Ryanair buys new private jet to shuttle staff

[OutsideCAS]

Somewhat old news but seems the Irish Independent have just caught up/on;

Ryanair buys new private jet to shuttle staff - National News - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ryanair-buys-new-private-jet-to-shuttle-staff-3270052.html)

[StressFree]

Hmmmmmm,

This machine kept on the IOM registry which I understood was for private ops only. How can the transport of execs and crew positioning be private????
Are they on board for leisure or business purposes on behalf of Ryanair???

As usual the rules are bent to suit the situation....................

[cldrvr]

SF, that is still private transport. No AOC required.

[Mr Angry from Purley]

there has been a mention of this before, AOG spares, crew sickness.
Mr OL knows the press will be snapping him if he's seen on it i suspect....
That said why not he's a businessman

[StressFree]

Cldvr,

Sorry but its transport at the behest of the company so a public transport operator is needed......

Otherwise why not have it on the Liberian register and have a PPL pilot?

As with most things to do with RYR its a cost cutting disgrace, why don't they do it properly and put it on the company AOC?

IOM is for private ops only, moving crews around is part of their business so its NOT private...........its part of their business.

[beerdrinker]

SF,

I fear you are wrong. FR use the exec jet to move employees and spares around. It us an internal company operation. Seats / trips from A to B are not sold outside the company. So an AOC is not required.

BD

[cldrvr]

SF you are so wrong, any business that uses an aircraft as a tool for business purposes, them being an airline, an engineering company or a financial institution that only carries its employees does NOT need an AOC, never have and never will.

You may want to familiarise yourself with the requirements a bit before you post such nonsense here.

The CAA and JAA are very clear in this matter, not sure what makes you so confused.

[StressFree]

Cldvr,

Nonsense????? Confused?????

:mad:

Glad I don't work in your outfit.............

[capt.sparrow]

Stress Free - you are talking out of your (profile location).

I work for a big international company, flying solely company employees and execs. We are all employees of said company, and no AOC is required. There is no public transport....

[StressFree]

Well folks, I'm flying for a FTSE company and when its got other execs on board we're bound by our AOC, when it's just the owner it can be private........

Maybe some of us have higher standards than others.................:rolleyes:

[cldrvr]

Maybe some of us have higher standards than others.................:rolleyes:


Higher standards? Is that why you AOC boys are statistically more likely to kill yourself????

No matter what you say SF, you are not going to make up for your ignorance.

[Globalstream]

Stressfree wrote

Sorry but its transport at the behest of the company so a public transport operator is needed......

Otherwise why not have it on the Liberian register and have a PPL pilot?

As with most things to do with RYR its a cost cutting disgrace, why don't they do it properly and put it on the company AOC?

IOM is for private ops only, moving crews around is part of their business so its NOT private...........its part of their business


Absolutely loath Ryanair, all it stands for and don`t have too much respect for its employees or passengers, but what on earth are you talking about? You don`t need an AOC for that operation- period, end of story, not under any CAA, under any circumstances. :{

[StressFree]

Cldvr,

Many thanks for your usual charming response.........

CRM refresher for you I feel, thats if you've ever done the initial.......:E

Goodnight gentlemen, whatever our views we're all in the same game so keep safe, regards to all.

[Union Jack]

Seats / trips from A to B are not sold outside the company.

Ah, but how much are those inside the company charged for the privilege? :)

Jack

[cldrvr]

whatever our views


SF, there is only one view, that is the legal one. So why don't you just own up to your mistakes instead of hiding behind excuses and garbage.

[capt.sparrow]

ah hang on - who owns your airplane then? The FTSE company or a private individual (say the CEO of the FTSE) who tries to make charter revenue back by chartering it back to the FTSE company through a management co and AOC when on company business?

That would not be as straight forward as a company owned jet, carrying company employees, on company business..... which does not need an AOC......

[Mach Tuck]

StressFree, you do seem awfully stressed...

The fact is that if the people or parts being transported are not paying (whether directly or indirectly) for the transportation then it is not a public transport operation and if it is not a public transport operation no AOC is required.

Relax!

MT

[PanamaJack]

What surprises me, considering MOL is involved, is that the aircraft isnt a single pilot approved aircraft. Money to be saved here....MOL starting to slip? ;)

[Beech_Boy]

Do the staff have to pay to use the toilet???

[jr of dallas]

Do they have to pay for sandwiches?

[Captain Kaboom]

Ok, stress free, to make it simple, is the jet used to transport an outside party or will the company be paid for those flights?
No, for internal use, there is no charge to a second or third party, there is only a direct operating cost.

So clearly no AOC required.

If a large manufactur has a breakdown of a plant (read airplane) he can use the corporate jet to ferry engineers (read aircraft mechanics or pilots) to his plant in order to continue his business.
This is not a commercial operation, period.

CK

[dynamite dean]

Well, if anyone sees a hilton black pen down the side its mine I flew this one interesting they bought a very low houred one delivered 2009 ish .it was going for 9.75m I wonder what they paid for it....anyway...:zzz:

[Gulfstreamaviator]

Can an air transport undertaking, especially one that has an AOC, operate (within EU land) occasional flights as PRIVATE. ????

Depending on which corporate entity is the OWNER of the corporate jet, then the flights might NOT be for persones employed by that entity.

If contractors, ie pilots are carried on this aircraft, then they might be considered not to be employees of the owning company. After all thats why Ryanair are using contractors, to avoid any Taxable or Social costs.
Perhaps they need a POC not an AOC, after all I operate according to Mr Caymans rules.

If the aircraft is operated on a Manx registration, then it must be ONLY private operations, and according to the Manx requirements.

I am not certain if Mr Manx requires an Operations Manual, certainly Mr Caymen and Mr Bermuda do. They can get very upset if operations are conducted outside thier rules of engagement.

To sum it all up, I do not know enough about the Corporate entities involved. But would suggest that real deep professional advice be taken, (which I am sure it has.)



Glf

[Trim Stab]

Can an air transport undertaking, especially one that has an AOC, operate (within EU land) occasional flights as PRIVATE. ????

Yes. It is even possible for an individual aircraft, registered on an AOC, to switch to making private flights, then switch back to PT flights on the next flight. Not easy to get authority, but it is possible.

Ironically, as others have hinted, it is probably more "illegal" to (potentially) charge for sandwiches on the flights...

[cldrvr]

Depending on which corporate entity is the OWNER of the corporate jet, then the
flights might NOT be for persones employed by that entity.

All you need then is a lease agreement to keep it Private. Different scenarios for when the A/C owner is offshore and the end user is onshore, you can even nominate a UK co as agent for the offshore entity to claim back VAT on purchase and fuel etc.

There is no legal reason to have a private A/C on an AOC and those that do are just misinformed or misguided. The only advantage is fuel tax, but there are ways around that too for private aircraft.

[cldrvr]

Not easy to get authority, but it is possible


All you need is a statement to that effect in your Ops manuals and get it approved.

[sooty3694]

To sum it all up, I do not know enough about the Corporate entities involved.

Yep, that's patently clear from your post. And so too is your knowledge of the Manx register - so why post?

Everything you need to know regarding the IOM register, what their aircraft may do, when, how, and for whom, and the regulatory structure they work to, is available on their web site.

In the regs you will find precisely how such an operation could be worked as private.

IOM reg may not be for you, but have you ever stopped to wonder just why it is so popular?

[flynowpaylater]

IOM reg may not be for you, but have you ever stopped to wonder just why it is so popular?


Obviously tax reasons, but its not particularly well regulated for commercial ops.....they don't "allow" it therefore have no provision to control it...legal or illegal.

I'm pretty sure the FR operation on the LJ is fine, but there are plenty of M reg aeroplanes doing dodgy charters. I hear Special Branch are now being drafted in by the CAA as the problem is so overwhelming. The UK CAA are now having to get involved as the manx auth don't have the infrastructure or resources to deal with it.

[sooty3694]

... but there are plenty of M reg aeroplanes doing dodgy charters........the problem is so overwhelming.


A pretty bold statement. If you actually KNOW that to be a fact, then why do you not tip off the authorities? If I was a legitimate charter operator, I certainly would.

I would suspect that it is actually less likely that IOM aircraft are used for dodgy charters due to the fact that everyone knows that the IOM register does not cater for CAT. I don't doubt it happens though, but I'm sure it's not as prevalent as you suggest, and I'm certain that the problem is not of an "overwhelming" nature.

And another thing; Why special branch - what do they have to do with it?

[The SSK]

When MOL or his Governmental Affairs people go to Brussels, does the Learjet take them to Charleroi to save on fees?

[His dudeness]

The only advantage is fuel tax, but there are ways around that too for private aircraft.

That is interesting. How?

does the Learjet take them to Charleroi to save on fees?

No, to Brussels (Charleroi).... :p

Which is pain when its RYR rushhour...

[Above The Clouds]

They certainly save money on the crew, first officers have to be rated and are only employed during the busy period then dumped at the end of the season, but they dangle the carrot stating you may get an opportunity to move sideways on to the airline fleet :yuk:

[Martin Barnes]

the nice man at ryanair has created a major business that employes crew for 300 aircraft, why would he want to use his aircraft to fly crew around, what am I missing, do you deserve the honour of working for such a worthy boss, your comments are just joke right !

[Buster the Bear]

It is used as a work horse and allegedly a bit tatty on the inside. Operated to maintain the network schedule by moving parts, engineers and crew as required.

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I operate a M reg aircraft, thus might be considered to have a working knowledge of the M system, combined with a Cayman and Bermudan validation, also understand their systems too.

My reference to the corporate structure is related to the distance between corporate entities as well as the relationship between the contract staff, (and who employes them), and the oners of the aircraft.

Glf

[G-SPOTs Lost]

FNPL...

Why would an anti terrorist organisation get involved in investigating aircraft operators you plonker!

If you're going to make stuff up at least make it believable.

[gaunty]

It's really simple.

If Ryans aircraft and more specifically the sale of seats on it are NOT available to the public generally it is a private operation and does not require an AOC.

You may operate a B747 in private on a PPL if you wish. The moment you charge a "public" even unto a token dollar the regulatory for hire or reward the roof falls in. Company staff, parts and equipment on company business or jollies yet do not fall into the net. The Tax man might have something to say about the jollies but the regulator is not interested.

Standards are an entirely separate issue. However in most countries the 'standards' for Part 25 type aircraft maintenance are similar whether private or "airline" crew training and SMS is another story.

I have operated (now retired) four Part 25 AOC's the most recent with Challenger and Gulfstream. So I know of what I speak.

And yes the "private" jets illegally operated in charter are a danger to everyone, dumb owners and complicit and even dumber pilots don't seem to understand the seriously negative financial consequences if it goes pear shaped.

Edit: for dumb pilot, add idiot.

[sooty3694]

that even some posters thought that the legal department of ryanair had not considered the question of legality is ludicrous.

too many people here with too much time to spare, too little knowledge of the subject matter, and a liking for too much tittle tattle.

edited to add that I paid too little attention to avoid the inclusion of too many too's

[tommoutrie]

tittle tattle? too much Downton Abbey..

Quite impressed that Ryanair has a contingency plan for shifting crew around when there's a cock up. That job would be like being Maverick in the alert5 aircraft. Jonny's pulled a sickie in Genoa cos he's pissed - launch Maverick in the alert5 with Shattered and Newbie to go rescue the jet!

[PURPLE PITOT]

"launch maverick with shattered and newbie":D

Wheres the like button!

ps you owe me a new keyboard, this ones covered in coffee!

[Iceman666]

And yes the "private" jets illegally operated in charter are a danger to everyone, dumb owners and complicit and even dumber pilots don't seem to understand the seriously negative financial consequences if it goes pear shaped.

Edit: for dumb pilot, add idiot.



How can these, so called, dumb idiot pilots know whether the pax are employed by the owner of the airplane and/or know whether they are paying for the flight?

[750XL]

I've been in the said aircraft a few times and it's far from 'tatty' etc as has been described here, it's even got a fully equipped bar on board (which is free, may I add...).

It's based at STN and usually moved to ferry engineers and parts around to stations that don't have FR based engineers (or limited hours coverage), I believe it's rarely used to transport the top knobs of FR around, just mostly engineering.

[SpringHeeledJack]

moved to ferry parts around to stations that don't have FR based engineers (or limited hours coverage)

I believe it's rarely used to transport the top knobs of FR around

Condraditicton m'lud! ;)



SHJ

[gaunty]

Iceman666

Fair question. Simple answer.

It is their "job" to know and ensure that the flight they are about to COMMAND i.e. take legal responsibility for its conduct, is in fact legal in the terms under which it is flight planned and conducted.

The owner may or may not (by contrivance) wear the consequences but he/she does not carry the legal burden when the door is shut.

If the pilot has not the wit nor courage to satisfy himself completely of the circumstances in which he would be able to defend his actions in a court of law, and with the full and active cooperation of the owner, then he should not be in command.

Owners tend to have strong if not overbearing characters/personalities and may be difficult to deal with, but you can be assured of one thing and that is they will ALWAYS act in their own best interests. Your job as the competent aviation expert on staff is to show him clearly how it is in his best interests to accept the facts and understand the significant financially adverse consequences.

It is a well trodden path and the contrivances well understood and revealed.

He would be complicit, with the owner in the illegal action.

Clearly this is not well understood by said pilots, or worse if it is, then either way the definition under debate is clearly correct in this context. :O

Turning a blind eye on anything for the sake of a job corrupts the integrity of the whole trust process on which the whole aviation safety process rests.

[tommoutrie]

I'm lost. Which pilots?
Aren't they just running a lear about with bit of planes and crew in? Bits for their own planes? Pilots who are their own staff? Why would being on an AOC improve the safety of that bit of the operation? And it might be stating the obvious but they do already have an AOC if there was a need. Sticking the lear on the AOC just adds a load of bureaucratic nonsense to what will only ever be a private operation. Holding an AOC is not a shield of invincibility - commitment to genuinely good CRM, flying ability, technical competence and not employing idiots is the key to safety.
I've never worked for Ryanair but I know quite a few who do and it always seems to me that the stone throwing is from the outside - those that work there seem to like it!

[Tequilaboy]

Christ I just scanned through this thread but had to go back and read it from the beginning. Dare I ask whom half these 'aviation experts' are on this thread? Yes there are potentially down the line taxation liabilities but this is still a P91 operation whether the owner/crew/friends/mistress is on board. As long as there is no monetary gain for hire or reward I think the classification is pretty clear.

I have had a chance to meet some of the crew and these guys fly the arse of the thing and for all the reasons described in the official use of the aircraft.

Despite what people may think of O'Leary either personal or professional, sorry, the guys has done alright compared to a few!

[ortac1a]

Can you fly AOG spares around without an AOC? I thought that was dangerous good carriage?

[Cpt_Schmerzfrei]

I'd say that it depends on the part, doesn't it? Some spare parts may be dangerous goods, but certainly not all of them. What about a nut or a relay that maintenance just doesn't have in stock at location x?

[Pace]

Gaunty

I have never read such a load of ill informed rubbish as placed in this thread!
It is not the pilots job to know whether a flight is a legal or illegal charter!
Just the opinions shown here on the RyanAir Lear which is fully legal demonstrates how many pilots would get it wrong!
It is illegal for a pilot to "knowingly" fly or to have "reasonable" suspicions that a flight is an illegal charter it is not his position to sit in on meetings or to have the knowledge to study legal documents made between the owner and leasing party or to be a party to those meetings that was confirmed to me by a highly respected aviation lawyer!
A pilot is not an aviation lawyer! Probably better if he was as he might make some money !
The Ryan Air Lear was bought for internal work flying engineers and light parts to stricken aircraft! It was estimated to fly 900 hrs per year doing that work!
Maybe it's not flying as much as estimated so they are paddying things out moving employees and executives around as well !
All perfectly legal for a private op. Maybe the pilots should insist they sit in on the board meetings at RyanAir and are part of the decision making process as well as scrutinizing the legal documents made by RyanAirs legal department? and challenge the knowledge and accuracy of that legal department?

Very clever pilots!!! They could make a fortune in law. :ugh:

Pace

[Booglebox]

I'm no legal expert, but I know of at least 2 private jets, operated by different companies (neither of which are RYR or anything to do with them), and based in the UK, which are routinely used to ferry spare parts and engineers around the UK / Europe, on behalf of UK-based UK-AOCed airlines (1 airline per jet, not just any airline).
In one case, the person who owns the jet also owns the airline. I'm not sure about the second case.
The jets are not on any AOC. Several of the pilots even only have a CPL and no ATPL. It's been going on for more than 5 years with one aircraft, not sure about the other.

My "rule of thumb" with this sort of thing is, if the wording of the relevant regulations is ambiguous, always look at what the other people are getting away with, because, if nothing else, when you get nicked you can point and say "but they're doing it too". :}

[gaunty]

Pace

Ready Fire Aim.:{

Reading your post I didn't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, bear with me.

First yourself and who he:rolleyes: "that was confirmed to me by a highly respected aviation lawyer!" probably need to brush up on your reading and comprehension skills. I was NOT referring to whether Ryanair had it right or wrong, in this context they have it right and I actually agree with you.:ugh:

Second you as a self proclaimed ATPL shouldn't need a so called highly respected aviation lawyer! to school you in these matters. You must have been absent during the air leg classes. Yes part of your LEGAL responsibilities DO include assesment of the matters extant.

Third or whatever, I have owned and been the postholder of more than several organisations in the last 40 years, the most recent of which I started from a blank piece of paper and from which I have recently retired as CEO and handed over the day to day reins to some very bright youngsters that I have mentored, operating an AOC with unrestricted worldwide privileges, a fleet of Citation, Phenom, Challenger and Gulfstream aircraft and holder of an IS-BAO Stage 2 registration. Our clients a mix of Fortune 500 companies and major mining, oil and gas companies most of whom also operate to the IS-BAO.

So, as I am always in search of a higher level of self awarenes and education in matters aviation, I sincerely enquire what is it about:

such a load of ill informed rubbish as placed in this thread!

that I need to understand and if necessary, repent.

And/or do I place you in the "professional" column or the much more highly populated "idiot pilot" one.

Your call.

[flynowpaylater]

It is not the pilots job to know whether a flight is a legal or illegal charter!



Pace, I would suspect that you cringe when you read that statement back.

Or, if you really do believe that, I hope your highly respected Aviation Lawyer doesn't charge too much to represent you in the event that your sole defence is "I didn't reaslise M'lud "

Good luck with that.

[Pace]

I am a very open guy and was in just that situation a few years back.
A call from the CAA had me shaking in my shoes until an aviation lawyer corrected the CAA.
The next call was an apology and a total clearance by the CAA of my liability in the situation!
So NO I am right

Pace

[gaunty]

Pace

Help me out here.

So NO I am right about what?

I'm sure there a context.

[tommoutrie]

ok thickie here again..
aren't you two saying the same thing?
I'm going to start another thread to take the focus off this one because its a bit boring - company has bought a private jet and are flying it around privately, end of story, dullsville..

[gaunty]

I agree, go for it.

[Pace]

No I am trying a clear a misconception that a Captain is ultimately responsible for an illegal charter as implied!
That is not the case! The Captain cannot knowingly carry out an illegal. Charter or fly such a charter if he has reasonable suspicions that the charter maybe illegal.
The Captain is not expected to be party to legal agreements between an owner or the person leasing the aircraft!
That is an important difference to ultimate responsibility!
It maybe a thread drift but an important distinction

Obviously in a court of law if it could be shown that the Captain did know the flight was illegal or it could be shown that he had reasonable doubt then that is another matter.

Pace

[tommoutrie]

you're correct Pace.
Made sure of that about half an hour after I got my first job as a paid pilot!
now dump this non event of a thread and come and help me start a flap retraction arguement

[PENNINE BOY]

TNT in Liege have been doing the same for years with its Manx registered Lear jet.:=