A small victory for free speech!

[captplaystation]

https://www.eurocockpit.be/stories/20140417/mayday-mayday-wins-over-ryanair-defamation-allegations

[tubby linton]

That should have some interesting consequences for those who questioned the policy on various forums and subsequently received letters from the company about their claims.

[BGQ]

A news article today says Ryanair is going to appeal....

[frontlefthamster]

Streisand effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

[Basil]

I have been very fortunate inasmuch as I have never flown for an employer, either as captain or FO, which has challenged the fuel decision of the Pilot In Command.

I do recollect asking my Chief Pilot if they kept a fuel table. He said that they did. I asked where I was on it. I was second from bottom, i.e., I took more extra fuel than most other captains.
I must point out that I was NEVER challenged about my decisions but, following my request for information, thought that I was probably being over cautious.
Oh, the companies which didn't challenge: BA and Cathay.

[Una Due Tfc]

Best of luck to those of you who had to make the token appology in your subsequent lawsuits :)

[oxenos]

I flew as a Captain for eight years for a company which never once questioned my fuel decisions.
Sometimes I took PLOG fuel, sometimes I took a bit extra, sometimes I took a lot extra, depending on what I considered the traffic and weather situations called for, but not once was there any mention of , let alone criticism of my decisions.



The airline was Ryanair.

[Two's in]

It is nothing to do with free speech. It is a victory for the principle that if you make accusations about a business venture that may affect the profitability or operation of that venture, you better be sure you can back it up with the facts. The judge obviously felt in this case they could.

[LGW Vulture]

I think I was justified yesterday when I posted that the Belgians had put one across Ryanair.

Leo Camel makes it starkly obvious where the MoL loyalty lies. ;);)

[mickjoebill]

Ryanair is going to appeal

Plenty of fuel reserves left in the tank for the legal "go around"!

[clunckdriver]

LGW Vulture, Ive flown for my bread and butter since I was seventeen, but have no clue what MoL is, could you point me in the right direction as to what this stands for? Thanks!.PS, I just cant imagine working for a company which questions such decisions, so glad Im retired and fly my own corporate aircraft and would NEVER question one of my pilots decisions! {by the way, in spite of this we make lots of money!}

[PAXboy]

'MoL' = Michael O'Leary, CEO of Dublin based Ryanair.

[Walnut]

MOL has said he wants to offer a better experience ie pre allocated seats extra hand baggage simplified booking etc, yet he wants to drag his operating policy back into open Court. He would be adivised to accept the Court decision otherwise he will undermine his new "openish" policy. It will take a long time for people to forget the bad experiences.

[joy ride]

This case apparently relates to a Dutch programme; is this the same programme which I saw on British TV last year?

[flyboy2]

https://www.eurocockpit.be/stories/20140417/mayday-mayday-wins-over-ryanair-defamation-allegations

[Aldente]

A great result, it's good to see that not everyone fears the libel "chilling effect".

I suspect a similar outcome for Ryanair in the not too distant future, with regard to several other lawsuits it has issued against TV companies as well as individuals, related to alleged defamatory claims made about them.

If any of these go all the way to a public court hearing there's going to be some interesting stories in the press that's for sure.

As someone has already pointed out beware the "Streisand effect".

[737 Jockey]

Ha ha ha! Always nice to see O'Leary get shafted in court. :ok: :}

I've said it many times before... If he spent half as much effort treating PEOPLE properly, as he spent litigating against them, he might have avoided a Pilot shortage, and kept his eye on the ball, and not been made to look like a schoolyard bullyboy by Carolyn McCall.

Just my own humble opinion of course :}

[captjns]

Final fuel load rests with the PIC... not dispatch, not arm chair quarterbacking base captains, and not the company. Its in every country's aviation regulations.

[Dan Winterland]

It's also a very significant victory for flight safety. If the safety culture at an airline is so poor that the pilots feel the only mitigation for a threat is to go to the press, then alarm bells should be ringing. An escalation of the "Streisand'' effect is now that those threats have been considered valid by a court, the alarm bells should be the size of big ben!

[A and C]

It is often the practice of people with deep pockets to rush to law with the aim to bully those who can't afford the legal advice to defend themselves.

It is good to see these sort of people loose in court......... The Striesant effect is a sort of bonus.

[luoto]

I am no Ryanair defender. Never flown with them and nothing inspires me to want to try. That is nothing to so with the flight crew. It is more the experience one has learned about from friends, colleagues etc. I guess it is right for the company to ask its pilots why they rake extra fuel (else what is to stop one saying fill it up .... Even if it is not necessary) but the PiC's word and experience should be supreme. There might be a good excuse taking 3 times the usual amount of fuel but one would then have no problem justifying it. Arguing over 15 minutes fuel time, on the other hand...

If some chief pilits and their staff are micromanaging "small" fuel differences, I wonder if they save money as chief pilots, minions and their admin toys cost.

I guess their chief pilot and fuel watchers are not lobbying for a law change to let them override the captain's legal responsibility and take the personal consequence for their actions.

It does seem unfortunate that one rarely seems to see positive comments about that company, sure we all bitch about our employers at times, but this company seems very "prone". Maybe part. Of the game is clamping down on "adverse comments" whether valid or not, in case the relatively ignorant public cotton on and then vote with their wallets.

[M.Mouse]

If I correctly understand former Ryanair pilots I have met recently Ryanair is one of the few companies who will give a job to a pilot with a new CPL but no experience. I recall when I was looking for my first job how difficult it was and how desparate I was. The guys I have met recently have all left Ryanair and moved on to better things which they would not have had access to without the experience gained from their Ryanair employment.

Interestingly they all showed enormous competence and discipline and it was plain that the training standards within Ryanair are very high.

I would never get on a Ryanair aeroplane as a point of principle but I fully understand why newly qualified pilots (especially) seek employment there.

[Piltdown Man]

Talking of a certain airline and safety, maybe one should question why this guy (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/11/327687/ryanair-captain-flew-unstable-approach-days-after-sons.html)felt he had to fly. Now I'm certainly not saying the company is unsafe but I know the feeling when you perceive that you are about to lose your job when you don't show up. What re-enforces this Is the vicious way heavy legal letters are dispatched whenever a certain company and the word "safety" are used together. Has anything really changed over the years? Cute and cudly, like the current adds would have you believe? Or more like Little Red Riding Hood's hairy, four pawed 'grandmother'? You decide.

I still believe that the mass diversion diversion was "one of those things" and trying to nail the man on that incident was wrong. Wait for one where he supplies the nails and bangs them in himself!

[gulfairs]

Unless there has been a significant change in aircraft specifics on fuel burn.
The base figure used to be : one burns 10% of the excess fuel per 1000NMs to get it there.
Most of Ryanair's sectors are only 1000 nms long so where is the problem.
I always carried 10tonne in the heavy jets, 'for me', and I always got 95%of it to my destination
Pilots have enough concerns flying jet aircraft. To have to add a range burden upon them to satisfy a bean counter who is probably on a higher salary than the pilots concerned is false economy.
"Silent Running " is not an option in a jet powered aircraft.

[inchman254]

I find it interesting that you feel proud that you arbitrarily spend $500 on every flight just "for you"r feeling of comfort. Do you really need more than an extra full hour of fuel on every flight?

We had a guy who carried a specific amount of extra fuel on every flight at my carrier on the premise that he was "safer". Basically, it meant that he didn't have to be as thorough in his flight planning and the extra gas made up for his laziness.

I would much rather be sitting in the back with a crew who did a thorough analysis of the flight and carried the appropriate amount of extra fuel based on current conditions, whether that be zero extra or 12tonne extra. I don't hesitate to take extra fuel when I feel I need it and I wouldn't hesitate to divert if I didn't have enough fuel to continue the operation safely... not waiting till the last minute. I've never had to divert due to too little fuel in the last 15 years of captaincy and don't feel so overburdened by the other pressures of the job to have to carry inordinately large amounts of extra fuel.

[Una Due Tfc]

If every aircraft from every carrier carried the legal minimum and no more, it would bite. Somebody has to go into the hold when there are multiple diversions from a major to a relatively minor airfield. I am genuinely afraid that one day I will have multiple fuel maydays on my freq and I will have to ask for endurance to decide my sequence. In Europe every carrier has the same alternates.

The decision should NEVER be taken away from the Captain. Every Captain will pick a different number and as a result the system works. If every Captain picked the same number it would not work so well.....

I have no reason to believe any company would do this of course

[calypso]

spot on I think

[luoto]

I guess if one views the company in question as a "starter" place, just like how many fast-food restaurants are better than no work, it explains why many people go in with their eyes open, perceived problems and all.
Is it better to have no work and no dream of flying ever underway, or a job that is not "ideal" but you are pursuing your dream and can hopefully use the latter for a springboard to somewhere else. No work and no dream might not put food on the table and keep you happy. I guess the company is aware of that...

[RAT 5]

I found, after working for various airlines, that there was no black & white answer. Often it rested on the whim of the DFO. There was an Ops manual legal minimum, and often it was sufficient. Sometimes not. The disappointment I had was that many SFO's coming up for command had no idea how to decide this taxing question. If the C.P. was an absolute 'minimums' man then crews were brow beaten into thinking this was always OK. The company said they'd accept some diversions. The statistical cost of a few per year was less than 300kgs extra every sector. That can be a valid opinion, and an understandable one. However, captains, nay crews, should be educated how to make sensible decisions AND be encouraged to do so. I always looked not only at the weather but the time of arrival and the expected approach. It irked me that an F/O would take minimum plog fuel into an airport because the weather was OK, even when that airfield had no radar and the wind dictated a visual or even circling approach to the non-IFR runway, and it was a busy time. And there might be a host of other reasons to take a bit extra. Equally they did not know how to calculate how much extra. If 300kgs was allowed with no questions, then 500kgs was considered sufficient extra. That gets you 2 holds or 1 circuit. They didn't ask "what do I want to do with the extra fuel and then calculate it" They just stuck a finger in the wind.
Equally there were captains who just took burn + 3000kgs no matter what. That's often wasteful, and more importantly sometimes not enough. It is those people who create the minimums policy from C.P.'s. It shows they do not appreciate the financial aspect of the operation. Solid education and a fair monitoring system should find a correct balance.
I once flew long-haul to some very basic Caribbean islands. The DFO insisted on plog fuel because the contingency of 5% was 45 mins over such a long flight. No matter that the jet stream was 150kts head wind: no matter the NAT track system did not guarantee planned level: no matter that the weather forecast for destination was trying to predict 24 hours in advance from when it was published: no matter that it was a non-radar NPA approach and the diversion was another island that then closed shortly after our planned arrival time. Considering to use the contingency fuel as 'extra' was crass. However, on the return leg into central Europe with so many diversion airfields en-route before TOD, minimum plog fuel was usually more than enough. Education & experience + courage of convictions. That seems to be lacking these days.

To create a culture of disrespect and mistrust that leads to a sense of bullying helps no-one. That goes for both sides of the matter.

[gulfairs]

The 10 tonne that was carried was only on NZAA KLAX sector or Klax NZAA.
That is a 14 hour flight where you are on your own for a little more than a tea break.
By the time was was 5 hours from destination the forcasts were more that 18 hours old.so to haul gas was better than an early diversion due to weather
Hong Kong Auckland in a DC10 can become soul searching, because the mets were 12 hours old at the flight planning stage and the flight was 11 to 13 hours,
Where does one go if AA and or CH have fog?( which is always forecast to disperse by 0900 ( even at 1200hrs!)
ASSY was usually just out of range if a diversion was needed it had to be early if one was on nett fuel
10 ton of fuel in those days was about $15000.00, a lot less than a landing fee,parking fee, more fuel to get to original destination. 250 pissed off passengers , by being 6hours late.
Its not the money, its the big picture, that why one earns a command.and is paid marginally more than a 1st officer or Flt Eng.
But can retire early (56years of age) and become an armchair boffin, in retirement

[pontifex]

I can fully understand all those who, almost without exception, comment adversely about Ryanair. However, I have flown with them as SLF four times now purely because they had a destination in deepest France that was both convenient and not served by any other carrier. I did so with reluctance and some trepidation. However, I cannot deny that the aircraft seemed clean and well maintained. The seats were comfortable and there was plenty of leg room (I am not small). They were utterly punctual and the CS were efficient and as polite as any I have met on any other airline. Yes, there are disadvantages but you get what you pay for.

[Tinribs]

I only flew with them once because my company booked it but I did fly for BMI and another smaller outfit for nearly 30 years serving many of Rs Euro destinations

When things are OK there is nothing wrong with them. Their sector/aircraft numbers safety relationship are as good as any in the business.

I do say they are less good when things go wrong such as diversions tech probs and so on. They also had some little tricks to generate extra income from the slightest variation to their rules

[JamesGV]

This goes back to the two (or three) diverts in Spain ?
All in "one" week.

Vague I know (2012 ?)

There was a "call", but hadn't he diverted and put into a long hold due to other diverts ? BCN ? Or AGP ?