The Aviation Herald under legal threat [Archive]

denabol

6th Dec 2012, 22:38

I notice from where I am a strong article of support in the Australian media in
Plane Talking.

Although Ryanair is better known for the publicity seeking antics of its CEO, Michael O’Leary, and his attacks on Boeing, Airbus, airport authorities, assorted European governments, city administrators, Ryanair customers and other airlines, it is so upset at reader comments on the Aviation Herald web site that it has threatened to take action for defamation against its author, Simon Hradecky.

The full article is at:

Ryanair makes legal threats against Aviation Herald | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/12/07/ryanair-makes-legal-threats-against-aviation-herald/)
If I find more stories down here I will also link to them.

atakacs

6th Dec 2012, 22:45

One more reason (not that I needed any) not to fly with them - ever.

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 05:54

Is this serious, or just a new add-on to what seems like their already existing PR strategy of alienating people to get attention? Yawn.

They had a vacancy for a "Litigation specialised solicitor" recently. Requirements: "Familiar with IT/IP law and with the Internet":

Careers in travel - Litigation specialised solicitor (http://www.ryanair.com/en/careers/job/FRLSS01)

In other words (my words :) ), someone who may attempt to stifle free speech on the internet by means of legal threats (a minefield in so many ways, and a strategy that never consistently worked for anyone else, but often backfired).

It looks like that position is filled now. That person is probably busily looking for things to do, to justify his/her salary.

It's a bit unusual for an airline, or any company, to employ full time in-house litigation specialists; most companies employ only regulatory and corporate law specialists. Most companies are rational, and would rather avoid costly litigation, and resolve conflicts amicably. I assume Ryanair are also acting rationally. Possibly they're just barking, and hope to resolve whatever issues they think they have by barking (semi-amicably). But then again Ryanair always wanted to be a bit different...and they've been financially successful so far. Maybe they really plan to be involved in a lot of legal action, and want to spend their shareholders, employees, customers, and stakeholders money on litigators and courts. Maybe hiring a full time litigation specialist will somehow work for them, who knows. I'll have some popcorn when I read more, hoping it will be mildly entertaining:

According to AvHerald - "The airline's legal advisor has threatened further legal proceedings regarding this very article stating their message was marked "strictly confidential and private".

Tsk, Tsk. Bummer. := If they want something to be "strictly confidential and private" they may want to consider NOT to send it to the media (like avherald). If they simply keep their secrets locked in a safe, there's a much better chance that they will remain fully "confidential and private". Sending unsolicited letters to media outlets on the other hand is an invitation to publish. They can't reasonable expect other people, and particularly not the media, not to publish their unsolicited communications.

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 07:23

then you have come to the right place, the PP Facts Forum :}

ATC Watcher

7th Dec 2012, 07:43

Well, attacking a well respected web site is not going to win many supporters around. I think someone in FR wants to kill all this "negative pubicity" about Safety ( fuel minimas, hasetd turn arounds, etc..) by going in the offensive.

Unfortunately all they do with this is attracting attention to the safety problems they have.(*)
The classification of incidents is not for the inloved airline to decide , it is for the Investigating independent bodies , here the BFU, since the incident occurred in Germany.
FR can bark as much as they want, the BFU has the final call.

What we can do to help Aviation Herald is to also publish widely the BFU final report.
I will do this myself.

(*) = every airline has its incidents. The most important point in in safety is how you deal with them afterwards.

doniedarko

7th Dec 2012, 07:48

It seems the legal action is to do with the "comments" left by some of the Avherald readers. There is no indication that the Avherald is wrong ...after all they are just reporting the facts and our friends in the "comments" section express opinions ..

BOAC

7th Dec 2012, 08:03

RY do claim that AvHerald was 'inaccurate' in its text over the g/a, but in general AvHerald has become 'vulnerable' through its readers' posts, as has PPRune.

I cannot see this working to MOL's advantage!

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 08:05

Trying to hold a service provider, like web site, responsible for users' comments is a bit like accusing the government of facilitating bank robberies because the government built the public roads that bank robbers used.

But public roads, as a service, have been available since Roman times and longer. People are used to them, and accept that they are a good thing, even if bank robbers also use them. The internet and online services is a comparably new phenomenon, and sometimes people, including legal professionals, are a bit confused at how to deal with it.

Many jurisdictions have therefore introduced explicit legislation to protect online service providers, like the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions in the US.

libel/defamation etc is another animal than copyright of course, and different jurisdictions have different laws, but in my humble opinion service providers should be protected from these kinds of legal threats, which are related to statements made by OTHERS (amd simply facilitated, in good faith, by the service provider, but not endorsed) I don't think pprune, or any website or online service provider, should be held liable for my personal opinions. My phone company isn't responsible for what I say on the phone either. If you hold avherald responsible for users' comments, why not also go after google? after all, their automated search engine has also picked up the same comments, and you could construct a claim google also "published" it and can be held liable for it. In my humble opinion this would not be a very fruitful line of thought, and definitely not in the best interest of society.

Sober Lark

7th Dec 2012, 08:27

To be fair, there are other airlines who don't allow comments here.

Those using the internet who deliberately cause damage or harm through mischievous rumours and falsehoods shouldn't expect to be immune from accountability of law.

The SSK

7th Dec 2012, 08:44

Looks like Air Scoop got nobbled too - see the disclaimer on their home page

Air Scoop | The European Low-Cost Carriers Specialists (http://www.air-scoop.com/)

Capot

7th Dec 2012, 09:08

I read the table of quotations and Ryanair's responses.

90% of those quotations were indeed either complete bollocks or couched in terms that were designed to mislead.

It is obvious that they came from a position of parti pris, ie "Ryanair is unsafe" founded on a total lack of knowledge about how Ryanair does its maintenance, and its flight operations.

I think that Ryanair's commercial practices stink; almost everything they do to the customers, commercially, is sharp practice and bordering on the illegal. I only use them if I have no other option; I will drive 200 miles to an airport to avoid them if I can.

But, not for the first time, it is necessary to point out, from first hand knowledge of its line and base maintenance, and to a good extent of its flight operations, that Ryanair has the best maintenance control and methods, and quality control and assurance of any of the many airlines I have worked with, including the world's favourite. Actually, the world's favourite is a country mile behind them.

The reason is very simple; Ryanair have worked out that good maintenance and high aircrew standards cost less than bad maintenance and low aircrew standards. It's a pity that some of the more traditional big operators, to say nothing of small struggling operators, evidently are unable to understand this.

So, say what you like about Ryanair's treatment of its customers, but I don't blame them for responding as they did to that article, which was slanted rubbish.

eagle21

7th Dec 2012, 09:14

Twoonefour,

The fact is that the approach coud not be considered safe as per international standards. The safety margins seem to have been compromised otherwise this would bot be considered a serious incident by the German authorities.

Furthermore the action you suggest when receiving a legal letter sounds like the approach one should take under a dictatorship.

In my opinion the airline have the wrong culture (overhall culture) and this filters to the day to day operations. Statistically it is only a matter of time before their lawyers are busy defending from potentially 189 families.

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 09:14

A website is perfectly capable of vetting user comments before publication - more importantly, it's duty-bound to do so precisely to avoid defamation.

nonsense.

but unless you specify what jurisdiction you are referring to (north korea?), there's no point in arguing with you.

Avherald seems to be hosted in Austria. I am not familiar with Austrian law. But it would be interesting to know what Austrian law says.

But as a general observation, most websites are still hosted in the US, and there it is perfectly enough to act AFTER receiving a complaint/takedown notice/cease and desist letter, and remove the allegedly infringing content AFTER being notified by a complainant.

It may also be perfectly ok to REINSTATE the content again after the person who originally uploaded the content certifies that it is NOT infringing in any way.

Service providers do not necessarily have a duty to determine the truth of such allegations of infringement of any law. A service provider is not a court of law. A service provide just needs to act in good faith upon receiving proper notice.

It's a bit naive of you if you assume that google will vet every piece of text searchable on google.com in advance. That's simply not reasonable. You mention media laws, but I suggest you also research online service provider laws. They're not necessarily the same. The internet isn't your grandfathers' newspaper. One can argue that a web-based forum is an online service provider, and in the US at least, it can fall under safe harbor provisions.

cowhorse

7th Dec 2012, 09:15

There's one thing if you demand a correction of an article written by a journalist - that's a completely normal procedure in every democratic country, and RYR has every right to do so.

Bu this is a another horse:

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawsuit) that is intended to censor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship), intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_defense) until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation#cite_note-onthemedia_01-1)

Strategic lawsuit against public participation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation)

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 09:57

It's not nonsense. The website I work for does exactly this, for exactly this reason, and so do many others.

you may of course volunteer to police content in advance, if you have the resources to do that. it's your website, you are free to publish or not publish. but that approach is simply not practical for a large website, like google.com

when I wrote "nonsense", I meant your claim that a website has a "duty" to police third-party content in advance. And I still think that is nonsense (at least under US law, which I was excplicitly referring to), there is no such duty. Other jurisdictions may be different, I don't know. It's ok that the website you work for polices 3rd-party content in advance, but that does not create a legal duty for others to do the same.

eagle21

7th Dec 2012, 09:59

My point is when/if they crash an aircraft maybe they would understand that the money spent on innacurate articles was better spent in exceeding not just meeting the minimum requirements in terms of safety/training/recruitment...

fireflybob

7th Dec 2012, 10:19

Even without considering the rights and wrongs it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out.

I bet the Aviation Herald are going to be pleased with lots of free publicity - I feel sure this action will hit the tabloid press within the next few days.

Of course people should not be posting libelous statements and there are laws about that but I think if Ryanair won this one it would, in my opinion, be more of a pyrrhic victory - don't underestimate the power of the people and social media!

cowhorse

7th Dec 2012, 10:24

No, it's a responsible action you take in countries such as the UK where libel laws are very strict. It's not "dictatorship" because there's absolutely nothing stopping you publishing an ACCURATE article. Why is this so hard to understand?

No one is taking about RYR going after inaccurate articles. The problem is when they go after Joe Schmoe. RYR will not lose money if you write something bad about them, they just won't - so intimidation is the only factor here.

SLFandProud

7th Dec 2012, 10:39

(Obligatory disclaimer - this is not legal advice, you should use a qualified lawyer for that, this is merely commentary)

[re. moderating user comments]
It's not nonsense. The website I work for does exactly this, for exactly this reason, and so do many others. What do you think a 'moderated' comment section is?

The website you work for may wish to consider obtaining specialist legal advice. Pre-moderation can work, but it absolutely is not a duty, and in fact by pre-moderating comments you may be opening yourself up to legal attack.

If you pre-moderate comments, you are accepting responsibility for their content - if something libellous gets through you are therefore very much in the firing line.

If on the other hand you do not pre-moderate - in the UK at least, although I believe these regulations are based on EU directive - you can claim a defence of being a 'mere conduit' that does not accept responsibility for third party comments. See Section 17 of the E-Commerce Regulations 2002:
17.—(1) Where an information society service is provided which consists of the transmission in a communication network of information provided by a recipient of the service or the provision of access to a communication network, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that transmission where the service provider—

(a)did not initiate the transmission;
(b)did not select the receiver of the transmission; and
(c)did not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.
(2) The acts of transmission and of provision of access referred to in paragraph (1) include the automatic, intermediate and transient storage of the information transmitted where:

(a)this takes place for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission in the communication network, and
(b)the information is not stored for any period longer than is reasonably necessary for the transmission.
and also Section 19:
19. Where an information society service is provided which consists of the storage of information provided by a recipient of the service, the service provider (if he otherwise would) shall not be liable for damages or for any other pecuniary remedy or for any criminal sanction as a result of that storage where—

(a)the service provider—
(i)does not have actual knowledge of unlawful activity or information and, where a claim for damages is made, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which it would have been apparent to the service provider that the activity or information was unlawful; or
(ii)upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information, and
(b)the recipient of the service was not acting under the authority or the control of the service provider.

By pre-moderating, you give yourself prior knowledge of the content (eliminating a Hosting defence: if your pre-moderating process is intended to identify libellous material, it ipso facto means you should be aware of all the relevant facts and circumstances around the legality of the content, otherwise your pre-moderating process is a farce,) and you also 'select or modify' content (eliminating the Mere Conduit defence.)

In my experience, insurers have been very wary of providing indemnity insurance to pre-moderated message boards for this very reason.

You absolutely should have a process for promptly removing any potentially infringing content in response to a complaint, however.

Ex Cargo Clown

7th Dec 2012, 10:46

This is clearly all posturing and intimidation. Do you really think M'OL would want to go into open court and either perjure himself or "air dirty linen"?

Just as restaurant critics have a right to be just that, critical, than anyone can air a reasonable opinion based on fact. Was the approach unstable, well it appears so. Does that make it unsafe, I'm guessing so. Just in the same way I can tell a Premiership footballer has had a bad game, having never been one, you can have an opinion on anything within reason.

20milesout

7th Dec 2012, 11:00

cowhorse:
You really believe that an annonimous poster can cause harm to Ryanair?

No. Problem is though, that the big media uses sites like pprune and avherald as ressources for their research about the aviation industry. And this is when it starts to hurt even RYR.

NutLoose

7th Dec 2012, 11:09

One wonders why these sites do not pool their resources to defend themselves in circumstances like this.

Ex Cargo Clown

7th Dec 2012, 11:20

"No. Problem is though, that the big media uses sites like PPRuNe and avherald as ressources for their research about the aviation industry. And this is when it starts to hurt even RYR."

Chinese whispers of the very worst nature. What if I had a bad experience with a company of any description, and told a friend who then told a friend who then put that information on a blog? Who has defamed who ?

cowhorse

7th Dec 2012, 11:25

No. Problem is though, that the big media uses sites like PPRuNe and avherald as ressources for their research about the aviation industry. And this is when it starts to hurt even RYR.
No they don't - I have never seen a BBC reporter quoting an anonymous poster from a web site. Never.

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 11:27

NutLoose - regarding pooling resources for defense - actual lawsuits are relatively rare.

Most companies do not have huge budgets for initiating court action. Corporate legal departments need to prioritize, and spend their limited budget where they think it will be most useful, and usually that means trying to enforce whatever they want to achieve by other means, like threats. MOL publicly boasts about how little he pays his in house lawyers, and how cheap they are, so I doubt he has given them an unlimited budget to play with.

cowhorse

7th Dec 2012, 11:38

There's a big difference between saying you didn't like the lobster (opinion based on fact) and saying you think the chef was trying to poison you (unsubstantiated statement based on previous opinion).

What 'fact' - is there a physical unit that measures 'tastiness of a lobster'?

Ex Cargo Clown

7th Dec 2012, 11:45

Yes, but restaurant and film critics write within a specific guideline of libel law that permits it. There's a big difference between saying you didn't like the lobster (opinion based on fact) and saying you think the chef was trying to poison you (unsubstantiated statement based on previous opinion).

From my understanding of this whole mess is that people are basing opinion on an official report. What next, will RYR try and sue the BFU for daring to make the report public?

lexoncd

7th Dec 2012, 12:11

Ryanair have in the past posted priveat and confidential documents from DAA (i believe) and others on their own website to support a cause. P&C should mean what it says.

Anyone watching Starbucks deal with its perceived corporation tax issue should consider how a brand image can be changed in the eyes of the consumer for good or for bad.

I come from the school of thought that the seemingly confrontational approach adopted by senior management at Ryanair has had its day. It worked but I strongly believe they could achieve so much more if this apparent culture changed to be firmly customer focused.

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 12:13

I finally took the time to read the emails from Ryanair, now that they're published in full. The don't seem completely unreasonable (It may be a bit counterproductive to demand apologies from avherald though):

News: The Aviation Herald under legal threat by Ryanair (http://avherald.com/h?article=45a1cb11&opt=0)

All this seems blown out of proportion. I don't think safety culture or freedom of press will be seriously harmed if the cited comments are deleted. I don't think said comments contained a lot of valuable and/or new and unique information.

But Ryanair may have contributed to blow this out of proportion, with their legalese and somewhat confrontational emails. I am not a lawyer and I have no idea whether these comments could be construed as defamatory, under whatever law. Fact is, Ryanair does have an excellent safety track record. They could as well just have ignored these comments, if they wanted to avoid drawing attention to them. It's hardly surprising that a media outlet will publish letters sent to them, particularly if the letters may be perceived as threatening. And the more "private and confidential" stamps there are on them, the more likely they will be published. Ryanair could have anticipated that. I don't think there's much for Ryanair to win here.

sometimes legal action to delete allegedly defamatory statements, or otherwise (allegedly) infringing content, has the opposite effect. it just draws further attention to the issue.

I had never heard of untied.com, the "united" critisism site which has been up and running for 15 years, until united/continental filed a lawsuit against the maintainer of the website (a McGill University engineering professor): United Airlines attacks Untied.com (http://www.untied.com/SLAPP/)

then again, ryanair hired a "litigation specialist". and now that person probably wants to justify his/her salary.

Speed of Sound

7th Dec 2012, 12:53

If you're challenged with a legal letter, the procedure is very simple: You don't antagonise the complainant further. You don't get on your high horse and assume you're right. You show goodwill, perhaps go as far as to remove the article until you've run it past your own legal team. When you're satisfied that you haven't blundered, then publish away and tell the lawyers to get back in their box.

Instead of endless speculation let's look at the real world.

Yes the website as publisher is responsible for anything posted there but during the past year alone how many people have been up in court for stuff posted on facebook or Twitter in the UK alone? And in how many of those cases has facebook or Twitter themselves been up in court?

None!

Because any legal team given a choice between suing an individual in the UK or a multi-billion dollar corporation based in the US will always go for the little guy. Now AVHerald doesn't have the resources of Twitter or facebook but if it is confident of the integrity of what it has published it should not be bullied into backing down because of what a particular subscriber may or may not have posted.

As has been posted a couple of times on this thread, RYR are not going to go bust because of one post on one forum. If it ever did come to court, damages to RYR would be estimated as pence rather than hundreds of pounds.

SoS

Oh and can a mod explain why if I type T w i t t e r it is posted as PPrune? :confused:

Microburst2002

7th Dec 2012, 14:45

I am a pPrune member, because I have a password and account, right?

When I post here, I assume that I am member of a private club. And so, the opinions that I write here, and those that I read, are of a private nature, like those said and heard in the pub.

Absolutely no one has the right to do anything legal against those opinions, or the website. In the pub, in the club, in the forum I am a member of, I can say what ever I want. Only the other members of the club can censor me, or just put me out of it.

However law is not always right and it goes against rights, often. Remember that middle east airline we cannot mention.

The Avherald however has no membership. But how can people's opinions written in the web be subject to any liability? they are opinions. I can have any opinion and nobody can do anything about it.

deptrai

7th Dec 2012, 14:54

microburst, what you post here is publicly accessible, to anyone who wants to read it, or search for your opinions.

BOAC

7th Dec 2012, 15:34

I assume that I am member of a private club. And so, the opinions that I write here, and those that I read, are of a private nature - No! As deptrai says, this is a publicly accessible site. people do not need to register to read posts.

Thus your utterances are effectively 'public'.

gcal

7th Dec 2012, 15:39

Putting anything online is more certain than a letter and can be kept in cyber space for a darn sight longer!

DBate

7th Dec 2012, 15:49

Sober Lark

7th Dec 2012, 16:02

Does highbrow Aviation Herald really need a lowbrow section which permits comments?

ZeBedie

7th Dec 2012, 18:05

I suggest we all make a small donation the AH as a show of support. I did.

fireflybob

7th Dec 2012, 18:32

I suggest we all make a small donation the AH as a show of support. I did.

Zebedie - agree and have done so

Sunnyjohn

7th Dec 2012, 19:51

I can have any opinion and nobody can do anything about it.
Indeed, you can have an opinion, as can we all. It's when you voice your opinion or put it into writing that it becomes public. Be of no doubt - as soon as you write anything on the internet, it becomes public property. Pprune is not a private forum, it is a forum to which anyone can sign up to, as indeed are any number of other social and professional forums. Be very careful what you write - it might come back to bite you!

20milesout

7th Dec 2012, 20:07

The issue is as of today only simmering in "informed" circles. Still I have the strong feeling that there is a stormfront lingering already behind the horizon.

fireflybob

7th Dec 2012, 20:08

Surely you can express an opinion in public so long as, in my opinion, you have stated that it is an opinion?

It's when you stray into stating that something is a fact when it isn't that you may be opening yourself up for the legal consequences.

DiCaprio

7th Dec 2012, 21:35

Having spent a bemused and somewhat vexing half-hour perusing the AVHerald thread on this topic, coming here is a breath of fresh - and rational - air.

If the difference between the two can be attributed to 'open season' versus 'moderated' environments, then give me moderated every day of the week..

:rolleyes:

cwatters

7th Dec 2012, 23:32

But how can people's opinions written in the web be subject to any liability?

If you go around telling tell the world that in your opinion Fred down the road is a wife beater you best be sure you can prove it. Its not hard to find people who have gone to court and won damages for defamation. Doesn't matter if you do it online, down the pub or in the newspaper. Best think carefully about that hotel review you are about to post online. Can you prove the room was dirty? You might need to do so in court.

mercurydancer

8th Dec 2012, 01:32

BBC using anonymous sites for quotes?

Yes they do. Not this one but one I use regularly has had some honourable mentions.

camel

8th Dec 2012, 02:48

looks like their legal eagle is flying high...Sunday Times sued by Ryanair over safety story | PressGazette (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-ryanair-over-safety-story)

racedo

8th Dec 2012, 09:48

Indeed, you can have an opinion, as can we all. It's when you voice your opinion or put it into writing that it becomes public. Be of no doubt - as soon as you write anything on the internet, it becomes public property. PPRuNe is not a private forum, it is a forum to which anyone can sign up to, as indeed are any number of other social and professional forums. Be very careful what you write - it might come back to bite you!

Good post Sunny John....

Sadly some people are only starting to realise that they are responsible for what they post on the internet.

I like AvHerald but there is no modding or control over what is posted. Sadly it has become a place infested with Trolls where no control is being exercised.

It is quite likely that they will now have to have some control over what is being posted with inappropriate comments being removed.

Speed of Sound

8th Dec 2012, 10:30

looks like their legal eagle is flying high...Sunday Times sued by Ryanair over safety story | PressGazette

Even the UK Press Gazette is guilty of misleading headlines.

The Sunday Times IS BEING SUED by Ryanair would be a lot more accurate. I have just asked 10 people and all 10 of them take that to mean that the Sunday Times has been successfully sued by Ryanair.

SoS

Sober Lark

8th Dec 2012, 11:45

It appears the money they saved on expensive advertising with these newspapers can now be used to sue them for damages.

Judging by the amount these easy targets pay out these days in liable cases they will probably view this move as a good ROI.

DaveReidUK

8th Dec 2012, 12:34

The Sunday Times IS BEING SUED by Ryanair would be a lot more accurate. I have just asked 10 people and all 10 of them take that to mean that the Sunday Times has been successfully sued by Ryanair.

Sue (v. t.) To seek justice or right from, by legal process; to institute process in law against; to bring an action against; to prosecute judicially.

"Sunday Times sued by Ryanair" and "Sunday Times successfully sued by Ryanair" aren't the same thing at all.

criss

8th Dec 2012, 12:59

If most of you are really professional pilota then one has to wonder while boarding an a/c, as many sound like 10y olds. You seem to believe you can say "this airline is an accident waiting to happen because their culture is inherently unsafe, and no one can do anything about what I day, because I'm free to state whatever opiniom". This is plain stupid. Gęś, you can say whatever you want, but take responsibility for what you say.

In the other thread about memmingen incident no one is really arguing that the approach went wronf, but the problem starts when people begin a chorus "this is due to their culture", while everything about their operations proves otherwise. It's laughable, and no surprise rury want to take measures against it.

J-Class

10th Dec 2012, 14:19

Oh dear, looks like MOL is going to have to sue the Daily Mail too, their litigators are going to be awfully busy...

Ryanair plane carrying 141 passengers from Manchester nearly crashed over Germany after pilots tried new manoeuvre to make up lost time (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245767/Ryanair-plane-carrying-141-passengers-Manchester-nearly-crashed-Germany-pilots-tried-new-manoeuvre-make-lost-time.html)

Whiskey Papa

10th Dec 2012, 14:51

Remarkable! Do Ryanair still use 30 year old B732?

DaveReidUK

10th Dec 2012, 16:16

Oh dear, looks like MOL is going to have to sue the Daily Mail too, their litigators are going to be awfully busy...

Plus, at the latest count, around 130 assorted comments by DM readers, some of which make those Aviation Herald posts look pretty tame by comparison.

Cyrano

10th Dec 2012, 16:37

From the Aviation Herald homepage:
Aviation Herald no longer under legal threat by Ryanair. (http://avherald.com/h?article=45a1cb11&opt=0)
:ok:

pattern_is_full

10th Dec 2012, 16:48

Excellent! ("Good" would have sufficed, but the forum has a minimum character limit ;) )

J-Class

10th Dec 2012, 17:18

Indeed. Here are some choice comments from Daily Mail readers:

Ryanair is a disaster waiting to happen
- VirtualMaiden, Southport, United Kingdom, 10/12/2012 17:26

They are an accident looking to happen
- jonb, Leicester, 10/12/2012 17:10

Best be well insured when taking a Ryaniar flight
- Frenchiegirl, Paris. France, 10/12/2012 16:48

This cowboy company is going to have a serious accident one day and many lives will be lost, just to save pennies.
- sar02, wolverhampton, United Kingdom, 10/12/2012 16:34

Look! Just take a look at O'Leary, and ask yourself, 'Do I really trust this man with my LIFE!!!?
- Budgie, Blyth, 10/12/2012 16:10

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd always understood that defamation cases could only work if the plaintiff had a reputation to lose in the first place. Comments such as the above rather suggest that Ryanair doesn't, which is presumbly helpful for the media in future?

Hotel Tango

10th Dec 2012, 18:05

I am not a RYR fan because of their product and even perhaps more so because of their CEO's general attitude. I have never however considered them unsafe. They will have incidents just like any other carrier including the big boys. I believe that the major reason anything involving RYR is immediately targeted by a significant percentage of the public and the media is MOL himself. If they don't let him go (soon) and change their image he could eventually bring the airline down.

Whiskey Papa

10th Dec 2012, 19:44

@HT Don't think so...

BBC News - Ryanair profits jump on traffic and fare rises (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20202579)

You're confusing the travelling masses with someone who gives a damn!

BOAC

10th Dec 2012, 19:47

I don't think he will 'bring it down;' but dent it he certainly will and that will hurt. As I said on t'other thread, the damage he and his legal eagles are inflicting by focussing the world on this event is inestimable. Instead of saying - dreadful mis-handling, duff crew, have been disciplined, well below the high standards we set, etc etc they wallow in fighting the obvious.

What happened to King Canute?

EDIT: WP - 'old news' - that reporting period had not seen the madness of King Michael. Now that he and his team have actually encouraged the common press to take note, I think we will see a difference.

Hotel Tango

10th Dec 2012, 20:05

Whiskey Papa, yes that's certainly the position at present. However, given the right amunition those masses could quite rapidly turn tail.

wiggy

10th Dec 2012, 20:28

given the right amunition those masses could quite rapidly turn tail.

Maybe. OTOH one of M.O.L's smartest moves was starting up routes out of thinly served regional airports - many people won't drive more than an hour to an airport and for them Ryanair is now the only means of travel between their home and family /weekend home/future retirement pad/weekday place of work. Those folk are either happy to accept the FR package or if not grumble like mad but eventually 'fess up that they have no choice but to continue flying with them.

Thunderbirdsix

10th Dec 2012, 20:36

Good news all round

News: The Aviation Herald NO LONGER under legal threat by Ryanair (http://avherald.com/h?article=45a1cb11&opt=0)

Whiskey Papa

10th Dec 2012, 21:15

I've been coming to this site for six years and seen hundreds of posts slagging off FR, predicting bankruptcy,disaster and worse. Yet conversely this site generally agrees that the FR fleet is one of the newest and best maintained (and largest) fleet in Europe. It also suggests that flight crew training is good.

Despite some inept marketing, often tongue in cheek, and questionable pricing tactics, FR continues to grow and make a profit. I've never seen miserable cabin crew (I fly FR 12-15 times a year) and whilst only a PPL, I've never seen any dangerous practices. Their safety record is second to none and is excellent per passenger mile and is a good place to start when deciding which airline to fly with. Try looking at AF.

I accept that flight crew have a massive gripe with employment conditions but if I (and the rest of the masses) fly with another airline that's more likely to result in less aircrew jobs. Is that what you want? I understand and sympathise with much of FR crew grievances but I also have professional difficulties of my own, it's not a monopoly! So FR is affordable, convienient and will, I'm willing to wager, continue to grow.

I'll get me hard hat...incoming!!!

2EggOmelette

10th Dec 2012, 21:24

No WP. No need for the tin hat. You speak true.

criss

10th Dec 2012, 21:31

.....until they really start worrying about their safety.

Why should they?

2EggOmelette

10th Dec 2012, 21:33

Enjoy the view!
Yeah, 33c aint a bad seat. Pull your head in dude. 33c is your customer. You know, the fellea who pays the wages we recieve, gives us a job and comments on our landings. Jeasus christ. The attitude of some here make me freekin puke. SLF with a PPL. They still fly :mad: Get over yourself.

wiggy

10th Dec 2012, 22:02

Enjoy

until they really start worrying about their safety.

It's all IMHO of course but I'm not sure when they will .

From personal experience (conversations I've had with other Brit expats) I've found that if "they" do admit to worrying about any aspect of FR they'll then always add the caveat that at the end of the day FR provide the only affordable service between an airport very near where they are and an airport very near where they want to go.

I'm not saying I agree with their logic or sentiments but I do think MOL has been very clever ( or has been very fortunate) at generating what is effectively a captive market in many parts of Western Europe.

For completeness I don't work for FR and I'm not defending their culture.

Speed of Sound

10th Dec 2012, 22:22

At one point, the plane was just 450ft (150m) above the ground while dropping at a rate of 500ft/sec, according to the interim report.

I see the Mail is maintaining its usual high standard of journalism! :ugh:

Thunderbirdsix

11th Dec 2012, 08:19

I have been knocked here several times for defending Ryanair , I know two pilots and two cabin crew who are friends of mine flying with Ryanair, they love their job with the company and are agast at times of the anti-Ryanair posting that is on this website. Yesterday Ryanair decided not to take legal action against the AV Herald, I posted that as a seperate thread but their was not a single comment to that post, now if I posted something that a Ryanair aircraft may have done the post would be snowed under with replies.

I rest my case on the constant and possible jealous comments that appear here on what is one of the safest airlines in the World with a fleet of new and modern jets, I have flown a lot with them, always on time each way, never saw a glum face on cabin crew and was treated with nothing but respect by airport staff, I hope Ryanair continue to grow and that the punters will fill the seats as I am sure they will and not be put off by what is posted here. :D

BOAC

11th Dec 2012, 08:39

but their was not a single comment to that post - probably because it had been already posted and responded to 4 hours earlier?:ugh:

bluecode

11th Dec 2012, 08:56

I think Thunderbirdsix and others who attempt to defend FR staff. You are missing the point. The staff aren't the problem. The pilots are not the problem.

The problem with Ryanair is the corporate culture that permeates the whole organisation. This is management led and you know who encourages it. Thus we have this cack handed attempt by the Chief Pilot, who should know better and the McNamara to stifle comment on AvHerald. That would be fine if criticism of Ryanair was rare but right now it's endemic.

There are similar comments on nearly every forum that discusses Ryanair. I suppose the Mail will now receive a similar letter threatening them with court action. No doubt others will follow and PPRuNe and every other forum and online site with reader comments.

Actually the people to blame for all this are Ryanair management starting with O'Leary and working it's way down the chain. All his managers seem to ape his attitude and their utter disdain for their staff and customers is no secret. From the way the pilots and CC are treated to the way customers are treated. They've made enemies now. The Spanish are out to get them and it's hard to find anyone who likes Ryanair even those who use them regularly. It's hard to find a staff member who'll tell you they love to work for Ryanair.

They've gone too far and as a result every single incident no matter how minor is reported as a near disaster. The irony of the low fuel incidents in Madrid is that it demonstrated that correct and safe procedures were followed. But Joe Public thinks they nearly ran out of fuel.

It's said that all publicity is good publicity. Up to a point and I think Ryanair has crossed that point. They have lost the PR battle in terms of safety despite the fact that they are in all probablity safer than many better known airlines. Once the public perceive Ryanair as unsafe, people will pay more to fly for other airlines. They will lose customers. One serious accident and they will lose a lot of customers.

O'Leary for all his business acumen has somehow managed to produce an company that has a reputation for unfriendliness, a company that tries to rip people off, a company that doesn't even pretend to value it's customers. A company that treats the people who work for it as mere commodities. A company that insults some of it's most important workers on a daily basis. A company that now is seen as unsafe to fly with by many people.

I never understood why Ryanair had to be so actively hostile and arrogant to virtually everyone it comes into contact with. It really doesn't cost anything to be friendly. There is no need for much of nonsense you get with Ryanair.

Imagine if not only Ryanair offered competitive fares but also was popular with it's customer base and had a loyal employee corps. Nothing could stop it growing.

It's puzzling.

Really Ryanair management should begin to rein in their attitudes and try and mend a few fences. Being nicer costs nothing. But it may already be too late.

Maybe just maybe, the withdrawal of the threat of legal action is a sign that common sense is beginning to prevail. The original intervention was ill judged and stupid. It simply looked like an attempted cover up. That would be fine if Ryanair was generally seen in a similar light to BA or Qantas or even Easyjet. But it's Ryanair and invariably any mention of it in the media is negative not to mention the antics of it's CEO who plays up his irritiating image of 'Paddy the wild Irishman'.

We'll see.

cockney steve

11th Dec 2012, 11:07

As a mere SLF, It has NEVER crossed my mind to question the safety of FR's operation.

When the buses were first deregulated, there were plenty of dubious-looking vehicles plying the routes.....now the vast majority are clean, modern and "look" safe.

There's a strong parallel there, EXCEPT....That's not the issue.

Joe Public IS aware that all UK public Transport is heavily regulated and hastotal confidence in the administration of that regulation.....therefore , ANY Public Transport in the UK is "safe"

Wether it's morally or ethically sound is another issue altogether....

I'm minded of the tale that "Beardy" was escorting a VIP female and took one of his Hostie's cape to lay on a puddle for the VIP to cross it ...a great brouhouha at the time, as the girl was given under an hour to refresh her uniform and report back for duty......the defence to these actions, IIRC, was

"I pay top money for intelligence, initiative and dedication,-if it's lacking, they don't have a job with me"

So, there's nothing new. However much you resent MOL's success, he's built a very strong, dynamic company on the back of understanding that Air-Travel is no longer the perogative of the elite.

No doubt the same scenario obtained in the early days of motoring when the landed Gentry were aghast that mere tradesmen could stretch to "DIY" motoring.

Yes, I think on this occasion , this might have been a shot in his own foot....but again, it garnered a lot of "free" publicity and rattled a few cages and probably curbed some of the worst excesses. Result!- for him.

BOAC

11th Dec 2012, 11:27

all UK public Transport is heavily regulated and hastotal confidence in the administration of that regulation.....therefore , ANY Public Transport in the UK is "safe" - except Ryanair is NOT UK regulated,.you know?

Alycidon

11th Dec 2012, 11:33

Who permits them to operate in the UK then?

Sober Lark

11th Dec 2012, 11:33

Bluecode, but the other Irish men at Qantas and BA are all 'nearly crashing' their aircraft too, but none of them have.

Whiskey Papa

11th Dec 2012, 11:35

@ Enjoy the view

I do know that I've never seen any dangerous practices because...I haven't and I know I haven't.

What you mean is that dangerous practices may be going on all around me of which I'm unaware. However statistics do not support this. Fact is Ryanair have about 50 aircraft more than BA or AF and whilst they certainly have incidents these are not disproportionate to comparable fleets. Better in fact!

Anyway I always take a window seat (28A actually) so that I can make sure the wing is tied on properly!

EDMJ

11th Dec 2012, 12:49

Bluecode is spot-on, as seen from a PPL-SLF perspective.

I have no reason to think that this airline is unsafe in general, and from that point of view would fly with them anytime.

They do come across as an operation which does not treat a customer with much respect. Maybe they're not like that, and maybe I should try them out.

However, the media echo they generate - and partially seem responsible for themselves (toilet fees, standing room only, no seat belts etc.) - is such that I just don't want to. I'll pay what it costs to fly with other airlines, take the car or even stay at home. I'm a customer and want to be treated respectfully as such.

Time to rethink the PR strategy?

Cool Guys

11th Dec 2012, 13:38

O'Leary obviously has some good money making practices however you can concentrate on the money side of things too heavily. A weakness in the path he is taking is he is not making any friends. Blue code’s post touched on this. There is inevitably some point in the proceedings of any endeavour where you need friends. In the airline industry this point may be when you eventually have an accident. At this point if most people hate you your life is going to be more difficult. This is just a fact of life. While things are going good nurture your friendships because you may need them one day and it does not cost anything. Politeness, courtesy, being a little humble etc all play a part in this.

gleaf

11th Dec 2012, 18:33

this discusion needs a bit of levity..
We know that R air is reponsible for all flight evil because we also know overweight people blame their spoons.. :E

racedo

11th Dec 2012, 21:00

A weakness in the path he is taking is he is not making any friends.

Among whom ?
The media ?
The same media who 3 months ago still thought Sir Jimmy Saville was a hero......

Not making friends in the populist media is not a bad idea as then you never have to worry about the knives.

Funny how the professional Airline transportation media have a different viewpoint.........then again red top media don't like them as they are plane spotters.

Alexander de Meerkat

12th Dec 2012, 00:08

Sadly cockney steve is not correct with his analysis, beginning with the idea that Ryanair is regulated in the UK. Ryanair's legal team remind me of the days of Robert Maxwell (former owner of the Daily Mirror) who went berserk at any hint of personal criticism of him or his staff. People all around decided to bury their heads in the sand rather than deal with the in-your-face approach of the man himself. The essence of the Ryanair argument is that they have an 'impeccable safety record'. No airline can claim that, and Ryanair is no exception. They want to be considered in the top tier of airlines, but that is simply never going to happen as long as they continue as they do. You can only threaten the Aviation Herald and PPRuNe for so long and get the moderators to send threatening PMs to contributors. There comes a time when the substance of their complaints will be tested, and that day seems to be approaching very rapidly.

Sober Lark

12th Dec 2012, 06:38

"that day seems to be approaching very rapidly"

..and if it was approaching very rapidly do you really believe any insurer would take on the risk? It is the probability of the event NOT happening that we concentrate on.

Sound judgement and rationality required.

racedo

12th Dec 2012, 18:03

You can only threaten the Aviation Herald and PPRuNe for so long and get the moderators to send threatening PMs to contributors. There comes a time when the substance of their complaints will be tested, and that day seems to be approaching very rapidly.

Any business has a right to protect its name from malicious comment, slander and innuendo being written on it.

alicopter

13th Dec 2012, 07:17

So, what you are saying is that the public at large and potential clients should not be aware of what is going on? If what's in these Media is true of course, but if it is not true, it is for them to argue and prove the contrary... not suppress the argument by not allowing it. May be Pilots Unions should not take them (Ryanair) to Courts either all over Europe (by the way, any news about the Aix-en-Provence results that were supposed to be out by the end of the year 2012?)

criss

13th Dec 2012, 08:24

but if it is not true, it is for them to argue and prove the contrary

Hillarious.

alicopter

13th Dec 2012, 09:26

Well, so far I have not seen or heard anyone argue their case with their version of facts we are discussing here... Les absents ont TOUJOURS tort... May be they have never heard of PPrune or the AVHerald... You may find it hilarious but a company saving millions on the back of european tax payers or social security contributors in my opinion is not playing a fair game. It is easy to offer low cost travel when you do not have to pay the right price for your employees and easy to gain market shares against a competition that has to comply to local laws... Ask people what they think of Starbuck, Google, Microsoft, Dell and the rest not paying taxes in the countries they are trading in!!!!!!!
Anyway, watch this space, you might have a surprise soon...