So Siemens are (dish)washing their hands of Ryanair? :D

The larger issue would really be about why a reputable company as Siemens would send its valued employees on such el cheapo flights. :ooh:

EEngr,

I don't know either. Siemens could get out of that by letting Ryanair bid, but by never letting them win the bid due to "safety" issues.

Ah, the truth is out:

http://cphpost.dk/news/international...anding-billund

They were no doubt arguing about respective merits of Siemens and Hotpoint appliances

How many of Siemens' 400,000 employees are going to be travelling for business? Not many. 1%? If that.

Joe Public are just going to look for the cheapest fares, regardless of reputation.

Not sure Mike and Steve should be that worried to be honest.

An accident is defined (ICAO Annex 13) as:

"An occurrence ... in which ... b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component".

It would be hard to argue that poking a MLG leg up through the wing doesn't fit that criterion - therefore it's technically as accident, not an incident.

Siemens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey, wondering nobody is already bashing with this amunition.

But let's wait until the anglian press kicks in....

Tableview, translation follows below:

the board of executives at Siemens has made this decision due to the fact that Ryanair has had a number of recent incidents (tillbud and incident means the same) and it is a signal to the entire aviation industry.

Edit: no sign here of Siemens mentioning anything about an accident (olycka) :)

It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Am not surprised but still amazed by Ryanair's public reaction. If I was the CEO I would be contacting Siemens for a meeting to find out the reason for the embargo and then show them the statistics (especially compared to other operators) and even offering some sweetener to keep them.

"Tillbud" and "incident" (singular form of "incidenter" used above, which is the same as incidents) are nuances of the same thing. An "incident" (spelling is the same in English and Swedish) is the same thing, how ever a "Tillbud" is something that could have developed into an incident, but isn't as severe. In Swedish we often use "tillbud" as you would use "incident" (as something that could have lead to an accident).

Literally translated it means "to"-"bid". Till being "to" and bud being "bid". But the word "bud" can be interpeted not only as a bid at an auction but also something taking place. Hence "something that was (potentially) going to happen".

I'm not sure if this made you any wiser but it was worth a try I guess :rolleyes:

re post 21.

With my knowledge of contracting (admittedly mainly in UK) you can put anything you want in a contract as long as both parties agree (with exception of those deamed penalty clauses or illegal terms). If Seimens has an explicit term relating to risk management, and the recent "incidents" trigger some review, then yes, they may well be able to terminate the contract. Having said that, I doubt the contract is with Ryanair directly, probably with a "Travel Agency / consultant" as stated in a post above.

What is interesting is why they chose to go public (if indeed it was choice). Contracts are generally not discussed outside of the 2 parties.

No mention of who else is on the "do not fly" list?

Siemens wind turbines have also had a few "incidents" ...

Man killed when wind tower collapses | News | KATU.com - Portland News, Sports, Traffic Weather and Breaking News - Portland, Oregon

Siemens extends 2.3MW turbine investigation amid 'defect' concern | Windpower Monthly

Given many wind turbines are located near or even over public footpaths should there be an industry safety regulator as there is for airlines?

H&S and Duty of Care
 

All companies have a duty of care for their employees and the methods of transport utilized for/during work . The same principles would apply with the boards responsibility of workers re intoxicants etc .
Ipso Facto

Show me an airline that HASN'T had an incident?

On top of that, if you assume there was only one mega huge global airline that operated all the aircraft ever to fly/crash/not look right/get cancelled, flying is STILL safer than the trip to the airport, even if you choose to fly with the carrier with the worst safety record in the world.

'nuff said, and the risk analysts want to analyze their risk to the public. :=

But with many many near misses, like this one, it makes chilling reading.....



Report: Ryanair B738 at Rome on Sep 7th 2005, loss of situational awareness and terrain clearance


... and in another way, very sad reading for the personal circumstances of the Captain.

But thats the Ryanair culture, one of creating fear amongst employees.

"Am not surprised but still amazed by Ryanair's public reaction. If I was the CEO I would be contacting Siemens for a meeting to find out the reason for the embargo and then show them the statistics (especially compared to other operators) and even offering some sweetener to keep them. "

O'Leary? A sweetener?!

Saltener more like.

What a ridiculous statement.

The discussion was about what are the criteria that define an accident. If you have a problem with those definitions, take it up with ICAO.

Feel free to search the history of my posts on PPruNe for any evidence of an anti-Ryanair agenda.

Over to you.

Probably to avoid that sort of stain on their character.

Oh come on!

The discussion is about Siemens not ICAO definitions.