Ryanair Sacks Captain Goss

[ZAV]

After the Channel 4 documentary there seems to be someone who has to take the blame. So Captain Goss is fired...

What I would like to know is how does Ryanair make a profit. It appears to be suing every man and their dog therefore they must spend it all on legal fees ? Chalnel 4 next on the hit list. French Goverrment/Italian Government. Loss of the Court Hearing in London.....

But with all the NG jobs around for the moment why do the Crews put up with this craziness...........

Is there anything positive about this company:confused:

[DirectCF]

Is there anything positive about this company

It's one of the only ones to offer jobs :{
Pilots would go anywhere to feed their family.

[SloppyJoe]

I think what you mean to say is, immature kids who have spent £150,000 of their parents money will do anything to get a picture of themselves as the pilot of a 737 on facebook.

[ManUtd1999]

I hope he takes them to court for unfair dismissal and sues them for a very large amount of compensation. It says everything about the airline that their first reaction to questions regarding safety, however much they don't agree with them, was to sack the whistleblower rather than investigate. The one positive is that the case is bound to generate plenty of publicity and the negative press won't do Ryanair any good at all.

[Boeing Europe]

What NG jobs ??

[TeaTowel]

1. The flight-schools sell an integrated course to people who want but ultimately don't need to be pilots.
2. This generally results in heavy debt. 100k is a life altering amount of money to owe and should not be considered lightly.
3. The guys and girls who still have access to cash, and who suddenly realise the grave situation they are in pay FR, Easy, etc for a job to stave off these debts.
4. Some of their fellow classmates and some on PPrune congratulate them on successfully "getting a job" in these tough times.
5. They bend over to management accept any little bit of cash that they can get, irresponsibly go to work sick, tired, hungry etc and justify it buy saying it will lead to better jobs. They destroy their own profession and future in the process.

This is why people go to FR, no one wants to but they needlessly put themselves into a position where they have to.

6. Starting in 2011 BA and other legacy airlines cop on and instead of hiring the now skint pilots albeit with 2000hrs from the Locos that have given them so much hassle the last 15 years, they introduce their own "cadetships" which are designed to poach the wannabes early while they still have the cash or a parents house to gamble with.

[ZAV]

Boeing Europe..... What do you mean what jobs on the NG....

Dont you visit Flight Global jobs? or the other sites There are even jobs in China one month on and one month on. There are companies in Europe looking for NG Captains............. Get real there is a pilot shortage. :ugh:

[sunburst]

Apologies to all, as I am not a pilot, but please allow me to comment.

The documentary didn't say anything that hasn't been discussed on here for the last few years at least, but did bring it to the attention of the general public.

As I watched it, I knew that Goss going public would cost him his job, and I expect he did too, but as a professional you have a duty to make a stand, especially when it comes to public safety. To just keep your head down and say nothing is equal to being a part of the problem.

Thanks for your time

[limesoda]

Not sure how old Goss was but he honestly looked like such a nice chap! Good on him to put his foot down!

I sure hope with his previous history other airlines will have the sense to offer someone of his seniority a job!

[doubleu-anker]

I know of several people who have lost their jobs after appearing in front of a TV camera. Some people of course, just cannot resist having their mugs on the TV, let alone idiots with big posh voices etc.

If you feel the need to blow the whistle, there are other avenues to take, if you want to keep your job. Appear on TV if you wish to commit employment suicide. If you do insist on being a TV star, remember this very important point. You, as the "star" will have no control over the editing of the program content.

[Payscale]

Where can I see this documentary. Anyone has a link?

[doubleu-anker]

You tube Dispatches | Ryanair: Secrets from the Cockpit | Channel 4 - YouTube is your friend.

God bless you tube.

[truckflyer]

I somehow have a feeling that this is what RPG and John Goss wanted or expected to happen.

I feel in this case Ryanair have done a gross miscalculation of their actions, effect and the consequence of what is to follow now.

RPG now have their official martyr, and can now most likely get further publicity, legal proceedings to follow and more support from more Ryanair pilots for the RPG and most of all make it a media case.

It's time for pilots to start standing united, not just with Ryanair - it's time!

[gatbusdriver]

I am sure Mr Goss knew what was going to happen.

I am also sure that all employees have clauses in their contract with regards contacting and speaking to the press, I know that if I were to speak to the press without permission from those above it would be gross misconduct and I would be sacked.

Lets just hope he did what he did for all the right reasons and that it improves the conditions for our colleagues at Ryanair.

[south coast]

I don't think anyone disputes Ryanair's management style is not the greatest, but I am yet to see hard facts of regulations being broken.

If they operate to the minimum regs then they are safe and I fear the pilot group have shot themselves in the foot because how can you claim the operation is not safe but turn up to work the following day and continue to operate the same way as what is being claimed to be unsafe.

It doesn't reflect well on the crew in my opinion.

This to me appears to be a case of a fight against T&C's and has been hijacked with the mantra of safety to leverage the management in to changing because so far the uniting route has failed.

Not sure what the solution is but, I think they are going about it wrong by using safety as a complaint.

[MaxReheat]

'If they operate to the minimum regs then they are safe'

No, that is a total non sequitur. An airline can cross every T and dot every i with regard to regulation compliance but that does not make them 'safe'.

If that airline is experiencing incidents and accidents that are never reported either through their own safety system (if it exists) or its regulator because of the crews' fear of repercussions from management for doing so, then that is not a 'safe' operator.

There have been no Ryanair smoking-holes-in-the ground so far but just think how much lessened that possibility would be if the airline adopted a less confrontational and aggressive management style. Regrettably, until such time as that appalling human being that heads the company disappears, there is little chance of that happening.

[truckflyer]

"clauses in their contract with regards contacting and speaking to the press"

Of course they can put what they want in a contract, but would it be legally binding?

I would think there is a matter of freedom of speech.

[south coast]

Fair point Max, but the pilot group on the C4 programme appeared to be suggesting the fuel policy was unsafe.

In my opinion, if you meet the requirements of the regs regarding fuel, then you initially start off from what is considered an acceptable and legal safe point...to become 'unsafe' from that point onwards is down to human input/decisions, excluding catastrophic failure or circumstances.

To me the two scenarios don't add up, how can you claim the operation is unsafe and yet continue to operate within it.

Surely it's either safe and you 'go' or it is 'unsafe' and you don't?

How can the group claim it unsafe and yet happily carry people?

Again, my opinion is that while I have every sympathy for the way the crew are treated by the management, and that's why I chose never to apply for a loco (especially Ryanair because I don't like the way they treat employees and paying passengers) the pilot group are attempting to play the 'unsafe' card in order that the pressure the public may exert on the airline by not flying with them may make the management change their style and T&Cs is wrong, that is an in-house issue and should be done internally.

It's a desperate measure carried out by an ever more desperate group who I believe will only be taken seriously when then play the ultimate card of turning off the cash for a day...that's all MOL is interested in and that's all that will make him take notice.

[Dan Winterland]

The fuel policy meets the regulatory requirements - as MOL keeps pointing out. However, the regulations can only stipulate minimums and if a company regards the minimums as a targets then any safety margins are eroded if everything doesn't go to plan - such as the Madrid diversions.

Technically, it's safe - because it operates within the regulations. When the circumstances dictate, human intervention in the form of airmanship should make the operation watertight. However, the documentary asserts the RYR Captains are being pressured into taking flight plan fuel, or a value very close. Of the three aircraft which diverted that night, none had much more than 300Kg over flight plan. I would say in those circumstances, it was less than prudent to carry such little extra and the result was that safety was seriously compromised.

[south coast]

Nice post Dan, but that serves only to confirm that the airline is safe and it is down to crew members to take extra fuel if they believe they will need it or if it compromises safety?

Can we assume that those three crews felt the weather at destination didn't warrant extra fuel?

Lots of companies use fuel 'league' tables so crew members can see where they rank amongst their peers regarding fuel.

I noted the C4 programme didn't offer any hard facts of individuals penalised for carrying extra fuel, only that they had to offer an explanation to justify their decision.

I can't argue with that.

However, show me the facts that management put actual pressure on crew not to take extra fuel or de-ice or crew that have been disciplined for doing so then I will change my mind.

[MaxBlow]

Dear Capt. Goss,

if you don't already have another job, I would certainly like to offer you one if I where in the position.
But I sure can help you getting an interview where I am at present. We need more guys that have some b@lls left.:D

Some might say that going public is like biting the hand that feeds you - on the other hand if there's no one that listens to your safety concerns (beancounters ignorance and greed), no union, no CP (although he probably knew before or even is one of the reason these things are happening) you're running out of options.
You don't like it ? Leave! Todays' common practice - but you'll see that things are changing later on and your remaining collegues will thank you - although nobody will ever tell you because they might be fired too than.

I spoke up and lost jobs and would certainly do it again.

One more reason not to use this company (the list is getting longer).

Feel free to PM me anytime.:ok:

[Old King Coal]

If UK based, this sounds like a perfect opportunity to go to Court and become a test case for article 43J of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/43J)

And which one can listen to being described here: BBC Radio 4 - Law in Action: Whistleblowing; Forgotten children; Legal future of Wales (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qm2fy) [nb. the Whistleblowing section starts at time 3:16 ]

See also: Whistleblowing: a quick guide (http://uk.practicallaw.com/6-500-1812)

[adolf hucker]

As above - completely agree. It's ridiculous to think an operation is either 'safe' or 'unsafe'. It's a scale and while a particular airline may appear to meet the regulatory minima that is a very long way from having a genuine and open safety culture. Mind you, it's great to hear people who haven't experienced working for Ryanair pontificating about what it must be like.

[JPJP]

Lots of companies use fuel 'league' tables so crew members can see where they rank amongst their peers regarding fuel.

Southcoast,

There is no justifiable reason to run a "fuel league" and promote safety. It is by its very nature a competitive set. It's an intrinsically unsafe practice. A company has every right to monitor its fuel usage. A company has every right to train and practice fuel conservation procedures such as single engine taxi. However, using a fuel league identifies, ranks and scores individuals. It introduces subtle competition in an environment that is inappropriate. Depending on the management culture, it leaves individual pilots open to overt or covert discipline or reward.


the pilot group are attempting to play the 'unsafe' card in order that the pressure the public may exert on the airline by not flying with them may make the management change their style and T&Cs is wrong, that is an in-house issue and should be done internally.

I disagree with your assertion that 'minimums are legal, and therefore safe'. A pilot groups T&C do affect safety. As a result they should be included in the discussion. The Colgan accident is an excellent example - Both pilots satisfied the legal minimums for training and rest. Neither were appropriately rested or trained. The First Officers pay was so low that she was forced economically to commute cross country and sleep on crew room floors in order to meet her work requirements. Her wage was close to qualifying for food stamps and her companies draconian sick policy put her in an untenable position. I am not justifying her decisions. I am showing how T&Cs and barely meeting minimums can affect decision making and safety.

This is a slippery slope. The warning signs are there. Hopefully hindsight won't be needed.

[Fogie]

European Union Regulation

"COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 965/2012 of 5 October 2012 (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/IR-OPS) lays down technical requirements and administrative procedures related to air operations pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council.
The regulation contains fuel regulations an example of which is:
"CAT.OP.MPA.150 Fuel policy The operator shall establish a fuel policy for the purpose of flight planning and in-flight replanning to ensure that every flight carries sufficient fuel for the planned operation and reserves to cover deviations from the planned operation. The fuel policy and any change to it require prior approval by the competent authority"


This is a mature process ,which is not about minimum compliance,if planned and approved according to ICAO Fuel Planning Manual Doc 9976.

[south coast]

JPJP, Adolf and Looking...please explain to me the validity of the argument made by the group that the operation is unsafe, yet they all turn up for work each day and knowingly embark upon alleged 'unsafe' practices therefore putting their own lives and that of the publics at risk?

Can't have it both ways, it's either unsafe and you refuse to fly or it's safe and you fly.

Can you imagine if one of the planes that diverted fell out the sky due to no fuel, who's fault would that be, the management's or the PIC's...I reckon i know who the accident investigation board would apportion most of the blame to.

[JPJP]

By South coast -...please explain to me the validity of the argument made by the group that the operation is unsafe, yet they all turn up for work each day and knowingly embark upon alleged 'unsafe' practices therefore putting their own lives and that of the publics at risk?

Can't have it both ways, it's either unsafe and you refuse to fly or it's safe and you fly.

Can you imagine if one of the planes that diverted fell out the sky due to no fuel, who's fault would that be, the management's or the PIC's...I reckon i know who the accident investigation board would apportion most of the blame to.

South coast,

In essence, your questions have been reduced to - 'why would they do it if it was unsafe'. Followed by - 'the pilots will be blamed if people die, so why would they do it ?'. I also notice that you addressed none of the relevant points that I made in an earlier post.

Unfortunately this leads me to believe one of two things;

1. You have no experience, training or belief in cultural safety systems, human factors and management.

2. You are being deliberately obtuse in order to further a perception that your argument does indeed support safe airline operations. Sadly, the converse has been written in blood. Repeatedly. It also indicates that you are either not an airline pilot, or you have something to gain from an attitude of 'all's well nothing to see here'.

Never fear, you're not alone. I'm sure that the same reasoning is being used in the management offices of an un named Indonesian carrier at this very moment.

I think we're done here.

[AndyPandy068]

I don't get it. Either the rules are safe or they are not. If they are then why the whinging? If they are not why do you fly each day?:confused:

[10Watt]

difficult to say,

when you gained your professional licence did you not have any qualms

as to what might be expected ?

[AndyPandy068]

I fly helicopters not jets, but if I was asked to fly an unsafe flight I would refuse, end of.

[10Watt]

Just out of interest,

who, in their right mind, is going to ask you to fly an unsafe flight ?

[AndyPandy068]

Ryanair according to the thread. :\

[10Watt]

So Ryanair asked you to fly your helicopter on their behalf ?

Do you have a professional licence ?

[AndyPandy068]

I have two. An American one and a European one. You lack focus. Either the fuel rules are safe or they are not. I would never lift without being 100% happy with my fuel load for diversions, why would that be different for a jet pilot? :ok:

[10Watt]

Do you have a professional licence ?

[AndyPandy068]

Asked and answered, you just want to whine. Carry on, that is all.:hmm:

[10Watt]

Do you have a professional licence ?





Sorry folks, actually as a non Ryanair pilot , one struggling for a living,

l find this cr*p offensive.

l hope l haven`t caused offence to the licenced atco`s, engineers, and

pilots watching.

[AndyPandy068]

Please reasure me that they don't allow you in charge up front :sad:

[10Watt]

lt has been known.

Any chance that you could take the bus in future and practice your

games silently ?

[Dan Winterland]

@ South Coast

Nice post Dan, but that serves only to confirm that the airline is safe and it is down to crew members to take extra fuel if they believe they will need it or if it compromises safety?

My implication is that the regs define the minimums and if you assume the regulators have got it right, then risk should be mostly mitigated and the operation will be as safe as the travelling public can expect.

However, often the circumstances dictate that more than minimum fuel should be carried and those circumstances should and need to be determined by the flight deck crew. If there is external pressure to take less, then safety is compromised. This is the thrust of the documentary - and seemed to be it's only and rather laboured point. They had had more, but I suspect this was the only thing the lawyers told them they could run with.



Can we assume that those three crews felt the weather at destination didn't warrant extra fuel?


I don't know. Maybe they didn't Perhaps, the culture of taking minimum fuel in RYR clouded their judgement and sensible reserves weren't carried. Or perhaps they did, but the pressure from within the company dissuaded them from doing so. Either way, they took less than was prudently safe, despite being technically legal.

As a pilot in an airline which regularly flies into airports with similar ATC and weather issues as the three Ryanair Madrid crews encountered, I would happily state, that in my humble opinion, they didn't have enough fuel. Personally, I would have taken as a minimum about four times the reserves the highest fuelled aircraft was carrying that night. And my company would never have questioned it, or applied pressure for me to take less. In fact, in more than 10 years with this company, I have never had a fuel decision questioned.

However, show me the facts that management put actual pressure on crew not to take extra fuel or de-ice or crew that have been disciplined for doing so then I will change my mind.

Will this do? (It's from 2008, but it sets the scene.)

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/ryr1_zps072811df.png (http://s210.photobucket.com/user/dbchippy/media/ryr1_zps072811df.png.html)

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/ryr2_zps561c7253.png (http://s210.photobucket.com/user/dbchippy/media/ryr2_zps561c7253.png.html)

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb73/dbchippy/ryr3_zps7359ccf7.png (http://s210.photobucket.com/user/dbchippy/media/ryr3_zps7359ccf7.png.html)

Source: raE Low RYANAIR com FARES AtmtimE Pilot Memo Re (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4219812/raE-Low-RYANAIR-com-FARES-AtmtimE-Pilot-Memo)

[adolf hucker]

Thanks, Dan. Excellent post.

If south coast can't see that there is undue pressure being applied to discourage pilots from taking additional fuel then he is either being deliberately obtuse or has another agenda. The point is that although pilots are similarly qualified, there is a broad range of experience and attitude. Some pilots would take the above memo with a pinch of salt and carry justifiable extra fuel when needed. However, other pilots would be swayed by such a communication from an unforgiving management and would allow their fuel decision to be influenced by the perceived negative consequences (letter from base captain, denial of base transfer, no allocation of hours on a paid by the hour contract etc etc).

One might argue that such a pilot is at fault for lacking the fortitude to make a decision based solely on safety or you might argue that the company is at fault for putting fuel costs before safety. It is hard to argue that safety margins have not been compromised.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the 'memo' I see nothing in there that is unreasonable regarding extra fuel. It appears that Ryanair's fuel policy is the same as all three airlines that I've flown for.

If Ryanair are happy for you to carry minimum fuel then do so. If Ryanair are happy to deal with and pay for a multitude of diversions because of that then so be it.

Make sure you divert early, just to be on the safe side.

[Globalstream]

Thanks for a copy of the memo. From my perspective, the documentary, Captain Goss and the Ryanair pilots who have spoken out are well justified in their concerns- what a gutter standard this fuel policy represents.

Does anyone know the name of the author? I see he didn't put his name to it!

[45989]

It actually is quite simple. I position quite a lot but I NEVER accept travelling with ruinair.
Guess why?

[saddest aviator]

Hi All,
I worked for Ryanair a few years ago before decamping to sunnier climes and the major reason was that I could see the writing on the wall then!
There has been a culture at Ryanair for many years of eroding the Commanders authority, with he or she quite clearly being required to have the burden of responsibility.
The SOP's are a good example! Yes extremely thorough, but unnecessarily onerous when compared to standard boeing. The companies attitude was that theirs were better, that is fine but is it wise to bin years of research that companies like boeing have done to provide a safe baseline for the operation of their aircraft.
The cynic in me would suggest that as Ryanair as an airline DO EXPECT A HULL LOSS AT SOME TIME procedures and systems should be in place to try and shift the burden of responsibility to a crew. What better way as saying they didnt adhere religiously to our SOP's and therefore while unfortunate, not our blame to shoulder.
Ryanair is a really unpleasant place to work, the quite unnecessary stress put on crews as a means of control, harking back to victorian mill owner values.
Hopefully within a few months the authorities will be minded to take a really close look at this airline before something dire befalls customer and crew alike:=

[south coast]

If south coast can't see that there is undue pressure being applied to discourage pilots from taking additional fuel then he is either being deliberately obtuse or has another agenda

I read the memo and see a company that chooses to operate to the absolute minimum as laid out by EASA.

What I have not seen, are facts or evidence of someone being disciplined for carrying extra fuel while offering a reasonable reason for that decision.

All companies try to encourage PICs from taking unnecessary fuel and increasing costs without any real need to.

You could say the way they ask their crew to comply with this is done in an aggressive way, but I think whether it is dressed up in a 'nice and gentle' format or is as blunt as Ryanair, the message is the same, "avoid unnecessary costs".

But show me the paragraph in that memo that says you will be disciplined or your career affected if you take extra fuel.

I have no agenda in defending Ryanair, I don't like the way they operate, but I try to have an opinion based on facts and I am not convinced the airline is unsafe, as that is the claim against them.

I agree, they treat their crew and passengers in an unpleasant way, but is it unsafe or illegal, I think not.

It's like the pax who complain about having to pay €60 or whatever it is if they show at the airport without having checked in on line, it's the same people who book with Ryanair on the basis they want a no frills, cheap flight, but then when do not comply with the legal methods which allow Ryanair to be able to offer cheap tickets, they feel aggrieved.

Reality check please, it's not that Ryanair has embarked upon this management style or operation method recently, all those who have joined knew how they operate and that they will be expected to work to the minimum limits of what is laid out in EU-Ops, if they weren't happy to work to those minimum limits, I question their decision to work for an operator who chooses to operate that way, which is not unsafe or illegal.

Surely the first question one asks them self before joining an operator is, "Are they safe and legal", before the T&Cs are considered, or did that question slip through the net of all Ryanair's employees?

I have every sympathy for the crew, we all like an extra margin of safety, and I think in essence that's what this debate is really about, margins of safety.

Commercial pressure and safety are a see-saw and each company chooses where that see-saw sits with those two factors at each end, too much one way and you are unsafe and will have an accident, too much the other and you will never fly and go bust.

I believe Ryanair are at the limit of that analogy in favour of commercial factors, so while there is no fat for manoeuvre with that scenario, I genuinely do not believe it to be unsafe or illegal.

Finally, JPJP, you seemed pretty quick to belittle my opinion, while I am happy to listen to yours and I respect it, I get the impression you don't like one contrary to your own as you showed little to no respect for mine.

[taxi_driver]

I see that memo is unsigned and undated. While it makes some valid points it is not written in the spirit of safety, no blame culture, and is very negative in its tone.

It includes numerous reasons why extra fuel shouldn't be carried, and not a single example of when carrying extra was a good decision.

There is a dark grey area between savings and safety.

[BN2A]

I think Saddest Aviator has ended any argument...

My company discourage carrying too much fuel, as do most I would imagine. But there are NO repercussions or bullying/pressure if you do so... Again, I'm sure most companies are similar.

"I'm paid to feel comfortable" I was told by a skipper many years ago... Is that the case everywhere??

[45989]

BN2A You are right on the button.

[south coast]

Nicely said BN2A

My employer also asks us to be considerate when uploading fuel, but we are under no pressure to carry minimum fuel, we are asked to offer a reason as to why we take something other than originally planned, which I think is fair because they need to be able to collect data and in order for the analysis and statistics to be accurate, mitigation needs to be be given.

My question remains, what are the actual repercussions backed up with facts for people who carry more fuel than planned at Ryanair when a legitimate reason is given?

Can anyone offer expamples of such disciplining or is it just the perceived fear of what could happen that we are considering to be undue pressure?

[RAT 5]

Somewhat more important is the knowledge how to calculate extra fuel required. In many airlines there seemed to be weak education. I always asked the F/O first what fuel they wanted. Looking at the weather there was the comment that perhaps we needed a little extra and a figure or 300 or 500 or 700kgs was plucked out of the air. No calculation or realisation of what that would allow you to do. There was eye opening when I put some numbers down in a list which included 15 mins hold, 2 approaches, (might be circling) 5 mins to organise a diversion from a non-radar airfield and then divert to an alternate with an NPA and arrive feeling comfortable on fuel. The extra fuel this calculated was quite a bit more than 'a little extra'. The next question from the F/O was "are we allowed to do that?" Heaven help us.
There was also the intercontinental charter airline flying Europe to a Caribbean island with no radar and procedural NPA, who insisted that we carry FPL fuel because the contingency fuel was about 45mins and that was enough extra. I tried to point out that we were flying west, usually a head wind jet up to 150kts which we would try to avoid, but...... with an Atlantic CRZ of 7 hours into this headwind and perhaps optimum -2000'. The contingency would disappear. The Alternate was another similar island. The return crew was at destination and on minimum FTL's to make the return trip. The a/c had to land at destination even if it meant holding for 1 hour to allow the crew make the return flight within FTL's. etc. etc. We never left with less than comfortable sensible fuel. It would depend on the jet, strength & position relative to track, and destination weather. Sometimes it was minimum fuel, often not, but the lack of understanding & courage from the F/O was disturbing. It is very easy to brow-beat brain wash & clone pilots. Is that safe? Another issue in the maze of safety discussions.

[gatbusdriver]

Our company policy is to ask us to carry the correct fuel.

Can't ask much more than that. We do still annotate the plug for the reason why. I have no issue with this. I carry plog on most occasions. I have also loaded 2 tons extra. I base my decisions on all factors on the day. Taxy, ATC, weather at departure/en-route/destination, NOTAMS etc etc

I realise this may not be common place, but in my company captains are captains.

[JPJP]

Southcoast - Finally, JPJP, you seemed pretty quick to belittle my opinion, while I am happy to listen to yours and I respect it, I get the impression you don't like one contrary to your own as you showed little to no respect for mine.

South coast,

I respect your right to have an opinion. I do not respect your opinion. There's a difference. Apologies if I've offended you.

Regarding the Memo-

Reading the fuel memo only confirms to me what is going on. I have never seen anything like it. It's 'pushing' in its clearest form. It's also pushing some very low numbers. I can see why they are stated as a minimum by the regulators. It appears that they're seen as a goal by some.

The 'Fuel Memo' uses a 1136KG Final Reserve fuel number. It's absolutely ridiculous to promote that number as a normal part of daily operations. It's an emergency. The Low Fuel lights on our 73NG illuminate at 900KG (2000 lb) for each side. At 1136KG, the Low Fuel lights have been on for some time. It requires about 600 KG to do one trip around the circuit in a 737-700. By that reserve number, you may not make a second one.

Thankfully, I've never seen the ethos that drove that 'Fuel Memo' in a workplace.

[SR71]

JAR Ops 1.255 ii (e) specifically allows for the Commander to upload any extra fuel in addition to the standard required components that he/she deems necessary for the safe completion of the flight.

So at Ryanair, one must play them at their own game.

The question to the anonymous author of the memo must be "Are you seeking to prevent me from taking action which I believe necessary for the safe conduct of my flight?"

We live in an age of profligate litigation, precisely because companies like Ryanair chose to uphold, not the spirit of the law, but the letter.

Bankers/Google/Amazon have tried to use this type of defence recently but the tide of public opinion suggests people are tiring of it, rightly so, IMO.

Utterly contemptible in such a safety critical industry.

[AndyPandy068]

I realy don't get it JP why would you fly without sufficient fuel?

[aa73]

Just curious, but how was CA Goss recognized through the distorted voices and dark room interview?

[JPJP]

AndyPandy06 - I realy don't get it JP why would you fly without sufficient fuel?

I don't Andy. But some will - People make poor decisions when they are financially pressured, sick, fatigued, or brow beaten. We've know this for years. If we ignore it then we have made no progress.

I've been lucky enough to work for a company that doesn't question my fuel decisions. Some aren't, and we should support those that aren't backed by a solid multi layered safety system. That memo speaks for itself.

[Dan Winterland]

Just curious, but how was CA Goss recognized through the distorted voices and dark room interview?

He wasn't one of the anonymous pilots, he spoke overtly. I suspect he knew his dismissal would be assured by doing so, so I assume he had planned to retire or has another job to go to.

In any case, well done to him for having the courage to highlight the dangers of RYR's fuel policy. He has my utmost respect and should have the respect of all line pilots.

[south coast]

Dan, I agree the memo seeks to (positively) deter crew from taking extra fuel, but you know as well as I do that the company would always defend that memo as not an instruction to compromise safety with regards to fuel.

However, can you offer actual evidence or facts that if someone exercises their right as the PIC to deviate from the memo and take extra fuel because they believe safety will be compromised has been negatively disciplined for doing so.

Is it the perceived fear of what will happen to them that deters people or have examples been made?

I think we need to know what happens to those who deviate from the memo.

[Leg]

So Ducky can go on the box with boring regularity to berate anyone and everything, including his own staff and his own company, but Capt Goss is not allowed to speak about HIS experience? Huge double standards here and I hope he takes this disgraceful excuse for an airline to the cleaners.

Dan & others of similar ilk, spot on, South Coast & Andypandy geez... :ugh:

[south coast]

I just want to read the facts Leg, and till now it's all been fairly light on facts and hard evidence, more sensationalism and personal opinion.

Unfortunately, that's not how I like to come to a conclusion.

I have no agenda one way or the other on Ryanair, I am not employed by them nor do I intend to be, but claiming an airline is unsafe is a massive statement and needs massive facts to back it up, that's my only reason for actually wanting to hear the facts.

If that deserves a 'geeez' well I hope you are never called on jury service.

[SR71]

South Coast,

Its a bit like claiming that no-one exceeds 70 on the motorway because thats the limit. Try driving at 70 on the motorway and see what comes past you.

In addition, because 99% of people exceeding it are never charged for so doing, the reality must be, that nobody is exceeding the limit.

Nevertheless, this is arguably the logic de jour.

:ugh:

The lack of, what you want to call "hard evidence" (this is always going to be the case unless more pilots of the ilk of Goss are willing to stand up and make the internal procedures of Ryanair common knowledge, with all the attendant consequences) doesn't mean that the testimonies of countless Ryanair pilots represents some enormous conspiracy does it?

I'd be the first to agree that adding a couple of hundred kilos of juice for the sake of it, isn't the mark of a professional, but that memo is an abomination.

:yuk:

[aa73]

Thanks Dan Winterland, agree 100%... Every pilot flying the line today owes CA Goss a huge debt of gratitude.

[blind pew]

Are we talking about the same program?
Whilst I saw that channel 4 were going on about a unique fuel policy ..which it by and large isn't ....BEA had a similar mentality of writing the reasons on the nav log on the Trident and league tables which led to office visits without tea and biscuits in the 1970s.
The difference then was that we had a union and a lot of ex bomber boys who would tell upstairs to stick it. (I read many facisious remarks but the most popular was Captain's discretion, followed by weather then for the wife and kids).
What Goss excellently stated was that pilots had concerns about safety and they felt that these were not being correctly addressed especially by the authorities - hardly a reason to sue him for libel.
Having dealt with several authorities including the IAA I am in 100% agreement with Goss.
A friend of mine said of him from his Air Corps days "a very black and white officer".
Rare breed indeed!

[mona lot]

My favourite remark on the voyage report when explaining extra fuel, B.I.T.F.C.:ok:

[RAT 5]

I flew with an independently minded captain in the days when in a charter airline the captain was commander, decision maker of everything, bottle washer et al. We were doing a charter for a legacy carrier who had dispatchers who decided the fuel. On a short sector from home base, with fog at destination, the captain ordered round trip fuel, much to the annoyance of the dispatcher, who questioned the decision, much to annoyance of the captain. A written explanation was required. The captain wrote "ME." The dispatcher then asked what Mike Echo was code for. The captain stuffed 4 rigs under his nose. The fog delays and holding caused many to be out of schedule and long delays for re-fuelling. We had enough fuel and left on time from destination. Lesson learnt. There's more to fuel than just a few € at the end of your nose. The rest of the day stayed on schedule and no costs for delays, cancellations, missed connections etc. etc. We are a customer service industry. Let's keep it that way. Too many managers forget that and think we are only a bonus/profit generating industry. The attitude is that if it is cheap enough there will always be enough suckers.
Market/competition forces will always be at work. it may take longer than sooner, but quality will always survive.

[Dan Winterland]

Dan, I agree the memo seeks to (positively) deter crew from taking extra fuel, but you know as well as I do that the company would always defend that memo as not an instruction to compromise safety with regards to fuel.

However, can you offer actual evidence or facts that if someone exercises their right as the PIC to deviate from the memo and take extra fuel because they believe safety will be compromised has been negatively disciplined for doing so.


No, it's purely anecdotal - and deliberately so. RYR are quite clever and would not give a disgruntled former employee the opportunity to go to the press with evidence of safety breaches. There are other ways of keeping the troops in line. For example, someone who regularly takes extra fuel and has to repeatedly has to explain why may find themselves demoted or sacked on another seemingly minor matter, like not going into discretion. RYR seem to prefer to generate a climate of fear and mistrust which they can manipulate. There is more than enough evidence that this goes on, but little of it hard evidence. The fuel memo is a good example. There is no mention of the penalties for taking more fuel than the management think is necessary, but the threat is quite clearly there. if you work in that environment and hear stories of someone on another base who got the sack for doing so, then you will fall in line. It's an environment of fear. And although this environment is again purely anecdotal, based on anonymous pilots who are too afraid to identify themselves on the Dispatches and the Dutch TV programme, this itself speaks volumes. The relentless suppression and attempts to vilify those who seek unionisation with RYR is a good example of their success in controlling the workforce.

Many of us will know ex RYR pilots. I was flying with one recently who was telling me of some of the 'management' techniques of RYR. They're astounding. I also have a mate in RYR who doesn't want to talk about work when we meet for a beer. But when he does, he appears to rapidly acquire Tourettes syndrome. He leaves me with no doubt as to his personal feelings regarding his employer.

[adolf hucker]

That's it exactly. It doesn't matter if the negative consequence is written in black and white (as south coast would like to see) or if it is just perceived, the result is the same - pilots making imprudent decisions due to external pressure. In the case of Ryanair, I can confirm first-hand that such pressure exists and that the fear culture is deliberately fostered. That is not an environment where many will be prepared to stick their head above the parapet whether to defend their terms or report safety issues.

Believe me, if you haven't worked there you just have no idea. My tourette's has improved markedly since I left. I recall one particular memo from one of the management clowns which had me in a spectacular rage for days. The only way I could deal with it was by resigning.

[south coast]

Adolf, it's not that I was trying to be difficult I was trying to be impartial and form an opinion on hard facts as opposed to just anecdotal accounts.

However, that seems extremely difficult on this matter, so I take your word for it.

[BN2A]

What a nasty man Al Capone was back in his day.... Evading paying tax, what a disgrace, and what an offence to go down in history for!!

Can't believe people thought he was responsible for murder, extortion, gang crime, robbery, etc etc etc etc.... After all there was no hard evidence!!!!

:hmm:

[south coast]

BN2A

Organised crime boss versus an AOC holding airline operation regulated by an independent authority, yep, I see the similarities.

after all there was no hard evidence

I am amazed that you think it wrong to want to have factual evidence before imposing such a slur on an organisation's name, that remains my opinion but I do also understand the complexities of the case and that hard evidence may well be hard to gather, which i do agree doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen.

What if we turned this situation around 180 degrees and an advert were placed in a national newspaper and claimed Capt X, Y or Z were unsafe at operating a plane, that also disregarded regulations and bullied their colleagues into doing things which were unsafe but was unable to offer hard facts to back up the allegations, do you think those accusations would be justifiable without hard facts in a court of law when Capt X, Y and Z sue for defamation.

In fact, if I was one of the captains with such allegations against me, I would very much want the accuser to be ale to offer hard facts against me to back up such damaging accusations.

The law works on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, if we don't have the law we have chaos.

[16024]

South Coast, your posts are a model of restraint and reasonableness, but I'd point out that only criminal law works that way. Otherwise it's Balance of Probability.

[Heathrow Harry]

Whilst what Ryanair is doing seems to be legal - no doubt their lawyers have crawled all over their employment policies - they are taking a hell of a risk

If there is an accident (God forbid) and the tabloids go for them then claiming "it's all legal" will not stop a firestorm of biased, incorrect and malicious reporting that will do them some permanent damage

We've seen other companies and individuals get the tabloid treatment and they will get the same stick

[rick.shaw]

Seems to me, if not already stated, that like in many other airlines around the world, we are our own worst enemies - in that we keep our employers out of the sh.t by being highly professional as we go about our day's work. And don't the bosses know that!! They rely on that to keep the wheels from falling off. And what do we get for that??????

[LNIDA]

Ryanair have to be cheap and cheap means ultra low cost base, everything is done with that goal in mind, whilst i thought the tone of the memo was a bit churlish the content was fair and made some valid points, the fact is a lot of aircraft Commanders carry far more fuel than they need* with some its just laziness, many an F/o will know only to well the P1's who turn up at last minute report not having read the Wx or NOTAM's and say whats min block? A 6300kg ok stick 7000kgs on

* need is a funny thing I always take what i believe i will need, no more no less and this is after a discussion with F/0, sometimes this is a lot more than what they had in mind, early Spring CB's +500m +sn ABZ & EDI are classic examples of how people get caught out, what is the point of putting an extra 500kg on a 737 if your going to hold for 40 minutes whilst the sweep the runway?, you either put an hours holding fuel or you might as well go with min fuel and divert early, of course if its a prob 30 it might not happen if its a prob 40 it could very likely happen but might not, i would be very interested to hear what FR management would say if you took min fuel and diverted with that forecast, it might be better to ring ops and say what would you like me to do fuel wise? if they say "your the skipper, your call" then just record the call? they are recorded anyway i gather......

The one line i do take issue with is the childish comment of landing with 1136 KG so land with 1137 your ok but with 1135 its an MOR or ought to be.......

Ladies & Gentleman (pause for fan fare) you'll be delighted to know that we have arrived at xxx with enough fuel to fly for another 30-45 minute, before the engines would have stopped & the rules allow us to do that..........

I personally don't doubt their safety, its the culture that offends me professionally

[Enecosse]

I have scanned through the thread and read the memo. I thought it was quite reasonable (the memo)
This issue is not just pertinent to RyanAir and 2013 I have seen this discussed everywhere.
Pilots like extra fuel for a number of reasons often abstract reasons generally explained as a safety issue. Companies want to cut costs and apply the rules to try and control pilots propensity to fuel extravagance. No shock horror please you know what I am talking about. I recognised a few of those examples (in different companies) makes me smile with people talking about being professional and we have colleagues with homemade fuel policies.
There is probably a middle ground and I personally don't see taking extra fuel from plog required with sound reasons as a problem, I also never had a problem with required fuel if there was no reason to take extra.
I don't work for RyanAir, my current outfit doesn't blink an eye if the tanks are full as long as payload is not compromised so I can pontificate in comfort.
Just my view as an outsider looking in, I am not suggesting that people fly around with less fuel than that which is required to get the job done safely and it's a sad day if that is the perception RyanAir is giving it's work force.
Good luck to the chap out of a job, sounds like he needs some support from the workforce or is that another problem we pilots have.

[RAT 5]

Whilst what Ryanair is doing seems to be legal - no doubt their lawyers have crawled all over their employment policies - they are taking a hell of a risk

The thing about some law is the interpretation. That is why 2 lawyers debate
in front of a judge or jury and try to convince them they have the correct argument. They both believe they are right and are there to test it. RYR's employment practices have not been through that test, and we have read on here, from many contributors, that many believe they are employees while other are not too sure. There have been very few, if any, categoric declarations that an individual believes he is fairly a self-employed pilot with all the freedoms and obligations that implies. I would therefore hold judgement on the quality of RYR's legal bods until it is tested in the proper place. Remember how many legal cases they have lost; and assuming their lawyers told them they had a good change to win. I suspect they have a negative goal difference.

[south coast]

I personally don't doubt their safety, its the culture that offends me professionally

LNIDA, you have summed up in a single sentence what I have been trying to say in many posts now, my thanks.

[truckflyer]

Parat won over Ryanair Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal has a ruling concluded that the former Ryan employee, Alessandra Cocca, can sue the company for the Norwegian court. Court of Appeal ruling is in line with current EU law, as opposed to what Moss Court previously found.


Parat has brought the case on behalf of Alessandra Cocca with intervention from LO and LO's legal department. Christen Horn Johannessen has represented Cocca in the case.
- Verdict is in line with what we have claimed and are in line with current EU law. In our assessment of the legislation could not court reach a different result. Norwegian law must prevail in Norway, says Horn Johannessen Parat. Deputy Parat, Vegard Einan, Ryanair hopes will appeal to the Supreme Court. - Ryanair went hard after ruling in court and I look forward to whatever they want to do. Verdict in the Court of Appeal confirms our assertion that Ryanair systematically and at the coarsest have violated Norwegian law for many years. This ruling protects Norwegian workers' rights against large corporations who think they freely can choose which laws to follow, says Einan. Einan says ruling will have consequences for all other airlines based in Norway. - Regardless of country of registration of the aircraft will employees base in Norway have full rights under Norwegian law says Einan. Court of Appeal's decision on Norwegian jurisdiction may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Questions about the choice of law is not yet considered by the court and will later come up Moss Court. - In this ruling the Court of Appeal, it will be virtually impossible for the court to reach a different result than that Norwegian law shall be applied when the case comes up for Court ruling to the Court of Appeal is formulated, says Horn Johannessen.


Parat - Parat vant over Ryanair i lagmannsretten (http://www.parat.com/list.aspx?m=7&amid=354091)

Good riddance MOL.

[RAT 5]

Is this the flood gates about to open across the EU? I thought something similar had been concluded many years ago ref. cabin crew sacking in Belgium. RYR claimed they were not full-timers under EI law and thus could be dismissed according to EI law, but the judge ruled that they had been employed for >6 months at a Belgium base and thus Belgium law was in force and after 6 months they were considered full-timers and protected.

[M33]

Having just read through this thread quickly I may have missed something. But I would ask how do you judge safety?

My thought would be that it is not as simple as judging intelligence, can you do a test? Can you find hard facts?

Is a company safe because it hasn't had an incident? If it continues to not have an incident is it still safe? Perhaps it is spending too much money on the SMS, perhaps it should reduce its spending! Then at that point is it still safe?

Or is it luck, inevitability?

Do you let a toddler cross a busy road on its own? If it makes it across was it safe?

[DiCaprio]

SLF alert:

I live in Europe, and work/fly all over the place.

I find that the vast majority of European safety legislation is - if anything - overly conservative/protective. The national speed limit for cars in most places has remained essentially unchanged for the 35 years I've been driving, notwithstanding the quantum leaps made in vehicular design and safety. Hell, I'm not even allowed to have a medium-rare hamburger for fear of e-coli, or whatever.

My point is that the minimum safe fuel uplift, as required by EU and presumably NA law, is surely ALREADY conservative. If so (and I'd love to be corrected on this) then Ryanair's apparent policy of regarding the minimum uplift as a target is perfectly legitimate.

It's not as if Ryanair (or any carrier's) aircraft are running out of gas on even an occasional basis, is it?

[DiCaprio]

I'm not a pilot, but I know a lot about how good companies work, and their attendant management styles.

Trust me when I tell you that many of the very best, most profitable and MOST ADMIRED companies in the world are not run by nice guys. MO'L is widely disliked (especially, it seems, on this and other professional fora)...but he deserves a lot of credit for his clarity of vision, and dogged pursuit of a very clearly stated business purpose. They won't admit it, but most other airline CEO's would sell their own children to be in his position.

Cheap, safe, and does what it says on the tin, IMHO....

(Just to ward off the inevitable flak, my only connection to RYR is that I'm a regular customer).

[Leg]

But you miss the point, as do most who try to compare airlines with selling beans or whatever, it is very different, because when it goes Pete Tong you cannot just pull the beans off the shelf, or pull over to the side of the road when the car manufacturer has screwed up. It is VERY different and if you are not in the industry I am sorry, but you just don't get it.

Also to say he should be praised for his 'clarity of vision', is that the same vision he has that his passengers are idiots? That his pilots are 'Aerosexuals'?

You need to do a bit more research before posting. :rolleyes:

[20driver]

Simple fact is Ryanair has a top tier safety record in an industry that has a incredibly good safety record. Compared to railroads, crash of the week anyone?, and not even in the same universe as cars, flying is a very safe activity.

So punters pay their money and take their choice. Picking Ryanair is a very logical choice for those who want to save some money and put up the terms.
Given their passenger numbers they must do something right.

AF undoubtable provides all the terms and conditions the moaning minnies insist are necessary for safety but are they safer? Does anyone care what the CEO of an airline, or any business thinks of them? Why should they? I have yet to hear of anyone being forced to buy a ticket on Ryanair.

For years there has being a large contingent on here predicting Ryanair is about to bury one due to their unsafe operation. Still has not happened.

Maybe the people who vote with their cash are wiser than some of the "experts"on here give them credit for.

[Dan Winterland]

My point is that the minimum safe fuel uplift, as required by EU and presumably NA law, is surely ALREADY conservative. If so (and I'd love to be corrected on this) then Ryanair's apparent policy of regarding the minimum uplift as a target is perfectly legitimate.

I would like to respond to your invitation to correct you on this.

If the 5% contingency is burnt because of getting a flight level two below planned or a 100nm weather deviation, then you are arriving with NO fuel to spare. If something goes slightly wrong, you are diverting. The diversion is planned so that you land at your alternate airfield with 30 minutes fuel remaining. If you don't then this is an emergency.

If the 5% contingency fuel is used up (not uncommon), there is no spare in the planning. Nothing. These figures are not conservative. They are minimums. Absolute minimums.

If you want an example of how trusting the company provided ''legal'' fuel plan can go wrong, then this is it:

http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/5B31C35A-EED0-4ABF-860B-D4BD396F5B04/118469/2010_010_IN_FINAL_ENG.pdf

This crew, bought up in the ''low cost'' culture didn't consider carrying extra fuel to an airfield where there was a known potential for problems and ended up having to declare a Mayday. The passengers posting on this forum may not see much wrong with it, but running an airliner out of fuel is not quite like running out of fuel in your car. Most of the professional pilots reading this report will get goose bumps.

Now consider the case of several aircraft approaching a busy airport all with close to minimum fuel, and a thunderstorm has to all and intents, rendered the airport unusable. However, the aircraft have to make the approach because they don't have the fuel to hold to let the storm pass. They can't make the approach, so have to go around and divert. Now, four of them want to go to their alternate at the same time, but that airfield can't cope so tells them to hold. But they can't do that. They are flying with the legal minimum and that doesn't factor in further holding at the alternate. The result:

Three Ryanair mayday calls go out on same day - Independent.ie (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-ryanair-mayday-calls-go-out-on-same-day-26886838.html)

The policy of uploading the legal minimum; by definition; is legal. The pertinent question to ask is, ''Is it safe?''. Often it is, but frequently there are factors which make taking the legal minimum imprudent. The responsibilities of the Commander in all aviation jurisdictions require him/her to take enough fuel and reserves considering all the factors and possible contingencies - it is his/her legal responsibility. And this doesn't means that by taking the legal minimum they will always fulfil this requirement. However, the drive for greater profits in the "low cost'' airline industry has seen managers gradually reduce the Captain's authority to do this. But one thing is for sure, if the Captain does run out of fuel, it's he/she who will be legally responsible - and the manager, through careful wording of fuel policy instructions will be largely absolved. A company cannot legally prevent a Captain from taking extra fuel, but he can easily be intimidated into following policy.

As a Captain myself, I never take the minimums. For a start, I fly for a "full fares'' airline and our fuel policy requires us to arrive with quite a bit more than the legal requirements. And because I operate in an environment with high ground, poor weather, political considerations and where ATC delays are common, I regularly load more and I have never had this questioned by the company. As passenger, you have to ask yourself which airline would you rather fly with, if the ticket price was the same. And then, are you willing to fly with an airline which treats the legal minimums as a target in order to save a few dollars.

If you treat the legal minimums as a target, you are eroding safety margins and going to have incidents. Airline travel is safe, and Ryanair have an enviable safety record. Unfortunately, the statistics are compiled taking into account actual accidents and not reported incidents.

[autoflight]

There is widespread confusion amongst slf between minimum safe fuel and minimum fuel. Absolute minimum fuel is a legal amount that cannot ever be reduced before departure. Within the same regulations there is reference to other conditions that may require more than the absolute minimum. Like very bad weather or very busy airports. Not so obvious to the casual observer will be fuel calculations that allow for additional fuel burn for engine failure at a critical point of the flight etc.

When all of the operator approved fuel load and all the little extras that are present but not detailed in the regs, are carried, you have the minimum fuel actually intended by regulation. The actual quantity of some of the extras is determined by the captain. If the regulation extras are actually needed in a particular case, but not carried the captain is not complying with regulations.

If the crew, during flight, negligently allows or causes the fuel to not include the known required extras, the flight is not technically compliant, and safety is degraded. If the minimum extras have been expertly considered and the crew conserve that fuel while it is still required, the aircraft commenced with minimum fuel. If conditions require extras, they are not optional.

So really, there is no minimum safe fuel, just minimum fuel. If an operator successfully induces captains to take less than their fully assessed minimum fuel, or the captain's expert assessment is deficient, the flight is not legal, and the operator and/or the pilot are unsafe.

In this context, extra fuel does not mean more than is needed to be legal. It means the additional required fuel above the absolute minimum that some pilots are pressured to accept.

If the assessed minimum fuel cannot be carried due to the aircraft payload, another solution need to be considered. In-flight re-planning, a fuel stop enroute or reduce payload for sufficient fuel. In-flight re-planning might already be in the flight plan, or be of limited assistance. Not many operators will go for fuel stop and unsafe airlines will avoid off loading.

Finally the captain may have decide if he is the captain.

[blind pew]

Two excellent posts.
Two of the flag carriers I flew for are covered by the above.
My last employer was the most expensive carrier in Europe...no one ever questioned tankage and occasionally we off loaded freight to take sufficient fuel.
My first carrier was run by bullies - flame out after landing due to lack of fuel, taking minimum fuel when you knew that you would probably have at least 1 hour holding...and many other unpleasantries....little trust in management nor training departments.
And of course no trust in the regulator.
The attitude of paring margins gave us 8 airframe losses in 6 years and if it hadn't been a state airline it would have gone bust.
Fortunately FR are obviously not in the latter catagory but if there is undo pressure on crews due to the management philosophy then something needs to change before the apparent "risk management strategy" bites them on the nose.
Perhaps this thread should be printed off and sent to the appropriate transport ministry then when the sh@t hits the fan they won't be able to say we didn't know.:ugh:

[south coast]

Dan said:

you are eroding safety margins

In essence, I said this in an earlier posting, I believe this is actually what this discussion boils down to, margins.

Absolute minimums doesn't automatically mean unsafe, all it means is that it starts from the minimum point considered legal.

How you then operate can then make that starting point unsafe down route, but the starting point was not unsafe.

We all like greater margins of safety, as opposed to absolute minimums because that gives us more of a buffer, but that's a luxury and not a legal or safe necessity.

What is a necessity is a high level of training, well written SOPs, adherence to the AFM, consideration to OM-A,B,C & D's, good CRM and good decision making.


Podcast,

What are the minimum regs?

To me they are:

1. The AFM
2. EASA-Ops

If you take the legal minimum fuel (point 2) operate according to all AFM procedures (point 1) and apply good airmanship and common sense then you should be safe.

If you are fully complaint with 1&2, it's only the subjective decision making that can turn that scenario unsafe. (Not including catastrophic failures or emergencies)

As BOAC and others have said earlier you can take as much extra fuel as you like, but if you burn it holding/waiting, you could be in the same situation as another plane who arrives at the same point with minimum fuel but immediately diverts, then what's the difference?

If you choose to operate with minimum fuel, it means as Dan said, you have reduced your margins (thinking time) and I think you really should have a pre-briefed plan for certain eventualities, so should a decision need to be made, time and fuel are not wasted while you decide, you have already decided what you would do and you just execute the plan.

[RAT 5]

If you choose to operate with minimum fuel, it means as Dan said, you have reduced your margins (thinking time) and I think you really should have a pre-briefed plan for certain eventualities, so should a decision need to be made, time and fuel are not wasted while you decide, you have already decided what you would do and you just execute the plan.

Well said, and again it is back to education. All the SOP training in the world does not educate new commanders to think. That is too often skated over in the up grade process. I was on my line check with an F/O who, as always, was also on a line check and it included a command potential assessment. They were PF on a good weather day with minimum plog fuel on departure. Single rwy destination with a very close by alternate and good weather all round. I sit back as PM and allow them to manage the flight. Approaching TOD (-30mins) I suggest going off ATC to obtain destination and the other airfields weather. We were above cloud, so could not observe the actual good forecast for the region. The reply from PF was "why bother, it was all taf-ing good." As we would be arriving at min resv +300kgs I suggested that if anything happened it would be prudent to have an escape route well prepared and ready for immediate execution. "If you want." Yawn.
The LTC's command potential assessment was not enthusiastic and the F/O didn't understand why. Yet there they were, 6months from possible upgrade. What had they been learning from all the other captains? What had they been learning from flying with LTC's/TRI/TRE's etc. Had they too all been so complacent over the years of this apprenticeship? I hope not. As I always tried to instil in them, an SF/O should be able to fly to captain's standard, but can they think like a captain should. I asked some new upgrades about their command training: had they been in class-room discussions about the 'what if',... had they reviewed known accidents due to poor judgement; learning from others mistakes? No, it had all been pretty standard simulator scenarios with simple dual failures and nothing special. Agreed, the test could be that, but the opportunity for mass discussion and some brain storming about known events might just prevent the next one and alert the newbie about what the upgrade really means. Thinking!

Perhaps someone from RYR can inform us what was the internal reaction to the MAD/VLC event. Was it just that all crews were legal and therefore there was nothing to learn from the day and let's just ignore all the furore, or was there some education value spread amongst the crews. The former would be rather disappointing.

As a survey amongst companies: there must been incidents nearly everyday, especially in the +100 a/c airlines. So many flights over diverse regions in differing conditions; different types, different maintenance philosophies etc. Events must occur. Which airlines teach their own crews from their own events, and which keep quiet. The more the airline teaches its own crews to be aware of traps and pitfalls etc. the better the safety culture I would suggest. The opposite would be true, of course, for the quiet one.

[SR71]

Trust me when I tell you that many of the very best, most profitable and MOST ADMIRED companies in the world are not run by nice guys. MO'L is widely disliked (especially, it seems, on this and other professional fora)...but he deserves a lot of credit for his clarity of vision, and dogged pursuit of a very clearly stated business purpose. They won't admit it, but most other airline CEO's would sell their own children to be in his position.

"Clarity of vision"?

Even Ryanair's own website acknowledges that they copied the Southwest business model.

Except they forgot to copy an extremely important part: the culture.

To be fair, MOL admits he's not very good at that.

:\

However, Mr. Justice Thomas Smyth was recently scathing about the way the airline is run: https://www.eurocockpit.be/sites/default/files/BALPA_CC_Log_F.pdf

[south coast]

Even Ryanair's own website acknowledges that they copied the Southwest business model.

Except they forgot to copy an extremely important part: the culture.

Spot on, because I have heard that working for Southwest is a sought after job in the US.

So their management have proven you can be low-cost, safe and facilitate a happy and productive workforce.

The biggest disappointment for Ryanair shareholders must be that if MOL actually treated the workforce better they would probably make more money.

A happy workforce is a good workforce!

[PURPLE PITOT]

Not read that report before. Glad i did. The diverting A340 landed on three engines, due to fuel starvation on the no.3 engine. It also diverted with MORE than minimum required (legally!) fuel, and landed with about 100kg less.

Enough said.

[LNIDA]

Other than both flying 737 you could not have two airlines less alike, i flew with South west some years back and turned up with a few too many bags, i expected to be raped Ryanair style for my error, not a bit of it, welcome to South West, we don't try and nickel & dime you, i had to cancelled two sectors for 4 of us, they even offered me a credit note to fly with them any time in the next 12 months, i didn't use it, but it left me with a warm feeling towards them.

FR have led a charge down hill in customer service standards and of course price, but i senses the mood is changing, with fast growing Vueling & Norwegian starting to push towards the 100 aircraft fleet size and many more on order, let alone the orange product and having flown with or for most these i ask why would you bother with the hassle of FR's website other than they are the only people who fly where you want to go off the beaten track

So have 5 minutes off from Pprune and look at the web sites of the next 3 biggest, in most cases you can see from the first or second click what you will PAY


Vuelos baratos, billetes de avión y ofertas de vuelos | vueling.com (http://www.vueling.com)
Cheap flights ? Book cheap flights to Europe - easyJet.com (http://www.easyjet.com)
Welcome to Norwegian - Norwegian (http://www.norwegian.com)

Then check out Skytrax for customer feedback.

[Peter-RB]

If the engines of any Ryan Air A/c sucked the last drops from the tanks due to some land bound jerk of a Director putting a cap on fuel take up.

who would get the blame, man holding joystick, or said grey haired Jerk..?

I would ask the Pilots to always ensure that the SLF people at least had a chance to land under power, rather than losing precious things, due to silence.

Shame on the CAA and Airport Authoritys for not sticking their boots deep into Ryan Air ribs.:=

[20driver]

From what I can tell Ryanair has little in common with Southwest except the airplanes.

SWA is my choice every time and it comes down to incredible staff at every level and a very good deal. No charge to change tickets, 2 bags free, super accommodating staff.

I was on a plane in Newark that went tech and we had to transfer to another plane. The agent who gave us the bad news did it so well, with such obvious concern that people starting clapping for him!!! When we transferred to the other ship they had us lined up like school kids and I did not hear one "I'm never flying this airline again" moan or anything similar.

My one experience on Ryanair was not taking a flight I booked and loosing the cash. But that was, as they say, on the tin, and my hard luck.

The biggest reason for SWA success is they found a formula and have stuck with it. Ryanair does the same, but it is not the same formula, not even close.

I can think of a lot of reasons I would skip Ryanair but safety is not one of them. Given a even choice I would skip AF over safety.

[fireflybob]

If you want to know more about Southwest and how to treat customers and staff with respect and dignity, I thoroughly recommend this book:-

Nuts

More about their style here:-

Herb Kelleher and his leadership at Southwest Airlines

Business of Business is People: Herb Kelleher

Speaks for itself really.

[RAT 5]

I once went to an ez & a RYR road show. Both claimed they were clones of SWA. If I was CEO of SWA I'd be considering a slander claim.

[Natterjak]

Hi all, anyone know where this dispatches programme can be viewed online? The YouTube link earlier in this thread appears to be only a 40 sec clip and I'm unable to find it on 4OD. Thanks

[Alloy]

Natterjak, look under 4OD, Program's A-Z, D, Dispatches, Series 136 - it is still there.

[Breaking_Clouds]

Anyone in the UK able to post this on Youtube or Vimeo?

Since I am on the European continent, I am having a hard time watching 4OD.
It says since I am not in the correct region I cannot watch it.
So if anyone could upload this it would be greatly appreciated.
(even @pirateproxy would be an option):ok:

[McBruce]

Ryanair: Secrets from the Cockpit - YouTube

[Natterjak]

Thanks guys, found it now on 4OD thanks to Alloy's info that it's listed under the somewhat non-descriptive "series 136". I hadn't realised that in the ipad app you can scroll horizontally to find more series and searching 4OD for "Ryanair" threw up a blank.

Watched it now and felt it lacked a smoking gun, but overall the aggregate effect on safety of the various Ryanair policies described must be a negative one IMHO. I will think twice before boarding one of their flights.

[cyflyer]

Not viewable in all areas, needs to be posted on youtube.

[PURPLE PITOT]

Anything other than 4OD on youtube is removed at the request of guess who. You will need a proxy server to view from overseas.

[cyflyer]

Is this not the Dutch equivalent, with English subtitles ?
pts 1 & 2

Ryanair Mayday Mayday - International Part 1 - YouTube

Ryanair Mayday Mayday - International PII - YouTube

[Dan Winterland]

Posted on the Africa forum.

EUROPEAN low-cost airline Ryanair has obtained an urgent court order in the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to force Telkom’s mobile arm, 8ta, to help trace a person it accuses of harming its reputation on the internet.

Judge Francis Legodi ordered the fixed-line telecommunications operator on Tuesday to furnish the Irish airline with all information in its possession that identified or would help Ryanair identify an internet user using the pseudonym "alwaysflying" and an IP address in South Africa.

Ryanair company secretary Juliusz Komorek said in an affidavit it was Europe’s only ultra-low cost airline, had 57 operational bases across European airports and carried more than 80-million passengers a year.

He said the airline had an unblemished reputation for safety in the past 29 years, while it maintained cost-effective flight operations in Europe and North Africa.

Mr Komorek said the airline became aware last September of several "defamatory and other derogatory statements" published about it on the websites PPRuNe.org.

The acronym refers to the "Professional Pilots Rumour Network", according to the website, where popular aviation topics are posted and discussed.

Ryanair said the website was subscribed to globally by pilots, journalists and other professionals, with more than 370,000 registered users, communicating through an average of 2,000 posts per day. It received nearly a million visitors a month.

Mr Komorek said the airline had instructed the Los Angeles-based law firm Holland & Knight LLP to file libel proceedings against a number of unidentified defendants — suing them as "John Does (1-100) — in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Holland & Knight was also instructed to seek and obtain a subpoena against Internet Brands, the California-registered owner of the PPRuNe website, to establish the real names of the defendants.

On receipt of data, further subpoenas were obtained against parties such as Yahoo, Microsoft and Google.

Ryanair appointed a specialist consultancy company, Word to the Wise, to analyse the information received, and the company was able to identify from which IP addresses the posts were made. The addresses included two Irish companies, BT in the UK and 8ta in South Africa.

Its investigation revealed the user "alwaysflying" had made 20 posts about Ryanair on the website.

Mr Komorek described one post as "particularly offensive and damaging" as it "falsely portrayed Ryanair to the general public as having incompetent flying crew", which could seriously affect the airline’s reputation and business.

The comment, which was posted under the headline "Poor airmanship", read: "I don’t care if its wind/delays/weather or anything, if you are flying around your destination eating into your alternate fuel then you shouldn’t be a pilot. If they were employed at my company I would have fired the lot of them!"

Mr Komorek said the airline had already obtained high court orders in Ireland and had launched a similar application in Australia.

Ryanair launched the South African court application after Telkom at first failed to respond to its requests but later said its code of conduct relating to the confidentiality of clients precluded it from furnishing the information.

"The applicant (Ryanair) is concerned that it has suffered and will suffer reputational harm as a result of the posting," Mr Komorek said. "(It) has no objection to honest, objective, legitimate comment, but in the present circumstances stands to suffer increasing reputational damage as long as such wrongful publication remains on the website.

"Once in possession of the information, the applicant proposes requesting the user to take down the posting and to tender a public apology for the publication of any unlawful and wrongful statements."

British newspaper The Independent reported last month that Ryanair had dismissed one of its pilots, John Goss, for questioning the airline’s safety records in a television interview.

Mr Goss accused the airline of encouraging crews to minimise the amount of back-up fuel.

The newspaper said the airline had threatened to take legal action against Mr Goss for his "defamatory contributions" to the programme

[silverhawk]

I bite my lip!