Ryanair and Brookfield in the news again

[zerotohero]

Ryanair and Brookfield in the news again.


Ryanair and Brookfield embroiled in tax evasion investigation and 'letterbox company' allegations (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/brookfield-aviation-international-alleged-be-letterbox-company-controlled-by-ryanair-1533172)

My opinions on this are just my options but I left for that very reason and put them squarely in my rear view mirror where I want to keep them.

[Global_Global]

Looking forward to the day that the most obvious tax evasion scheme in aviation is put to bed....:ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

Next step is that the "friendly"airline becomes a normal employer with staff that has the right to have a proper union to represent them :D

[McBruce]

Will watch this unfold with pleasure.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

It is not often my heart is warmed by good news on PPRuNe, but this is definitely one of those occasions.

[RexBanner]

Let's hope this finally catches up with them. And that Norwegian are next in the firing line.

(The sad thing is that they'll probably wriggle out of it once again and the same stories will be resurfacing 3-4 years down the line, again to no avail)..

[Deep and fast]

HMRC are being pushed to find every penny, yet this has been going on for ages in clear sight and it's just because the Germans are pursuing it that they pull their heads out of the sand.

Self employment in the building industry was under high scrutiny for the same reasons(isle of man then at 10% tax) 8 years ago so why are they feckless here?

O'leary is a slippery weasel and these guys move in similar circles! It's a financial catch me if you can.
Starbucks are finally coughing up some corporation tax, 8million this year which equals the same as the total paid in last 15. Inter company purchase of coffee beans from Switzerland where the profit was declared in a low tax regime.
Fraud that's the word for it but like the bankers, so few get their just desserts.

[Scuderia46]

Everyone knew what was going on and finally the authorities are going to hunt them down. I also hope they will claim every penny back from all the pilots who evaded tax for years and years. They knew what they were doing....

[Count of Monte Bisto]

There is a strange phenomenon in pilot circles where a few guys do very well out of being from country X, 'reside' in country Y and pay little or no tax to country Z where they work but somehow don't. Anyone with even a small brain can figure out that sooner or later a Day of a Judgement will come upon the most fleet-of-foot individual. Alas, when it comes to pilots, they think they are immune and no one is more upset and aggrieved when the house of cards comes tumbling down. I have little sympathy for anyone who feels he is a 'special case' and keeps most of what he earns - it can only end in tears at bedtime, and woe betide anyone who has not kept the money aside to pay the Ferryman. I do not expect Ryanair will be sending a personalised box of tissues round to dry their eyes on either.

[despegue]

Sorry guys, but that is total and utter nonsence.

Most will gladly pay taxes the moment the State will reimburse pilot studies, the same as they support any other study that contributes to the economy,gives a decent pension, and not one " for self employed" and will go after the real criminals: the Airlines and agencies.

False self employment and illegal contracts by companies not giving employees their basic social rights are ALWAYS the EMPLOYERS liability in EU Employment legislation.

By the way, I am completely legal, and not linked to FR or Brookfield...

[Avenger]

Despegue, my Daughter is a junior doctor and she paid all her own fees, not a penny back from the State, My son paid his university, not a penny back. As far as i am aware, and stand to be corrected, only the NL allow pilot training costs against tax.. in UK.. not a dogs chance in hell..For me the Ryanair issue is akin to the NAS issue of job security while on a contractor basis.. Taxes are up the the individual to sort out and one way or another we all pay in the end. As for employment rights.. not so sure that means much these days in any Company unfortunately.

[RAT 5]

The issue of bogus self-employment was discussed within the civil service arrangement in UK government circles only a year ago. It was discovered that certain very senior figures had set up 'consultancies' as being self-employed, and then serviced themselves to Gov.UK. Their tax bill was peanuts compared to PAYE, and their expenses bill huge. It was discovered that GOV.UK was their only customer and thus the self-employment was not valid. As this was discussed in public in The D.T. I assume it has been corrected and shutdown. Precedence?

[Globally Challenged]

I received training cost (for the Integrated course - the type rating was free) back from my gross salary but that was with prior agreement between my future employer and HMRC before training commenced.

[cumbrianboy]

As far as I know, and I am not familiar with medical training, but it is not the paying for your own training that upset me, it was the fact that all of my training was subject to VAT.

As far as I know, pilot training is the only vocational training to be subject to VAT which is criminal if you ask me ...

[ELondonPax]

The issue of paying for training is interesting but it's a sideshow.
In the UK, the relevant test is the "IR35" test. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck etc. Written contracts, side letters, are all irrelevant if HMRC determines that you are (in effect) performing the duties of an employee.
It has to be said that HMRC enforcement of this is patchy (to be polite) given that many senior figures in prominent roles (eg at the BBC) have been playing this game for years.
Personally, having been subject to a HMRC investigation (because of the actions of a former employer in the motor industry) I would never ever want to be on the wrong side of HMRC.
Read more here
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ir35-find-out-if-it-applies

[RexBanner]

Rehashing old ground of course but, given that these contracts fail every critical test of self employment that there is (unable to name your own working hours, work for another airline etc), why is this NOT an open and shut case and why is it still going on??

Ryanair and Norwegian pilots (and Wizz pilots for that matter but that's going on outside of the U.K.) are all employees, none of them are self employed in reality. These companies are illegally evading social insurance payments for employees. It's about time this was finally cracked down upon but I'm not holding my breath.

[Reverserbucket]

Is ab-initio pilot training vocational?

[Count of Monte Bisto]

RexBanner - wise words indeed. How can anyone credibly claim that a pilot working for Brookfield is self-employed? It is clearly nonsense designed for the sole purpose of robbing the taxman. I recognise that those pilots offered such deals simply have no choice, but they would nonetheless be wise to have put some cash aside for the inevitable tax bill destined to land on their doorstep at some stage. Experience tells me that most will not have done so, and may therefore find themselves in a position of some embarrassment. As for Ryanair, I hope that this ends up in court with every last responsible individual within the Company who was party to tax avoidance practices held accountable. My doubt does not lie whether the practices were wrong or not, but whether HMRC are willing to really go for it. Time will tell.

[JaxofMarlow]

Controversial or not, the Ryanair and Norwegian staffing arrangements seem to give the carriers a competitive boost. In a presentation to investors in November, Ryanair said its unit labor cost was only 6 euros per available seat-mile, compared with 19 euros at U.S.-based discounter Spirit Airlines and 35 euros at Southwest Airlines.

Taken from The Creative Pilot Hiring Habits of Ryanair and Norwegian Air Shuttle ? Skift (http://skift.com/2015/02/12/the-creative-pilot-hiring-habits-of-ryanair-and-norwegian-air-shuttle/)

To my mind the practices of both Ryanair and Norwegian are disgraceful. The pilots get no choice in this but given the amount of publicity the likes of Starbucks and Amazon have got as a consequence of deliberate tax avoidance I am shocked that Ryanair at least does not attract the same.

[Jwscud]

"The inevitable tax bill" if you are declaring your income to HMRC will never come. If you are paying honest income tax based on your gross income and claiming only provable,receipted expenses, together with social insurance (in many cases both employer and employee!) you are going to have no problem.

It is the employer who commits the offence in this case - whoever that is found to be.

There are plenty of people just trying to pay fair tax and earn enough to pay the mortgage who should not be lumped in as avoiders who deserve what is coming to them by the likes of the Count who is lucky enough to be working for plan Orange rather than the Harp.

[zerotohero]

Thats it.... I applied to Ryanair for a job following a link in there website... I was initially employed by Ryanair during line training and got paid on PAYE by Ryanair.... I then passed my line check and was told to expect a phone call.... The call was hey were going to offer you a contract with Brookfield based in XXX. You just need to sign it and resign from Ryanair and your good to go! WTF!!!!!!

Needless to say once I had sufficient experience I got the hell out of Dodge. I wish maybe I had gone sooner but I wanted that left seat first after all the cost and struggle.

I paid Tax's in the UK for as long as I could then got moved/stuck/forced on to an Irish LTD company paying tax there...... That was enough and the search for a new seat began.

Right or wrong its not for me to say... seems HMRC are going to work that one out for me... I don't imagine the hassle is behind me yet though.

[1201alarm]

Tax and social security are two different animals.

Tax is always an individual responsibility and governed by double tax treaties.

Social security is governed by EU Regulations and an individual responsibility only if you are self employed. If you are an employee, employer and employee share the burden.

As far as I understand, the issues here have to do with social security like public pension, health insurance, jobless insurance, etc.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

I completely accept that we are all at the mercy of our employers' employment practices. There is, however, a common sense element to this. If you are 'forced' to start your own company or be 'self-employed', that is very frustrating as for most, if not all, airline pilots that is not an accurate reflection of your true employment status. That is one thing, but if as a result of those arrangements, the pilot concerned ends up paying virtually no tax, he/she should be very wary indeed and put some money aside for the day of reckoning. That day will surely come.

[The Crew]

I'm of the opinion that 1300 pilots on self employed status will not be a big enough fish for the HMRC to pursue Brookfield.

Those involved are still legally Paying their tax as defined by their employer.

The crew are scattered throughout Europe. All sounds a bit convoluted and vague.

[Deep and fast]

About £2.5-3 million per year then for hmrc, I don't think that's small change. Company want to get bigger and hmrc are being squeezed by the chancellor to find every penny.
Seems like a no brainier to me.
It would seem reasonable to serve notice on the contractor that they will be investigat under the rules stated earlier but go for Brookfield and ryanair for tax and national insurance evasion schemes.

I guess we will see.

[zerotohero]

The Crew

HMRC are happy enough to go after single fish! I recon that means there happy enough to go after the likes of Brookfield and Ryanair

[Jwscud]

I think you'll find that "paying no tax" was only really possible in the old one man band arrangements, and there are stories of people claiming daft things like driving across Europe to go out of base but the new setup has a fairly restrictive list of things you can claim, all of which are perfectly reasonable.

Most these days I would wager pay more tax than those who are employed S they are paying both sides of the NI/social insurance.

I agree if you are engaged on tax evasion on your own head be it, but that frankly just isn't the case (or even possible) for the majority these days.

[RAT 5]

And what about the cabin crew? Is it not the case that they are on similar 'self-employed' contracts. If so that will raise the numbers effected by a very large amount. Plus, if this construction of pilots & CA's continues, and with the vast new order for a/c, then the problem will encompass larger numbers not less. That would give HMRC and any other tax man good incentive to find the truth.

[Nil further]

Not just FR , there are /were a fair number of crew in EZY on the PARC scheme who must be sweating .

If i were an individual i'd front ups myself now and do a deal , a lot less expensive than awaiting the axe to fall !

[Kirk out]

And what about type rating costs being used to off set tax through the pseudo company? Is this true? If so that's a pretty big claim back for HRMC in its self.
As said, HRMC are quite happy to go after individuals, and they don't let go....ever. They'll probably investigate a couple then issue demand to the rest, with the onus to provide evidence that self employed status is justified. Providing your services to more than one company is a pretty big part of it. Hopefully this'll be the end of this, frankly, shoddy practice

[172_driver]

And what about the cabin crew? Is it not the case that they are on similar 'self-employed' contracts. If so that will raise the numbers effected by a very large amount. Plus, if this construction of pilots & CA's continues, and with the vast new order for a/c, then the problem will encompass larger numbers not less. That would give HMRC and any other tax man good incentive to find the truth.

RAT5,

The cabin crew get hired on a different scheme. They have direct employment with intermediary agencies. They have big issues too, such as being paid per scheduled block hour without guarantee for hours. The total income often end up below the minimum wage stipulated by states around Europe. Tax and social payments 'should' be sorted out by these agencies.


And what about type rating costs being used to off set tax through the pseudo company? Is this true?

Very true

[RexBanner]

People are forgetting that the real issue here is not the evasion or avoidance of tax by the individual, it is the evasion of social security payments by an employer - and by proxy creating a completely unfair and unjust playing field in the aviation industry - with those disguising their employees as self employed able to manipulate their labour costs significantly lower than those who play by the rules and treat their employees in the right way. This urgently needs to be redressed.

The majority of people who are unfortunate enough to be in this awkward position as "contractor" are paying their taxes properly but are hugely financially handicapped by having to pay both the employer's and employee's portion of the National Insurance.

[captplaystation]

Exactly, & most were not given the choice of employment model, having joined at a time when the job market was less rosy than this moment . . . . so, didn't choose to "set up their own company" etc etc .

If they wanted the job (and all said & done it was undoubtedly the best on offer given their experience level ) it was "take it or leave it", so, as you have said, peoples ire should not be directed at those bulldozed into this charade, but at those driving the bulldozer.

[Deep and fast]

But the reality is they jumped at a contractor position as it got them flying. Worry about the technicalities later. I turned down ryanair because they wouldn't confirm I would be on a ryanair contract. As it happens, I would have but ashtak who was the recruitment contact was as much use as gauze condom so I took another job instead.

Don't take the crap contracts then things improve but he'll nobody ever listens.
Patience seems to be a lost art!

[RAT 5]

Watch closely the investigation going on about 'Sports Direct' in UK and its treatment of agency workers. UK MP's are strongly opposed to the practices of that company and its work ethics. Today, on the BBC radio, the chairman of the Institute of Directors was scathing of the abuse caused by Sp Direct on its workers. One item in particular was quoted as abhorrent and "unacceptable": people carrying out duties at the behest of the employer in their own time for no pay. For those in certain LoCo's does that sound familiar?
If so-called self-employed pilots do not feel the time is now right to connect to this government led movement against unacceptable work practices, and act, then they only have themselves to blame and there should be no more whinging.

[ExDubai]

That case will be an expensive lesson for the german self employed Ryanair pilots. They will have to pay the social security contribution for a couple of years and then try to get somehow something back from Brookfield.

[Deep and fast]

A different question, as a contractor in an accident situation, where does the liability fall? The lawyers would come knocking on your door after ryanair told them the flight operation on that flight was by xxx Irish contract services who hold accountability. Hell, they might even sue you!

This would bother me much more than hmrc

[Kirk out]

Witnessed plenty of self-satisfied "Ryan's" looking down their noses at us poor inferior Turbo-propers, happy and smug at off-setting and minimising their tax bills down compared to us legit' PAYE. I didn't go for MOLs merry ship, couldn't stand the thought of working for the smug pikey. Not all at Ryan are like this, but there's plenty that are. Oh well just extend the parental mortgage a little bit more, HRMC don't mind where the Bucks come from, and for sure MOLs fortune ain't gonna get touched...

[JW411]

I shall make a prediction; this will turn out to be a complete non-story for 99% of Ryanair pilots; much to the chagrin of the doom-mongers.

[Kirk out]

Totally agree....The ROI really doesn't give a rats, not after the Celtic Tiger coughed up its terminal coil, and any tax income is better than none. Social obligations are another matter and maybe with success in this, the gates open towards tax. I would however be getting stressed if I was Ryan, knowing how the tax man gets his kicks. Get one "small un" and you have a good chance of getting the rest, all for minimum cost, especially balanced against the massive outlay required to pursue the corporate powerful entity. The whole Ryanair operation is ruthless in every aspect of it's business and as a pilot you have to accept that with the ambassadorial role that the postion bestows upon, you must also accept that compassion for any misfortune will be as limited as MOL's arbitration skills....

[RAT 5]

I think the discussion has drifted from the original point. The article was about the German tax authorities & HMRC investigating BRK and its structure for renting out pilots. The claim is that they were not self-employed as contested by BRK, but employees. Thus it would seem the investigation start point is at BRK not the individual pilot. I would expect that investigation to be followed and when it is concluded then there might be some follow up towards individuals. It will be much easier to focus on one known entity than chase numerous needles in many haystacks. The complaint is against the agency not its clients.

[Count of Monte Bisto]

RAT5 - I agree. The prime aim here is to bag Brookfield and, by association, Ryanair. There will be a small number of pilots caught in the crossfire, but the main target here are the companies rather than the individuals.

[JaxofMarlow]

How long can such an investigation take ? IR35 requires individuals (amongst other things) to have more than one user of their self employed services. No RyR pilots meet this requirement so are not self employed as defined by the HMRC itself. Job done.

[ExDubai]

RAT at least in Germany it's a different story. Public prosecution is chasing the pilots because they where based here and their home adress was/is also in Germany. Public prosecution mentioned that they investigate against more then 100 pilots. When the first pilot is finally convicted, they will start and chase BRK.

[Kirk out]

If you think the tax man will be happy at just getting a few quids from the agencies and Ryanair and get all sympathetic with the poor hard done to pilots because big bad MOL was beastly to them, think again. If you want to know the extent of an investigation do a search of any accountants forum, do a search of HRMC's site, there's enough stuff to keep you awake well past the next filing deadline. Knowingly filing fraudulent returns is a criminal offence. Try getting a disclosure Scotland after that.
Scaremongering, overly sensationalising ? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone knows the saying, death and taxes....

[Phileas Fogg]

During a previous life, circa 2002 until 2005, Ryanair worked with two recruitment companies, one being Brookfield and I worked for, indeed I became in charge of Flight Crew recruitment of, the other, an anagram of "morSt Aviation".

In charge of Ryanair's HR had been an individual, a man, with the initials DD, as if quite suddenly he was leaving Ryanair and he was looking to be placed with either Brookfield or my then employer, whatever discussions then took place were above my level and DD was subsequently placed with Brookfield.

Ryanair's agency rates were pretty much p1ss poor, as I recall EUR5 per hour for a Captain, EUR3 per hour for an F/O so if either worked to the maximum of 900 hours per annum one was revenuing just EUR375/EUR225 per pilot per month, circa 25% the revenue of pilots placed with other operators, the only way a company was going to make any money from Ryanair was by a significant number of placements or, indeed, becoming a "letterbox provider".

By my then employer's interpretation of the law the pilots could be deemed to be self employed if they operated from no fixed base, i.e. they operated from one base one week and another base the next and Ryanair abused this to the hilt, of course each self employed pilot was legally responsible for paying their own taxes and social security in their nominated home domicile, whether they opted to do so or not was none of our legal concern.

Once DD became placed with Brookfield their pilot placements with Ryanair went through the roof whilst ours remained constant if not diminished, I'm out of the industry now, I'm my own boss so I can say what the hell I like, quite regarding the legalities of what I have posted here is not a subject I care to be drawn on, I'm just saying how it was some 10 years ago, please respect my honesty.

[captplaystation]

Kinda confirms what I always believed,namely that Brookfield IS Ryanair by the back (cheap ) door.

[anson harris]

I may be missing something here but I just completed the HMRC Employment Status Indicator, honestly answering the questions for the Brookfield arrangement. I got this:

The worker is self employed [Why?]

Summary of outcome.

There is a low indication of substitution. [Why?]

There is a high indication of control over the worker. [Why?]

There is a high indication of financial risk. [Why?]


Has anyone else done it? Did you get a different result?

[Phileas Fogg]

Kinda confirms what I always believed,namely that Brookfield IS Ryanair by the back (cheap ) door.

Yes,

Ryanair put their head of HR in to Brookfield and thereafter Brookfield's pilot placements with Ryanair multiplied umpteenfold.

I'm out of the industry long since so I don't know the answer to this ..... But if Brookfield are truly independent they will be recruiting and placing personnel with umpteen airlines.

How many airline(s) do Brookfield actually recruit for and place personnel with?

[RAT 5]

Anson H: Apologies, I may be dim, but I don't understand the conclusion of your questionnaire. Your message suggests you are self-employed, but the 3 points quoted don't seem to uphold that. Please clarify.

[16024]

Trying to put a positive spin on this, (and I realise that's probably against Pprune rules), but is there some chance cash could come the pilots' way because of this?
It's been mentioned that the Brookfielders who did it "properly" were paying both employers and employees NI. So if it turned out that they were technically employed, shouldn't some kind of rebate be in order?
Just sayin..

[ExDubai]

.....is there some chance cash could come the pilots' way because of this?
Payed holiday and sick leave is the first thing which comes into my mind. but the amount of social security taxes they have to pay will be much higher

[Phileas Fogg]

It's a long time since I did this, brain cells and all that, but 'we' employed personnel via an umbrella company.

I happen to know that the umbrella company we were using was a shambles, registered in UK but with an offshore arm also, if the personnel worked in the EU then they were with the UK umbrella company paying a whopping GBP35, and bugger all tax/NI, per month for the privilege and if they were non-EU it was a small percentage of their earnings per month.

Utilising an umbrella company was ideal for us because it is the umbrella company employing the personnel and responsible for all legalities including employer's NI (Social Security), I was aware that other recruitment companies were setting up personnel as their own limited company or similar however the legalities of that, well my employer didn't even want to go there!

At the end of the day it is the individual's responsibility for paying their NI/Social Security and income tax, perhaps the authorities believe they have a case against Brookfield and/or whoever the legal employer may be for not deducting these at source, there is only one party responsible for paying employer's NI (Social Security) and that is the employer ... Although the German authorities would have nothing to gain if employer's NI was appropriately paid in to the UK National Insurance system!

[LlamaFarmer]

I don't quite understand why politicians are so happy to turn a blind eye to these kind of practices.

I know of a number of politicians who are completely uninterested in their constituent's situation within the industry. Taking action and forcing change is a big challenge, but they were not even entertaining sympathy for the pilots in question.


It probably doesn't help that RYR is so actively anti-union.


Perhaps a Europe-wide multi-airline strike at all those airlines where there are contract/self-employed/non-airline-employee pilots would create enough attention for the issue to be properly looked at.

[RAT 5]

I thought Sports Direct being in the spot light with all their 'agency workers' might be the crack in the dam. Politicians and the chief of the Institute of Directors have all been negative about many of those practices.

[Phileas Fogg]

Perhaps a Europe-wide multi-airline strike at all those airlines where there are contract/self-employed/non-airline-employee pilots would create enough attention for the issue to be properly looked at.

There are many genuine reasons why airlines will utilise agency contract personnel, just one example is many Italian airlines, employment legislation, laying personnel off, notice periods etc., hell if I, and many of us here, were the Chief Executive of an Italian Airline we'd be utilising agency contract personnel also.

I worked for a UK DC10 operator back in the 70's, the (then) worldwide DC10 grounding cost the company millions, all employed crew sitting at home on full salary, by comparison the volcanic ash cloud over Europe the other year, I don't know but I can imagine which personnel were the first to be left sitting at home, the 'pay as you fly' contract personnel and, again, if I, and many of us here, were the airline Chief Executive we'd do exactly the same also.

In a previous life I worked for a cargo operator, all of a sudden we acquired a passenger wide-body for a summer long contract, we had no cabin services infrastructure whatsoever, we needed contract personnel just to man the contract, were we wrong to utilise such contract personnel?

To utilise a modest proportion of contract personnel is wise given the nature of the operation, it's the operators that extract the urine that need to be clamped down on, and as for:

politicians who are completely uninterested in their constituent's situation within the industry

Well they'll likely be too preoccupied fiddling their expenses and taxes to worry about other parties doing pretty much the same as they are!

[RAT 5]

Contrators, in any industry, should used to cover short-term extra demands on personnel, temporary extra duties/contracts, cover sickness etc. Those contractors should be employed by the agency and receive many of the normal benefits for employees. They should not be used, by the end-user, as full-time personnel to avoid normal costs associated with employee status.

[Phileas Fogg]

RAT 5,

Right, "we' need X amount of crews to cover this summer's programme, how many crews are we going to need for the winter programme?

Well we haven't got a clue, commercial won't let us know until September, just employ contractors for the summer season.

September ... Wow, the tour operators are up for it, we can keep 80% of the contractors on for the winter season, come March we'll let you know about next summer ... and so on.

Getting the message? :)

[zerotohero]

Phileas Frog

How many winter/summers do you need to work out that you always need them then?

I did 7 years in FR as a "Contractor" I think it was a safe bet after say 3 years they would need me the next and the next, especially with new extra airframes arriving every month.

I understand the argument but there has to be a reasonable point.

[111boy]

During a previous life, circa 2002 until 2005, Ryanair worked with two recruitment companies, one being Brookfield and I worked for, indeed I became in charge of Flight Crew recruitment of, the other, an anagram of "morSt Aviation".

In charge of Ryanair's HR had been an individual, a man, with the initials DD, as if quite suddenly he was leaving Ryanair and he was looking to be placed with either Brookfield or my then employer, whatever discussions then took place were above my level and DD was subsequently placed with Brookfield.

Ryanair's agency rates were pretty much p1ss poor, as I recall EUR5 per hour for a Captain, EUR3 per hour for an F/O so if either worked to the maximum of 900 hours per annum one was revenuing just EUR375/EUR225 per pilot per month, circa 25% the revenue of pilots placed with other operators, the only way a company was going to make any money from Ryanair was by a significant number of placements or, indeed, becoming a "letterbox provider".

By my then employer's interpretation of the law the pilots could be deemed to be self employed if they operated from no fixed base, i.e. they operated from one base one week and another base the next and Ryanair abused this to the hilt, of course each self employed pilot was legally responsible for paying their own taxes and social security in their nominated home domicile, whether they opted to do so or not was none of our legal concern.

Once DD became placed with Brookfield their pilot placements with Ryanair went through the roof whilst ours remained constant if not diminished, I'm out of the industry now, I'm my own boss so I can say what the hell I like, quite regarding the legalities of what I have posted here is not a subject I care to be drawn on, I'm just saying how it was some 10 years ago, please respect my honesty.

Nice one Phileas... respect indeed.... insightful input and most interesting

[Phileas Fogg]

How many winter/summers do you need to work out that you always need them then?

I did 7 years in FR as a "Contractor"

ZerotoHero,

I was summarising the industry as a whole and not some Dublin based cowboy outfit :)

The IT market goes from season to season, just reckon on the Sharm El Sheikh problem as just one example, need to dump personnel PDQ, well contractors may get paid more than employed staff but such is life!


111boy,

Thanks :)

[Skyjob]

Let us not only look at Ryanair in this discussion about contractors.
Most other large corporations use them at will, even Jaguar/Land Rover for their Engineering Department, Lafarge/Tarmac for their motorway maintenance IT and engineering departments, to name just a few...
Several countries allow so called self employed contractors up to a limited amount of years before law requires them to be taken on as employees. Even National Tax Offices use these practices and relieve staff of their requirements and duties weeks before that term expires, only to rehire them a month or so later for another such duration as a contractor...

Ryanair is not alone in this practice as not was Sports Direct, nor the National Tax Office of NL, and many many more. It is a way of employers to release some burden and enable more capacity when needed and assess multiple potential employees for the best suitable candidates to be hired for long term or just temporarily.

Unfortunately many companies abuse the system they've been given, thus this loophole needs to be closed by creating rules as to when these contractors can be used and after which time permanent employment must be offered...