes........mezzaeenes".

Anyway, I dare say none of the program will be a shock to me but, I'll watch just for the laugh factor if nothing else :uhoh:

[Topslide6]

GGV,

I know these are not your words but this quote from the paper is complete b@llox. Have you read the correspondence from the production company? They obviously haven't. In no way can this be viewed as 'balanced'. Just more lazy journalism.

But what the Dispatches programme is doing is seriously challenging this assumption that low cost carriers don't compromise on safety issues.

The evidence provided so far does nothing of the sort. At the end of the day, and this Steve Boulton chap said is much in the RTE interview, this is as much an attempted attack on the low cost model as it is on Ryanair. As i've said previously, I honestly believe that what they're putting forward as evidence could be found in any airline anywhere in the world.

As we know, in the UK at least, locos are subject to the same maintenence, rostering and flying reguations as the charters and legacy carriers. The 'low cost' part of it DOES NOT come from scrimping on safety. No right minded airline board would do that, as one crash and the business goes down the toilet. The only possible justification for picking on Ryanair in this regard is that they come under the auspices of the IAA but they are regularly audited by the CAA, however, so that makes that a mute point.

The damage it does to Ryanair and/or other low cost carriers remains to be seen. I suspect your first quote is near the mark on that one.

[GGV]

Topslide6 you simply took one quote - and I gave two by way of balance - and decided that you liked it. You denigrated the other. You did not say whether or not you had read the full Business Opinion column, so I cannot know on what you are basing your assessment. I merely was making the point that people with a bit of distance seem to be thinking a little bit more objectively and carefully than some posters here. You also say of the quote you don't likeIn no way can this be viewed as 'balanced'. Just more lazy journalism. Well you might try than line with C4, but the journalist concerned is not known to be a fool, or to be partisian. On what basis did you advance such a serious criticism? Evidence or bias?

The point I am making has been repeatedly made by others. It is to beware of spin, examine the actual evidence and make up your mind afterwards. It is not rocket science.

[MrFire]

So is the general consensus that the ongoing isssues with ryanair are not essentially safety related (excepting fatigue), but principally concerned with crap pay, conditions, management attitude, work environment, T&C, anti-union action etc?

IF so, would this not be two issues: 1) fatigue, due rostering and contract hours (safety issue)
2) management being tw@s and the ceo being a tw@
?
The first can and should be addressed
The second is a condition of the majority of the working world. The unions got shafted before my time and we aint never getting em back...

Possibly if C4 had done a detailed, INFORMED examination of fatigue, flight time, legal regs, work time/flight time etc, and then focussed on that the program could have at least found a 'real' area of concern.
The laughable safety allegations made do little to give credibility to C4 - the passenger in 1A dies on impact, so dont tell them - 'critical' security checks like checking pax have ticket - and, i note that the trails imply that the lifejacket checks are so that you wont drown in the event of forced ditch into ocean , rather than security of cabin (or is it me that misundrstands that one?)

[Camel Killer]

Quote of the programme:

Ryanair? Take everything, give nothing........

[night hawk 150]

i feel sorry for the staff by getting a really bum deal as for not opening the bar that has nothing to do with Customs more ryanair and OL wanting to be a fat cat.

craig

[ILS26L]

I consider it to be a good programme... Reminded me of a few practices within my airline...

[Byboatorplane]

So we've learned that Ryanair doesn't give a toss about it's CC, Pilots or it's pax. I thought the whole world and his dog knew that anyway!!!

I did love the Captains comment though, "Ryanair take everything and give nothing". He's got the company culture well and truly nailed!!!

[hostiegirl]

99% rubbish...... from someone who is crew and has sat many a training course!! the area's ryan should be adressing if they care enough... their own crew's writing each others refrences!!.the trainers saying 1a will die so dont use them as an abp!!!.crew's not writing things in defects book ie slide.passports not being checked although that is an airport issue.most of the other issues could be about any airline with a short turnaround!!!!

[night hawk 150]

how long will it take before the names of the people on C4's documentry are around the crews and then get sacked or demoted.

i say 14 days i will take odds of 2/1 on 14 days any takers he he :) :rolleyes: :}

[Dan 98]

At the end of the day, crap programme or not, would you really want to go and work for a company like that, where people are ruled by fear of losing their jobs or being demoted, I know i wouldn't. It was Painful to watch a Captain who was too scared or didn't have the authority to offer passengers a drink after 3 hours, they also made it very clear what the company stance is towards its customers.

[Hand Solo]

i feel sorry for the staff by getting a really bum deal as for not opening the bar that has nothing to do with Customs more ryanair and OL wanting to be a fat cat.

If the bar contained alcohol then the captain was entirely correct in not opening. Completely against Customs regulations, nothing to do with Ryanair.

[Wedge]

I'm not surprised by the initial reaction to the prog here.

But I disagree. Ignoring the dross and hyperbole, and concentrating on the actual evidence, there was more than enough in that programme to warrant publication, imho.

Trainees writing each other's references? I'm sure the terrorists will be interested in that.

Staff are clearly encouraged to cut corners in basic procedures. Checking the passports at Gothenburg? Cabin crew chastised for delaying departure.

The training? Clearly a blatant disregard to the spirit of the rules if not the letter. Even though it doesn't appear to be technically against the rules to allow them to sit their tests with their notes, it hardly imbues confidence as a potential customer.

Surely it's agreed that the very high air safety standards we have in the first world are achieved by a 'belt and braces' approach. It seems to me that Ryanair don't bother with the braces. While perhaps not operating outside the letter of the law, they certainly operate outside the spirit of it and push the rules to the absolute limits.

That's not what the rules are there for, the rules are absolute minimum standards that airlines are supposed not to fall below. That's not the same as them being a recommended industry standard, which is the way Ryanair appear to view them.

It's already been said on this thread that 25 minutes is not enough to turn an aircraft around and still have full regard to all of the safety checks required.

If Ryanair do have a serious accident, MOL will have a lot to answer for.

On the strength of the evidence I have seen in this programme, I'd think twice about flying Ryanair. That said, you get what you pay for.

[ojs]

Must say, load of rubbish but out of interest, how did the reporters get the cameras on board? Any suggestions?
Well it wasn't all rubbish was it? There was (i) The apparent faking of references; (ii) The claim that the pax in 1A would die; (iii) The non-reporting of possible safety-breaches.
I'm not saying these were all proved but could we agree there were some question marks and possible isolted incidents?
Anyway - to answer your question, have a look at sites like this one:

http://www.lorraine.co.uk/video_surveillance_portable_systems.asp

The video equipment is about the 3rd or 4th item down.

[GBALU53]

With it being only on Channel 4 it has not reached as many viewers it requires.

The daily papers for valintines day may hit the punters but might upset M.O.L.????
:ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok: :O :O

Very intersting.

[Penguin2000]

Well what can i say.... apart from nearly falling asleep through that.... i found it a truly disappointing programme.

Well said HostieGirl they are definately issues to be addressed but nothing of major concern oh apart from the reference thing!

As for the boarding with passports, I've worked as ground staff dispatching ryanair flights as well as boarding them and i have to say i've managed to check passports, boarding cards and a cross check and still get the plane out on time. This all comenced when the captain and cabin crew are ready to board not a minute before. Though no offence to cabin crew but god some of them can be sooooo slow when boarding!!

Anyway i have nothing else to say as there is nothing else to say on the matter.

oh apart from MOL should have been given a live interview it would have livened things up!!

[FlyingV]

There's very little for the papers to pick up.

If they do follow it up, Ryanair have every opportunity to reply. Probably with a free seat offer :}

Ryanair advertises heavily in the print media and the papers know which side their bread is buttered.

[CAT3A]

not impressed at all

Feel sorry for the crew

[bar none]

Hand Solo,
The aircraft was on the ground in Spain,which is in the common market, so saying that they could not open their bars is bollox.

[easyprison]

I enjoyed the program. It does pretty much sum-up the low cost world. 20 min turn arounds, knackered crews etc.
We dont get a chance to eat properly, no break in 11 hours- don't even have time for a crap half the time in the humming bogs!
But the biggest question of all, has the rapid growth of airlines (not just lowcost) gone beyond the capability of the DFT and the CAA/IAA can handle?


Tonight's program has proved this

:(

[Afterburner]

I thought the programme gave smug sanctimonious MOL the kicking he deserved. Just a shame he didn't feature.

[GGV]

My initial reaction was one of disappointment at how little there was. However, for a "reality check" I telephoned a couple of "civvies" with no experience of the aviation industry and got the following unexpected (to me) reaction:

1. Some of the security stuff shocked them.
2. Confirmation of the company culture that they had heard about - but now could see in action (and did not like).
3. The issue of crew fatigue (especially the demotion of a captain a few days earlier than when the recording was made), and,
4. The "clearly sincere and worrying" remarks about people possibly loosing their jobs for doing what they should do.

One thing is reasonably clear: after all the hype I don't think Ryanair have much prospect of successfully suing C4. What is less clear is where this will go from here.

[powdermonkey]

Well, apart from customer relations which we all know about and don't give crap about ( speaking as a pax in this case ), what was new?
Didn't much like the CC training as it was shown, but only a snippet of it was filmed so it gives no clue as to the rest of the training program...therefore impossible to judge on a safety standpoint. The references thing? well if it is true, then security is a joke....again nothing new at european airports, but not good all the same. CC asleep? Well I am not CC, but do they get a few minutes off during the flight for a break? If so, they can nap! The slide issue, well they never followed that through in the report so who knows? The pilot's
attitude towards the pax? They only repeated what we all know about flying
ryanair, it's cheap so shut it! The passport issue at boarding gate? One employee giving bad advice to another is no reflection on the whole operation. Dirty planes?, well in 25mins it's no surprise, but not completing safety checks is something of concern. Would dearly love to hear a reply from MOL!

[dontdoit]

Come on CAA, show us your balls!

[EmiratesSandpit]

I am bemused as to why it was a "complete waste of time".

I would also echo Wedge's comments. Obviously, the vast majority (for arguments sake) of the people on here are more clever than the general public and hence will be able to see, if one lets oneself, beyond the negative spin of the program. However, If you leave behind animosity towards Channel 4 and all that goes with it, there were undoubtedly serious points (though some of these may not have been as fundamental to safety as the program's aura may exude).

1) The sick on the floor. Yes, the plane wouldn't have crashed but even so, from a health perspective it was quite disgusting albeit amusing :yuk: . Ryanair had not record of sick on the floor? Interesting official response.

2) The emergency exit not appearing to be in proper working order. This would on the face of it appear to be a serious blunder. One could conclude from that part of the programme that time constraints were put way before a potential catastrophic safety flaw.

3) The sleeping crew. Not impressive to say the least. It doesn't take too much intelligence to know that cabin crew in a high-pressured situation combined with fatigue is not an optimal situation.

4) The training. The training company was just downright silly.

My conclusion of the outcome would be this: while Ryanair's reputation will probably sink further than the new-depths that it continually tests, in the end, price will win out. Ryanair will hardly be affected.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

Oh give us a break. Who cares about C4 or their reputation. We just witnessed the classic Ryanair tactic of screwing their passengers AND their staff. Any breaches we saw were due to bullying management and it was all verified by the pilots who admitted they'd fly fatigued rather than refuse to do a sector or refuse discretion.

Ryanair management will have their witch hunt against anyone they think they can get at as it trikes fear into the rest of their miserable employees. They will continue to make a profit for now because there are always more muppets that are willing to put up with sh!te as long as they can fly for little more than the cost of a local taxi ride and there are always more cannon fodder for their staff recruitment programmes whether cabin crew who are willing to pay 1,400 quid for a course and then pay for their uniforms too. Same goes for the pilots who pay to have their CV's looked at and then pay for their type ratings and are prepared to work to the legal maximum and would seriously consider flying while fatigued rather than refuse to operate for fear of being sacked.

They all deserve each other. Sad pax sitting in sick, overworked cabin crew who are stupid enough to pay for their training and uniforms to work for such a sh!te management and the pilots who we all know are regularly shafted. Who cares about C4. They have revealed in words and pictures what most of us already knew was true.

[Have you heard this!]

Found this on the Ryaair web site
http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=06&month=feb&story=gen-en-130206

[purr777]

The documentary puts cabin crews and pilots in a poor light and as having a pretty pitiful job. Not good for the "image".

[paulo]

I'm gobsmacked by the "popular reaction" here, which seems to say:

"This is all very normal. Nothing to see here".

Is it? Is it really?

Halfway through the programme my own chuffing AME had something to say. Maybe he's one of those conspiracy media wasters aswell?

It's not exactly disaster territory, but the "oh no, no... very normal... fine" ****e gets my goat a bit.

[Afterburner]

I'm gobsmacked by the "popular reaction" here, which seems to say:
"This is all very normal. Nothing to see here".
Is it? Is it really?
Halfway through the programme my own chuffing AME had something to say. Maybe he's one of those conspiracy media wasters aswell?
It's not exactly disaster territory, but the "oh no, no... very normal... fine" ****e gets my goat a bit.

Absolutely agree. We may not like our industry being hauled over the coals, but when we see ****e practice at least call it ****e practice!

[Sumatra]

Thought it was really a very poor soap. The dispatches web site even has an online poll. It can only be a viewer IQ test. Really some people are thick. And others are too thick to realize how thick they are.

[In trim]

I'm definitely not a fan of Ryanair, and certainly not of MOL. Whilst I am a supporter of the "low cost model" I believe MOL takes it too far and cuts it too close to the bone.

However, this programme was absolute rubbish. Yes, it showed 'sloppy' behaviour and a few areas of concern, but hardly earth-shattering news. A waste of prime-time TV, and I'm sure they could have unearthed much more.

Waste of time!

[Gnirren]

I haven't seen the program but honestly from the reports here, how many airlines could face the same investigation without similar findings. Perfection on every flight is hard to achieve. Maybe the tired cabin crew is from the management demands, then again maybe it was just that flight. If you want to find something, you can find something regardless of the company in question is what I think.

[tart1]

Hmmm, it was interesting ............ the message is:
You get what you pay for.

If you pay next to nothing, then you should expect next to nothing and that is probably fair enough but some of the passengers on these flights have paid top-whack fares because they have booked at the last minute or because all the cheap seats were already sold when they booked. People automatically think that because it is Ryanair then the fares will all be cheap ..........this is so not true.

And another thing, surely the CC don't just earn that sector pay that was mentioned. The narrator said that they only earn money when they are in the air - does that mean they don't have a basic salary at all?? :confused:

[robo283]

In my opinion the Dispatches only reported on what was factula and correct......YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!!!:mad:

[Danny]

In an attempt to try and keep this thread related to issues that affect airline pilots, I have decided that from now on, anyone who wants to become a TV critic goes and finds the appropriate website to do so. The cabin crew can debate the issues of paying for their training and the suspected quality of that training plus the security issues that are affected by what was exposed on the programme.

The flight crew can debate the points raised by the programme with the comments filmed by the pilots on those Ryanair flights.

As for anyone else who, just because they were a passenger on Ryanair once, please find your appropriate forum to air your views. In this case, the Pax & SLF forum.

Anyone else bothering to tell us how C4 and the investigative reporters should or shouldn't do their jobs as well as the hoards of apparent amateur layers telling us who should or shouldn't sue someone else because of some perceived breach of some obscure regulation or whatever, please go to Jet Blast. This forum is for "issues that affect our jobs and lives as airline pilots".

Thank you. Now carry on. :hmm:

[boris]

Threats (real or imagined) to crews to operate or else.
Pressure to turn round in a wholly unrealistic time.
Training, compromised.
Iceberg tip of.
Accident, waiting to happen.

[catswhisker]

Sticking my head above the parapet briefly, as a former broadcaster and news analyst, if that was sound journalism -- or indeed Journalism at all, as I understand it -- I am a pobble.

[hobie]

Well if the chat on the flight deck reminded me of anything it is ....."never talk to strangers about your Mother or father in law ..... your manager/Boss .... your staff ..... your job or anything else for that matter"

If it's any consolation I rem often flying up front on Big Airways and always enjoying a glass of Champs b/4 takeoff .... on long hauls and as a Pas I hasten to add :rolleyes: .... on a particular flight to Miami I rem a senior Hostie insisting that no way was the bar going to be opened untill after takeoff (for Customs reasons) ..... but the doors are closed I said? :confused: .... 'no way hose' was the reply :{ ......
oh well, the ticket only cost me a couple of grand or so .... :)

On another occasion I rem sitting down to dinner in one of the lands finest eateries ..... clearly there had been an earlier accident and although cleaned up we could certainly smell a whiff (no after shave available I suppose) ..... anyway, we asked to be moved ..... totally booked out we were told :cool: .... so what do you do? :confused: it happens in the best places ....... (although we did 'walk the walk' to another restaurant)

[FormerFlyer]

How come the CC training lasts so long when they only have one type to be trained on?

When I did my Monarch CC training (many moons ago) on 3 types it lasted 6 weeks - why on earth is the FR training so long in comparison?

cheers ;)
FF

[Fancy Navigator]

.... A big well done to C4 for showing the public what Ryanair are like. If some people still had doubts about Ryanair's pirate culture and f... you attitude, they definitely got an answer now!
To confirm what has been shown in the programme:
- RYANAIR DO NOT ASK YOU TO SHOW YOUR PASSPORT WHEN ABOUT TO BOARD, this was not false.....experience as a passenger.
- A First Officer doing the visual inspection of the aircraft and phoning at the same time....... Was he more focused on the inspection or his phone conversation? Witnessed from another aircraft.
- On board a RYR aircraft, just about to close the doors, announcement was made: passenger X, if you are on board, this is not the plane to Pescara, this is the plane to X..... SHOCKING! How can they even have a doubt about who is in the plane 2 minutes before closing the doors????!!!! Witnessed as a passenger.
- Bought a bit to eat and drink, cost 1.55 or something, the cabin crew member goes:"Sorry, I have no change, I get back to you later....." 2 minutes later, after selling a few things, she had the change. If not reminded twice at the end of the flight, she will have kept the change. 45p is not much, but it is the principle! Is it a Ryanair policy????
45p per sector, at the end of one working day for thw whole company, how much would it be, even if they try to coin one passenger per sector???? Maybe I see too much in that, but you never know, above all with people like MOL.

FNav :mad:

[apaddyinuk]

And how many of those types of passengers which Ryanair attract would be watching Dispatches instead of Eastenders or Corry???? I would be highly surprised if anything happens out of this. Only when a highly publicised crash with fatalities occur do I feel anything will change in Whineair!

[LeftatRomeoOne]

As for anyone else who, just because they were a passenger on Ryanair once, please find your appropriate forum to air your views.


That's right Danny - who cares what 40 million people think- eh! Sh!t-stirrers!

The passengers may be revolting but heh - shut the door, let them die of thirst, take them to Luton (it's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there!) or have them sitting in stinking vomit - who gives a sh!t.

Only a professional pilot with his head up his ar5e would think that tonight's programme doesn't affect his job or life as a professional pilot. Do none of you guys get it? The fact that it is Ryanair, BA, BMI, Flybe is irrelevant. Channel 4, The Times, News of the World or the Beano, it matters not.

Safety records are not the same as safety culture. One day somebody will be too tired and too sh!t scared of demotion to £70k per annum to do the safe thing. One day somebody will be sleeping when the cabin fills with smoke or fails to pressurise. One day somebody will be on-board who shouldn't be. One day the slide won't inflate when it is needed.

One day I'll be waving my wife and 2 young children off from the gate (damn! - not more of those passenger thingies. They delay the turnaround don't you know?).

Just so long as the pilot isn't too tired to fly (or suffered a recent bereavement), the cabin crew aren't settling down for a nap, the cabin crew aren't terrorists, mentally ill or criminals with disqualifying convictions and at least some of the safety equipment (which MOL hasn't been able to persuade Boeing/IAA not to fit - it'll happen!) is working, everything will be fine. So long as the pilot keeps the bar intact and isn't being pestered by 'the great unwashed', I'll go home safe in the knowledge that everything is OK because MOL says so.

There are two basic laws of the universe that have yet to be defied;

1. You cannot compromise on safety - your customers will not forgive you.
2. You cannot treat your customers like sh!t - your customers will not forgive you.

[Idunno]

I feel sorry for the boys up front on that tape. They were chatting the way any crew chats about day to day issues with the job, but certain elements in FR will be slavering for an opportunity to hang them now. I wouldn't like C4 to come into my cockpit to hear some opinions I may have expressed down the years. Poor b'stards. Good luck guys.

What annoyed me was the way C4 let that comment about flight hours in the FR letter they read out go unchallenged. Once again the public has been served up with the lie that FR crews actually work an 18 hour week! That single point shows that C4 couldn't really be arsed about the truth - when sensationalism sells better.

[Main_Tenant]

Ryanair boast on their website they have “consistently beaten Easyjet for 145 weeks in a row” on punctuality. The TV programme shows how that’s done. In all this posting no one has mentioned the Ryanair “repeated” memos to cc to conform in regard to gash. Why repeated? Because the problem is repeated, therefore it must be difficult for cc to get the tasks all done in turnaround.
As for the lack of written records on slide and vomit this is not uncommon in climate of fear.
For the three hour delay in Spain, blurring the faces of the flight crew was a waste of time, as their id will be easy for interested parties. Three hours wait was longer than the expected flight time – if is so important to not open the bars – could they have sent out for some water to be brought? It is not expensive in Spain.
Trainees may write each other's references but it’s Ryanair that happily accept those references. Anyone who has recruited and checked references knows that a lot of references are phony.
Being SO low cost like free and 1 euro means you have to push the rules to the absolute limits to keep it all going. As I said before I like that other low cost airlines treat their staff more respectfully, and do not object to union representation.

[Hand Solo]

You don't just 'send out for water' at an airport. You have to find a caterer who's open, then you have to have pay them whatever exorbitant sum they want to charge you for bottles of water, not to mention getting someone to approve the expenditure at midnight (unless you think the skipper should pay for it out of his own pocket and trust me, it is expensive when you uplift catering in those circumstances). If it was as easy as you think it was then it would have been done. If you think a three hour delay in Spain is unique to Ryanair then you've obviously never been on a charter flight down there that went tech.

[Cusco]

Shirley if Ryanair is such a sh*t employer then the flight deck crew should resign and go get a better job with someone else?

Well, shouldn't they?

Everyone carps about their employer at some stage, but if they're really serious they should get out and let other eager pilots in.

It's all a means to an end: most serious professions have a few sh*t years while climbing the ladder: look at the NHS..........................

Cusco;)

[Big Tudor]

One wonders how many hundreds of hours of recording that C4 had to filter through in order to arrive at this fairly short piece of garbage. 'Sensationalist reporting' is normally derided by the majority of ppruners, why not this one. Because it concerns Ryanair perhaps?

So, how does this programme affect the lives of the professional pilots amongst us? Not one jot. If the pilots shown in this docu-soap are unhappy with their chosen employer, chose another one.

Anecodotal (and some supported) evidence from the pages of Pprune has brought to light various concerns regarding working practices at FR. This programme did little to validate these concerns IMHO.

And before I am flamed, I do not, nor have I ever, worked or been associated with Ryanair other than as a fare paying pax 5 years ago.

[BBT]

Big Tudor you said that the programme said little to validate concerns voiced here on pprune. Wellllllllll .... I beg to differ. I saw clear references to people being afraid to voice their true opinions and to act as they should. Being uhappy with an employer is one thing - but being unhappy because your employment might under threat for acting properly is another. What about the reference to the demoted pilot? Did I miss something, or did you?

[Big Tudor]

No BBT, we both saw the same programme. By belief remains, if my employer holds me in such low esteem that they will threaten, or invoke, demotion as a result of me raising concerns, then I will seek alternative employment. Ryanair continues because of 2 criteria. Firstly because people continue to seek employment with them, and secondly because people continue to provide them with custom. Remove one or both of these criteria and Ryanair will cease to exist. HOWEVER. There are numerous people who will continue to offer their services to Ryanair, either as employees or as customers. This raises the point that either the working practices at Ryanair are inappropriate / unsafe in which case those employees that choose to reamin are condoning such practices OR the situation is vastly over-exaggerated to the point where it is becoming tiresome.

[Idunno]

But Big Tudor, it's not so simple to find any employer these days who isn't trying to copy FR's lead. So you're just likely to jump from the frying pan into the fire. And sometimes jumping ain't as simple as you seem to profess. There are training bonds, seniority loss, kids in school, wives with jobs, and family and friends....if you simply move to the company across the ramp - will they be any better? Have you read any of the EK threads lately? They're jumping ship there too, in what was once a plum job.

Maybe the smarter course of action is to stay and FIGHT for change.:rolleyes:

[BBT]

Big Tudor have you not just described what has been called a catch 22 situation? Are you really declaring those in that situation to be guilty, rather than those who created the catch 22? If it is the former you should be in Ryanair management (or the IAA)!

[Big Tudor]

Idunno

Agree that many are trying to copy Ryanairs model (a pale imitation of the Southwest model at best), but not all successfully. BALPA et al do provide a degree of representation, even if it doesn't appear so at times. If things are as bad at FR as is being implied then surely anything is better? Guilt by association can be a bitter pill to swallow. And what cost would you put on professional (and personal) pride? Is seniority really more important than integrity?

Stay and fight? Whistle blowing can be a lonely (and career damaging) option. I'm sure we would all hold the Tolpuddle Martyrs in high esteem for their determination, however remember the words of the judge in his summing up of the trial. They were sentenced "not for what they had done, but as an example to others". Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Sorry, just saw BBTs post. It is only a catch 22 situation for so long. If you get into a car with a driver who is (unknown to you) drunk, you surely can't be held accountable. However, if you choose to remain in that car once the fact that he is drunk has become apparent to you then you are, by implication, condoning his actions.

[Gigginstown ERC]

This month marks the 18th anniversary of my joining Ryanair.
The dogs in the street knew much of what was broadcast tonight.
Disembark 189 and board 189 and do a security and check passports all in 25 mins, you do the math as the Americans say.
The mantra since day 1 has been "the show must go on".
Feel tired? feel fatigued? Pull a stunt, cause a ripple to the operation and you will pay the ultimate sacrifice. This has been self evident since a co-pilot walked citing having been bullied and harrased in the cockpit on arrival in PIK, the flight was delayed and the co-pilot dismissed.
I'm glad I only work 18 hours a week, otherwise I might get tired.

[Faire d'income]

Feel tired? feel fatigued? Pull a stunt, cause a ripple to the operation and you will pay the ultimate sacrifice. This has been self evident since a co-pilot walked citing having been bullied and harrased in the cockpit on arrival in PIK, the flight was delayed and the co-pilot dismissed.


How much bandwidth, newsprint or bulliten board does it take?

[acbus1]

Do the viewing public actually believe that the problems depicted on the TV programme only apply to Ryanair?

Get real, people!

Every UK airline out there (with a few exceptions) is exactly the same (give or take the minor details)!

I've worked for enough UK companies and been in the industry for enough decades to be able to see the TV programme as nothing more than a summary of my daily experiences, none of them specific only to Ryanair!

It makes me angry to see one airline victimised in this way, when most of the others are just as bad!

[Aloue]

acbus1. I see we have moved from statements that "Ryanair is merely suffering from a small number of misguided malcontents who complain excessively" (the it's all nonsense claim) on to claims that Ryanair is no different from any other airline (the it happens everywhere claim).

It turns out that the documentary, which was rubbished extensively here in advance as being unreliable, is now being presented as the sole source of evidence about Ryanair and as supporting the notion that it shows Ryanair to be no different from other airlines. Get real.

You sir are wrong. "Every airline out there (with a few exeptions)" is NOT like Ryanair. Talk here is cheap and you get to express your opinions like everybody else, but ....... why don't you start by going to read up on the many posts with many very different stories posted here over the past couple of years. The evidence is there for those who want to look for it.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Well my earlier sentiments about C4 getting worried about legal action are most likely unfounded as this program turned out to be not much more than a bag of wind that Ryanair can ignore.

So they found cabin crew with temporary security passes - any other airlines out there guilty of stretching the regs on this?

And they found (oh my God we are all going to die) that passports were not always getting checked as pax boarded the a/c. Same question - any other airlines out there guilty - well every single one I have flown on over the last 2 years.

The rest, well I think it was a battle to fill out the remaining running time.
Hope it does not end up hurting those 2 pilots - whose only crime was having a bit of a bitch while stuck on the ramp for an extended delay while having to put up with some insulting passenger.

Maybe there is a lot more to find that would be interesting but they did not find it this time.

[Jonty]

I watched the program, and I have to say its vindicated my "I don't and wont fly Ryan air" approach (ever since an atco friend of mine clocked them doing 75kts on a taxi way!)
For those that say this shows that FR have the same problems as every other airline, STOP TALKING ****E In the airline I fly for we do it right every time! Because doing it right is the only way to ensure safety! yes we get tired, but we don't get sacked or demoted for saying enough.
While there was no "smoking gun" in the program that would put FR at risk of losing their AOC, the whole attitude of the staff and crew was slap dash at best, and dangerous at worst. What it tells me is that, if the **** hit the fan, I would not want to be on a Ryan air aircraft.
As for the captain that kept all those people on that aircraft for 3 hours and then went to Luton with out telling anyone: TW@T! You are supposed to be a "professional" aviator, and "professional" aviators don't behave in that way towards the people that pay our wages. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Jonty

1. In the version of the program I viewed, the a/c did end up going to Stansted. Maybe you got the directors cut.

2. Quote "no smoking gun" = maybe "could do better" on the program makers part.

3. Quote "if the **** hit the fan, I would not want to be on a Ryan air aircraft". Depends on the sh!t my friend. As for the vomit, well I must agree :)

[captjns]

I watched the program, and I have to say its vindicated my "I don't and wont fly Ryan air" approach (ever since an atco friend of mine clocked them doing 75kts on a taxi way!)
For those that say this shows that FR have the same problems as every other airline, STOP TALKING ****E In the airline I fly for we do it right every time! Because doing it right is the only way to ensure safety! yes we get tired, but we don't get sacked or demoted for saying enough.
While there was no "smoking gun" in the program that would put FR at risk of losing their AOC, the whole attitude of the staff and crew was slap dash at best, and dangerous at worst. What it tells me is that, if the **** hit the fan, I would not want to be on a Ryan air aircraft.
As for the captain that kept all those people on that aircraft for 3 hours and then went to Luton with out telling anyone: TW@T! You are supposed to be a "professional" aviator, and "professional" aviators don't behave in that way towards the people that pay our wages. :mad: :mad: :mad:

I have flown for many carriers over many years. We got it right the majority of the times. Unfortunately all does not go to plan. You improvise, adapt and overcome, and make it happen. It's rather delusional to think that for 30 years of commercial flying, it's going to be 100 percnet every time. Time for a reality check;)

[Jonty]

Jonty
1. In the version of the program I viewed, the a/c ended up going to Stansted.

Sorry, you absolutely right.
What worries me the most is the management practices that allow this to go on. And the fact that the crew will be making safety related decisions based on trying to keep their jobs. What I saw in that program was a company that took safety as a lower priority to punctuality.

[Aloue]

acbus1 I'm going to have one more go and then give up. I will reword what I above said as followswhy don't you start by going to read up on the content of the many posts with many very different stories posted here over the past couple of years. The evidence is there for those who want to look for it. I am sure that you will appreciate that I am suggesting that the content of the posts, evidence from the press, recent incident reports, etc. are materially different in Ryanair's case. That is not to say that some similar events do not occur in other airlines from time to time, but it is to say that there is a very definite Ryanair pattern that is not repeated at other airlines. Some of the threads are very revealing - you might try reading them before making any more confident pronouncements.

[acbus1]

In the airline I fly for we do it right every time! Because doing it right is the only way to ensure safety! yes we get tired, but we don't get sacked or demoted for saying enough.
Jonty

757 pilot.

Based London.

Bet you can guess the Airline!

Your airline (if I've deduced correctly, of course) was one of the exceptions I had in mind, when I stated "Every UK airline out there (with a few exceptions) is exactly the same....."

Lets hope they don't join the also-rans, in terms of standards, when the lo-cost operation is up to speed.

[Jonty]

I have flown for many carriers over many years. We got it right the majority of the times. Unfortunately all does not go to plan. You improvise, adapt and overcome, and make it happen.

Isnt that doing it right?! :confused:

We have all had moments like these, when things have not gone to plan, but doing it right is what stops us all making a smoking hole in the ground. We all tend to take security for granted these days and some of the stuff that comes out of the DfT is farsical, but making sure that you have the right people on the right flight is not one of them. Checking passports is not one of them, nor a security check of the aircraft after every sector. We have delayed flights and rechecked every passanger when we think this has not been done, and will continue to do so.

[captjns]

[quote=Jonty]Isnt that doing it right?! :confused:

To think that it's done 100%, 100% of the time is delusional, or arrogant. And yes... every airline I have been with has delayed flights do to imroper documentation not caught at the ticket counter... at the immegration check point... and at the boarding gate by the gate agent, whether contracted, or company employees. Even had to wait 1:30 minutes to off load one bag from a 747. In an ideal world it would be nice if all concerned with a flight were not pressured by schedules... but that's not reality... is it. The best we can do... is do the best we can do, and remove those who intentially don't wish to contribute to any airlines' operations.

[fiftyfour]

I find it absolutely incredible that the Captain does not have the authority to do whatever is necessary to contain or handle any situation that he finds himself in. When I worked for Dan Air the first sentence of the Captains Terms of Reference said that the Captain was a Senior Executive of the Company. He carried a company credit card, and as much money in company travellers cheques as he deemed necessary for potential emergencies. Fortunately my present company treats its captains in a similar way, although the terms of reference are not quite so specific (perhaps an example of rot starting to set in aviation in general).
The captain that we saw needs to move on and get out and leave Ryanair behind. The same goes for anyone else who doesn't feel confident enough to do the job without being cowered into such a pathetic position.

[Irishboy]

Lads,

As regards the non-checking of ID, I think the same can happen with all airlines. I flew with BMI over the weekend, Dublin to London. At Dublin my ID was not checked at all. I checked in online and had to exchange my home printed boarding card for an official one at the check in desk. The girl at check in did not ask for any ID. At Heathrow I checked in at the automated check in machine. On boarding the flight the hostess didn't even examine my driving licence which I had in my hand.

[runawayedge]

Fiftyfour.....How can you be stupidly pompous, the skipper followed HIS company's SOPs.....in the event of disruption the pax get nothing, or the minimum legal entitlement. So he and his FO had a bitch, at the end of a shift you go tech, have you never had a bitch to while away a couple of hours, how was he to know he was being recorded. He chose not to tell the pax there was a possible diversion to LTN, probably because he or ops were negotiating an extension at STN, so what if he was flippant.How many hundreds of hours of footage was edited with nothing of substance before arriving at this hour of drivel. Was the hidden camera never detected at a security point. Are these two journalists going to face prosecution for concealing their TRUE identity, doubt it. Tell me any company that verifies every detail in every CV, impossible. The system for all airlines and airports to background check is becoming very difficult due to the system and the authorities. FR have made air travel accessible to many who before could not afford, tell me now they want to complain about it. When there is a choice I will not fly FR. Some of what was shown last night though I have seen when flying with conventional carriers. It's not always perfect!

[757operator]

I've only watched half of it, but two things have really struck me so far:
None of the cabin staff told the Captain about the low slide bottle pressure, and the Captain was apparently powerless to delay boarding.

These two are linked - basically, the Captain has been downgraded to just another piece in the jigsaw, not the key man on site.

I cannot think of another operator where the Captain would not have been told about the slide. And I cannot believe any Captain would allow boarding until the garbage had been cleared, puke cleaned up and security checks completed.

Pilots whose first and only job is Ryanair presumably regard this as the norm - but believe me, guys, the rest of the world (even most of the third world) is doing it differently!

The culture of this company has to be addressed. Where are the regulators? You must be very proud of yourselves and/or very scared of MOL.

[potkettleblack]

As regards the non-checking of ID, I think the same can happen with all airlines. I flew with BMI over the weekend, Dublin to London. At Dublin my ID was not checked at all. I checked in online and had to exchange my home printed boarding card for an official one at the check in desk. The girl at check in did not ask for any ID. At Heathrow I checked in at the automated check in machine. On boarding the flight the hostess didn't even examine my driving licence which I had in my hand.
You must have read my mind. Same thing happens regularly with me when flying LHR-DUB on BMI.
Can't help but think that Ryanair gave C4 a heads up about the filming in the air issue in one of their letters. It was quite comical to hear C4 quote that under CAA rules...prohibited from filming in the air..blah blah.Yeah right. Maybe The Sun can get access to the editing studio and get hold of the film on the cutting room floor.
Its funny how the undercover reporters were so concerned with the safety breaches that they chose not to report them directly to the captain. Perhaps they don't value their lives or maybe there wasn't anything to report as Ryanair states? Who knows...

[woodpecker]

In my day (not too long ago) we had sealed duty free bars that could be opened on the ground (with customs permission).

However, surely the days of duty free bars sealed (other than for security) are over in the EU. Duty Free doesn't exist any more.

I bet C4 couldn't believe their luck to have a three hour delay with hidden camera's/ microphones there to record it all.

The measure of a good company is not how good the service is when things go to plan but how well they cope when the plan falls apart!

To not even give the Captain authority to hand out soft drinks free of charge three hours into a delay on board (apart from water out of the tap..Yuk) is, for me, the measure of this company.

[Flap 5]

There are quite a number of posters on this thread who appear to be quite happy with the low standards of safety and security demonstrated by the programme. They state that all airlines are the same. Well God help us if they are!

I have flown as a captain for some years with another of these airlines that often gets side swiped by these people and that is easyJet (be specific if you are going to accuse others!). I have never been in the position of boarding passengers when the cabin is not ready. I have had boarding while I was still doing the walk around check but the no.1 is always aware that the cabin must be ready before boarding starts. The dispatcher will always come and ask the no.1 if they are ready to start boarding.

Yes the easyJet tv programme is a bit embarassing but it only highlighted some check-in problems with passengers and nothing else.

[brownstar]

jonty

I think that your post is put into perspective by your reference to ' an atco clocked them doing 75 on a taxiway........think about how fast 75 is. The aircraft internal monitoring systems would pick this up and it would be flagged up and traced back to the crew responsible, who would then be sacked!.If you are a pilot, something that i am not sure of for a hot head like yourself has no place on a flight deck, then you would know how fast 75 would look, being very close to the transition between low and high energy stopping. Trying to taxi at 75 on a standard taxiway would be very difficult. I can only conclude that you are talking out of your backside.
I do believe that this program served to show problems that are industry wide, ID's not being issued because the police are overwhelmed with the check's( this is the case in many industries where security pass checks are required to be issued via the disclosure scotland people).
Things that are unacceptable are checks not being properly carried out on the aircraft, this would be symptomatic of cronic fatigue and contempt through repitition, ( your average cabin crew performing probably in excess of 90 of these per month every month) the misconception that the flight deck are hurrying them to do the checks overly quickly ( the checks take as long as they take, the flight crew accept this , the cabin crew should tell the flight crew when they are ready.
Anyway i am getting off the original subject of my post which was to inform jonty that he speaks the worst kind of bottom gravy.

[HZ123]

Some concern expressed in respect of some of the practices shown. I did not think it was that enlightenning at all. All that was shown was a very small part of the operation. As for the CC paying for training at least it ensures a vested intrest in the outcome. I would have thought they would have mentioned the F/O's that have to pay to achieve the required hours. Or did I miss it?

[strafer]

I think that from a passengers point of view, there was very little to get excited about. They know that they're going to be treated as cattle on low cost flights, but they don't care because it's cheap. Re cabin crew falling asleep - they don't see that as a saftey issue at all. Just a delay in drinks service. The same with slide problems or missing life jackets - they all assume that any crash means 100% fatalities (that's why they don't watch the safety briefing).

One thing that was shown was that Ryanair will cancel services for safety reasons and that flight crew only 'work' 900 hours pa. For most pax, safety means working planes and well trained pilots. There was nothing in last nights show for them to get excited about. In fact, I've just had a look in today's Sun and can't find any reference to last night's programme.

[Carmoisine]

Brownstar, I am afraid you are wrong. FR were caught taxiing at warp speed, I think in this case its kind of like how big the fish you caught was. It seems to grow everytime one tells the story. The reported speed was 65 knots as I recall. There was a thread on it in Tech Log, but the new search engine doesn't appear to go back further then a few weeks ago. BOAC contributed to it, maybe you could contact him and he has it saved.

My 2c. I htink this "expose" was very thin on any sort of facts, which seemed even more pathetic after 6 months of filming. The Nasty corporate culture and fatigue were worthy of being highlighted, but the rest was utter tosh.

<<Edited: Sorry Boac, I hadn't noticed that since the upgrade. Brownstar , here you go read Captain Stables post :

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=202915&highlight=taxi+speeds

[BOAC]

There was a thread on it in Tech Log, but the new search engine doesn't appear to go back further then a few weeks ago. - default setting for search is 1 month.It is adjustable!!:rolleyes:

[high voltage]

MOL seemed quite happy to dismiss it all, but there seemed to be plenty evidence to highlight weaknesses and flaws in his companies operating philosophy.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

This has been self evident since a co-pilot walked citing having been bullied and harrased(SIC) in the cockpit on arrival in PIK, the flight was delayed and the co-pilot dismissed.
Feeling nostalgic Giggsy?

You know very well that Cliodna (Shapely One, Bird goddess of the afterlife and daughter of the druid Gebann, also known as ex chief pilot Jim Duggan) stormed off the PIK aircraft, alright. You also know, yet curiously omit, that a reasonable person might suggest that her 'concerns', if that is the right word, were more perceived than real. A more reasonable person still, might advanced the notion that her actions were driven, and her resolve emboldened, by the fact that her daddy was the then chief pilot. Unrelated facts, you think?

As for Channel Four's much vaunted exposé last night, in qualitative journalistic terms the equivalent of a cruise up a sewer in an unseaworthy glass bottom boat, how very deflating. Me and the missus corked the wine, buttered the popcorn, only to experience....how would I describe it....premature emasculation? Five months, concealed cameras and thats the worst they could come up with? Minuteman, I feel for you so very desperately. You were surely quivering with anticipation and had, no doubt, been leading the chorus of the damned in rehearsals of "ding dong the witch is dead".

Oh well, better luck next time. In the meantime, here's some conciliatory reading from Kieran (http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2006/02/14/1281.aspx) Daly of those plucky wordsmiths at Quadrant House, and the rather curious post scriptum he uploaded not 36 minutes later. (http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/flight_international/archive/2006/02/14/1283.aspx)

Happy aniversary, Giggsy. Here's to 18 more.
Faol saol agat agus bas in Eirinn.

[silverelise]

As others have said, unfortunately unless things get to a stage where there is a smoking hole in the ground, airline procedures (the stuff that is written down) and more importantly the culture (the stuff that isn't written down) will not be properly investigated by a governing body with the teeth to get something changed.

Ryan Air have ably demonstrated by means of written correspondence and copies of the relevant SOPs that they comply with the letter of the law.

The video evidence suggests that their "unwritten SOPs" (ie. their culture) means that on occasion some things are not done by the book. I know that Ryan Air are not alone in this - eg. SWMBO spent three years as CC at Monarch so I got to hear plenty of stories.

For me the biggest issues which came out of that programme were the impotence of the captain with the three hour delay (I thought he did the best he could considering the hand he'd been dealt) and the comment about the pilot who was demoted because he complained he was too tired to fly a sector.

[strafer]

I agree with you tallsandwich and while we both know that cabin crew's raison d'etre is safety, for all too many pax, they are a pair of tits with a trolley. Drunken pilots, un-airworthy aircraft, these are the stories tabloid headlines are made of - not catnapping CC.

[Aer Turas]

This is a true story, a while back a man got a heart attack in a toilet on a ryanair flight, the crew broke down the door with an axe to get him out, when they landed the aircraft was grounded until a replacement was found. Whats shocking is that none of the crew knew it could be opened from the outside using the so called '' dead mans bolt'', so simple all they had to do was flick up the lavatory sign and push the bolt. This is one example of the poor training done by ryanair.

[atse]

I reached an identical conclusion to silverelise For me the biggest issues which came out of that programme were the impotence of the captain with the three hour delay ... and the comment about the pilot who was demoted because he complained he was too tired to fly a sector. Those are quite significant issues, even if nobody is talking much about them. After all pilots have legal responsibilities and a duty of care to think about.

[BEagle]

Hardly the programme I was expecting, given the hype.

The main point which I found utterly unforgiveable was the utter contempt that so-called 'captain' of the delayed flight showed towards his passengers. A true Gerald Ratner moment. The passenger spokesman was quite right - that person was not fit to be in command of the aircraft. The 'captain' sounded like some cheap secondhand car dealer trying to worm out of a warranty claim with his whining denials.

The first officer stated that they "hadn't got enough pilots in Ryanair". Sure they probably fly up to the 100 hours in 28 days rule, but if there are insufficient pilots to support a 900 hours in 12 rolling, not calendar, month roster then Ryanair's passengers might well ipso facto be at risk from aircrew suffering from accumulated fatigue.

[Faire d'income]

I think it is important to consider a little bit of the larger picture before we draw our conclusions.

Firstly this programme was based on the perspectives of two cabin crew with less than 5 months industry experience. I think they deserve a lot of credit for producing something that held most of our attention for a least a while. Some of it was certainly unimportant but they succeeded in capturing part of the Corporate Culture that a lot of us here suspect is rampant in Ryanair.

Those here who shout that all airlines are the same are either not pilots or else should not be pilots.

Those looking for a smoking gun must remember that the source was 2 inexperienced cabin crew. There were times in the documentary when I felt they were close to something but didn't realise it and let the opportunity pass.

The slide was a major issue. If pilots come on here and tell me that it would be left unserviceable on other carriers they should contact Chirp or their Dept for Transport. Ryanair took some criticism of their cabin crew training after the fire on board. Can you imagine if a slide had failed that day? Has anyone here ever heard of a 'write it up at the end of the day culture'?
The security ID at Stansted is a major scam but one for the relevant authorities in the UK.

The vomit is a huge health and safety problem. With Bird Flu and Sars in recent years and the more likely Winter Vomiting Bug around to deliberately expose people to others vomit is sinful. Ryan will no doubt blame his staff for that decision but we can read between the lines.

All in all most of us are probably not overwhelmed by last nights effort. The problem is a real exposé would need a pilot with real experience to go undercover. There are hundreds and probably thousands with shocking stories but how will people know if we don't tell them.

Ryanair's skill is to turn us all into jobsworth's. Gutless, cowardly jobsworth's.
Dispatches did a good job considering they got no help from us.

BTW has anyone noticed that Ryanair has now broken the last aviation taboo. They boast about their crash record and some here use it as a stick to beat other operators. I find this practise abhorrent. Passengers should be able to take it for granted that an airline will not kill them.

[Leo Hairy-Camel]

Those are quite significant issues, even if nobody is talking much about them. After all pilots have legal responsibilities and a duty of care to think about.
Errr, I agree. Why didn’t this man consider opening the bar(s) on his authority, against much folded arm objections from the Channel 4 cabin staff, no doubt? Why not feed and water the customers in conditions of extremis? He could have instructed all but alcoholic items were available for sale, at customer expense, of course. Would he have received a rocket for it? Probably yes (small calibre, low powered). Would I do so in similar circumstances? Yes, of course, but I'd close the aircraft doors so that, by international convention, all and everything occurring on board is my responsibility, and mine alone. A curious distinction, whether doors open or closed, but an important one seemingly. Ignoring duty of care for a moment, what about compassion for one’s fellow man?

Funny how, after 5 months muck gathering, that this particular man is chosen to represent the face of Ryanair command. Unrepresentative, unfairly presented, sensationalist tabloid bollix, in other words.

As for the "demoted for refusing to fly fatigued" codswallop, it simply isn't true. The Dublin captain in question couldn't be bothered, and sought to justify his recalcitrance after the fact by falsely claiming fatigue. Its as simple, and as scurrilous, as that.

[GGV]

Leo you have again trotted out the official Ryanair line As for the "demoted for refusing to fly fatigued" codswallop, it simply isn't true. The Dublin captain in question couldn't be bothered, and sought to justify his recalcitrance after the fact by falsely claiming fatigue. Its as simple, and as scurrilous, as that. This is what proves that you are far from being a line pilot. The rest of us mortals don't know what happened. We have a version on Crewdock. We have a complaint to the IAA. We have very little to go on. We also have considerable suspicions. You came on to pprune shortly after the incident to throw merde at the pilot concerned - including your "duvet days" or "duvet mornings" remark.

Like so much to do with Ryanair, the truth is hard to find. The spin is everywhere. The determination to defend the official position, regardless, is there. What we don't have is a reliable or independent source of information. As I have said before, your pronouncements are nothing other than propaganda.

What we saw on the programme last night was the authentic reaction of the vast majority of Ryanair pilots to what happened to that pilot. THAT REACTION WAS (AND IS) IMPORTANT, even if the IAA and Ryanair don't seem to agree.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Faire d'income

"Those looking for a smoking gun must remember that the source was 2 inexperienced cabin crew. There were times in the documentary when I felt they were close to something but didn't realise it and let the opportunity pass."

Really, just didn't quite find it eh? Well that's about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

"The slide was a major issue. If pilots come on here and tell me that it would be left unserviceable on other carriers they should contact Chirp or their Dept for Transport."

If the captain had been informed and if it had been unserviceable and if the captain ignored it then maybe you would have something to shout about. I would guess this is not the first time in aviation history cabin crew did not pass on information they should have.

[Big Tudor]

If the cabin crew are unaware of the "dead mans bolt" how come they manage to lock and unlock the toilets during landing and take-off using the very concept you describe? Perchance this case had more to do with the fact that the casualty was slumped on the floor and the crew were unable to open the (inward opening) door?!

Back to the points "that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots".

[Impress to inflate]

Last time I fly with Ryanair. With three thousand hours command, I have never seen anything like it ! Why do the Ryanair crew stand for such Sh*t from there management and why do thay keep defending the Ryanair regime ?? For gods sake, stand up for yourselfs and get a grip !:(

[Carmoisine]

Aer Turas, Thats utter crap. I am sorry its just not true. I am far from a FR apologist, search my posts, but lets stick to the truth. That has the ring to it of "A friend of a friend of a friedn told me that.."

[Judge Whyte]

A number of assumptions which are now questionable,
When told "cabin is secure," I assume every seat checked for a package left by a passenger from the previous flight.
When a crew member reports for duty with I.D. and in uniform I assume qualified competent and security checked.
Respect for management is one thing fear of mangement is quite another.
What I saw last night raises questions about what I believe are industry wide assumptions.
Who is letting whom down in all of this?

[Flightrider]

I thought C4 gave Ryanair a fairer showing than you would have expected from reading the stuff on Ryanair's website. Some of it wasn't right (viz training school events, fatigue levels and corporate culture thereto) but I don't think that much of the other stuff merited any serious consideration.

Given the strength of feeling about Ryanair in the industry, it was fairly inevitable that if any television producer wanted to do a programme about Europe's low-cost airlines, Ryanair would become the obvious starting point. I have no sympathy with Ryanair on that count.

[FlyingV]

An opportunist/protectionist move by the French authorities?
The French transport ministry has told its civil aviation authority to discuss Ryanair's security practices with regulators in Ireland and Britain.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2006/0214/ryanair.html

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Why did the statement put out by RYR suggest that their crews worked an average of 18hrs a week. Purely to mislead the public. More like 45-60hrs a week duty with an average of 18hrs FDP over 52 weeks. SHAMEFUL:\

[Faire d'income]

Faire d'income

"Those looking for a smoking gun must remember that the source was 2 inexperienced cabin crew. There were times in the documentary when I felt they were close to something but didn't realise it and let the opportunity pass."

Really, just didn't quite find it eh? Well that's about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

"The slide was a major issue. If pilots come on here and tell me that it would be left unserviceable on other carriers they should contact Chirp or their Dept for Transport."

If the captain had been informed and if it had been unserviceable and if the captain ignored it then maybe you would have something to shout about. I would guess this is not the first time in aviation history cabin crew did not pass on information they should have.

If the captain had been informed and if it had been unserviceable

If you watched carefully based on what the two crew said it was u/s. It was difficult to know whether or not the captain was informed.

This is exactly what I was talking about.
*If the journalist knew more about the industry she should have dug in on this issue and may have found a real scandal.
*If the two cabin crew were competent professionals in a real airline they would both have informed the captain.
*If the captain knew a slide was u/s and subsequently departed without writing it up and following the relevent procedures he should be fired and criminally charged.

All ifs. All as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike. If only she pressed harder.

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Faire d'income

So we agree, it was a crap documentary with crap investigators.

And by the way, I did watch carefully - it is obvious the captain was not told about the defect.

Next subject please.

[VIKING9]

Faire d'income
So we agree, it was a crap documentary with crap investigators.
And by the way, I did watch carefully - it is obvious the captain was not told about the defect.
Next subject please.

Nothing is obvious.

[tonylollo]

We saw for ourselves we can make our own minds up but it was all very clear to me. BUT.... personally I would not fly with them as Crew or as pax. I thought that the programme was crystal clear.... you cant cover up what was shown::zzz: :zzz:

[Copenhagen]

Why wasn't the pilot informed of the slide being potentially U/S?

What really shocked me was the disregard by the staff of ryanair for its customers - the "if you pay a penny, you shouldnt expect a life jacket" statement sums it all up. That culture comes from the top. That culture is dangerous. :uhoh:

[Midland 331]

A great training video for any undesirables wanting to breach security!

Sadly, these management/front end cultural issues have a nasty tendency to pay out their negative reward in the fulness of time. Any cursory study of the lead-up to major incidents will show this.

[stormin norman]

Mail today. Ryanair say 'don't believe everything you read in the papers'
I see their fares and their destinations published in the paper and yes there right- i don't believe them !

[sfbbus]

only saw some of the programme last night. was there any mention of pilots paying for their own training, buying their own uniforms, or any mention of the recent OFDM incident in which one of their a/c landed with only 2 stages of flap selected ?

[cwatters]

Why wasn't the pilot informed of the slide being potentially U/S?
What really shocked me was the disregard by the staff of ryanair for its customers - the "if you pay a penny, you shouldnt expect a life jacket" statement sums it all up. That culture comes from the top. That culture is dangerous. :uhoh:

Out of interest when was the last time a commercial jet landed on water in such a condition that lifejackets were or could be used? Is there a case for removing the need to carry jackets ?

[PAXboy]

Is there a case for removing the need to carry jackets ? You are quite right of course. No need for door slides, emergency O2 or any of that other nonsense. Why do we bother with setting standards and making them hold and then improving them? :rolleyes:

[brabazon]

Time for a dawn raid on Ryanair's offices by the IAA - if they are awake in time - to check out their training procedures and overall management culture of fear - "think of my wife and kids" said the Captain when confronted with the spokesman on the plane so worried about losing his job he was failing to think of the 189 souls behind him who wanted a drink - not much to ask when they'd been sitting on board for 3 hours or so.

Agree with some posters - if C4 looked harder at the footage they might have spotted a few other issues that didn't get picked up - this programme may still come back to haunt FR

[flight_for_life]

As a recently qualified APTL and experienced Cabin Crew with a major UK charter, I'd like to comment on last night's televised investigation.

First, in response to the last few posts, the whole point of checking the life-jacket pouches under the seats is not primarily to check that a jacket exists under each seat... rather that nothing more sinister has been put there instead. That why the DfT introduced the policy to airlines. In the same way, they began placing dummy articles on board aircraft not to catch crews out, but to check that the guidelines and SOP's were being properly adhered to. The fact that the crew failed to discover the article in the demonstrated case does not prove anything - looking for a needle in a haystack is not easy and many crews each year are caught out. But if they are doing the checks to the best of their ability and to company/DfT requirements, can anyone ask any more of them?

I take on board what people have posted here about the media putting cats among the proverbial public pigeons... but many posts here seem to be missing the major problems highlighted by the journalists.

All the way through my many pilot and cabin crew training courses, I have had drilled into me the authority of the commander. To get to the LHS of a Ryanair 737, the skipper has gone through assessments, courses, more assessments and has many thousands of hours of experience under his belt. Ryanair employed him as a decision maker. Why on this earth then does he feel forced to act like a string puppet? Whose name is on the tech log? Whose licence is having the p**s taken? Unless MOL has a special qualification that allows him to fly however many 737s are in FR's fleet all at once, why doesn't he leave his Commanders to do just that, command. That's what he pays them for.... isn't it?

I have never travelled Ryanair and don't have anything personally to do with them, nor do I have anything against them. My personal experience and indirect experience (from others in the industry) says that many of the problems in last night's programme exist or take place in many other airlines. Perhaps we should focus less on the company involved (Ryanair), and more upon resolving the industry-wide issues that it raises.

FFL

[Niaga Dessip]

OK, how's this for an idea? There are a lot of regulations in the industry based on time - e.g. max. duty times, maintenance schedules, etc. What about a minimum turn around time so that security, cleaning and the like can be done properly? There would obviously have to be a fair playing field for all operators so aircraft size, cabin crew numbers and possibly other factors would have to be part of the equation.

Retires to bunker with hard hat on...;)

ND

[apruneuk]

What we saw on that show was a classic case of corporate "resignation" - an imasculated captain backed by demotivated, undisciplined and fatigued crew. As in any business, the rot starts at the top which is precisely where the buck should finally stop.

[beernice]

The aircraft in Spain was delayed by several hours by all accounts. How would any pilot out there feel if an undercover reported came on to your flight deck and started chatting away? I've been in the situation many times, you pass the time with idle banter. Now imagine that idle banter being taken out of context and edited and re-edited. Thats what happened on that flight deck and I think it sends a shiver down the spine of every pilot out there when they think that private conversations on the ground during a tech delay could end up on national TV. We don't know the context of the conversation, the undercover reporter could have been asking very misleading questions or the pilots may have been simply winding the girl up. This is serious and as pilots we have to take a stand against this underhand reporting. Make no mistake, this could be any crew on any airline. The guys last night were just bitching but next time it happens a marriage or a career could be over.
Leo my friend I have heard both sides of the story regarding the demotion in Dublin. I believe the IAA are in the process of investigating. I'm willing to reserve judgement on the matter until the IAA process is complete. Are you?

[woodpecker]

A simple question for Beernice, and one for any serving Ryanair flight crew

As there is no "duty free" in the EEC was the "locked bars" excuse for not offering more than tap water a smoke-screen?

Do Ryanair Captains have any authority to offer "free" drinks, at their discretion, to delayed passengers on board?

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Faire d'income

Quote "*If the captain knew a slide was u/s and subsequently departed without writing it up and following the relevent procedures he should be fired and criminally charged."

I think you forgot the summary execution bit.

On the "evidence" presented in this very poor documentary, I think talk like this is utter pish. Chill pills recommended all round.

[Best foot forward]

CAn any EJ, baby, J2, Tfly captains out there that could comment on thier company's policy on giveing free drinks to pax when thier acft are delayed.