Ryanair faces inquiry as toilets on aircraft were used as seats
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GotTheTshirt
Thanks for the input on hull insurance it’s a topic that few pilots know much about.
I think that it would be beneficial to the pilot group if Pprune had information links similar in format that is available on the tech forum so that pilots could gain knowledge on topics such as insurance. It would certainly end the speculation, opinions that pass’s for facts on most threads and generally move the topic matter along at a higher level.
Thanks for the input on hull insurance it’s a topic that few pilots know much about.
I think that it would be beneficial to the pilot group if Pprune had information links similar in format that is available on the tech forum so that pilots could gain knowledge on topics such as insurance. It would certainly end the speculation, opinions that pass’s for facts on most threads and generally move the topic matter along at a higher level.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coconuts, whilst your loyalty to your friend is commendable it unfortunately appears to have blinded you to the seriousness of the facts. IF he knew those people were on board then the very least he is guilty of is knowingly breaking the law.
Oh hardly!!!!!! Girona is in Spain and from the photos I saw when I did a Google search it is far from being the back of beyond. Hardly justification for breaking the law!
stuck in an airport in the middle of no doubt nowhere with probably little facilities
Let me say right away that I would not under any circumstance (excepting an emergency war evacuation circumstance) agree to carrying anyone in anything but a proper seat.
I keep trying to figure out why this very experienced captain agreed to such a bizarre request. After all, if the two cabin staff involved had not got on the aircraft, the world would still have been there in the morning. The only result would have been that they would have had to spend some more money.
As it was, the captain ended up resigning and since the two ladies, who were not locked in the lavatories, refused to resign and they lost their jobs anyway.
What was the special pressure that persuaded this captain to throw common sense out of the window? Was there perhaps a deeper personal consideration that has as yet not been revealed that finally influenced his judgement?
I find the whole afair very sad but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why he went along with the idea.
I keep trying to figure out why this very experienced captain agreed to such a bizarre request. After all, if the two cabin staff involved had not got on the aircraft, the world would still have been there in the morning. The only result would have been that they would have had to spend some more money.
As it was, the captain ended up resigning and since the two ladies, who were not locked in the lavatories, refused to resign and they lost their jobs anyway.
What was the special pressure that persuaded this captain to throw common sense out of the window? Was there perhaps a deeper personal consideration that has as yet not been revealed that finally influenced his judgement?
I find the whole afair very sad but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why he went along with the idea.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well I met the captain in question (who was last year voted "Captain of the Year" no doubt a well deserved accolade) today & he's in great form, not a bother on him. You guys may have your knickers in a knot about this but he certainly hasn't, he's never been as happy in his life now that he's out of the dump. As for 'retirement' I'd take that with a grain of salt, the lovely captain has no more intention of retiring then the man on the moon, he intends to keep flying for many years to come. 
Good on ya captain, thumbs up at O'Leary eh. Hope you have a wonderful time in your new job & that you're very happy.
Coco
Good on ya captain, thumbs up at O'Leary eh. Hope you have a wonderful time in your new job & that you're very happy.
Coco
jetsy
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US for now
Posts: 524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW411
The dude retired,..
bet ya he would have been canned before he said :"sorry".
"Nice" does not score you too many points these days. For a reason.
"...it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why he went along with the idea."
You've got to be joking!
You want to "get to the bottom" of IT ?
The dude retired,..
bet ya he would have been canned before he said :"sorry".
"Nice" does not score you too many points these days. For a reason.
"...it would be interesting to get to the bottom of why he went along with the idea."
You've got to be joking!
You want to "get to the bottom" of IT ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
While the captain kept fairly mum about it I was told by someone very close to him that there were mitigating circumstances.
1) "Firstly that these crew were due to report for duty next day & needed to get back that day."
2) "That these flights are always full from that destination at this time of year, there wouldn't have been one going till next day so he didn't have much leeway but to take them because they probably would have been faced with the same situation next day etc etc".
My main priority here is to protect the person in question & his privacy hence my perceived evasiveness.
Regards
Coco
1) "Firstly that these crew were due to report for duty next day & needed to get back that day."
2) "That these flights are always full from that destination at this time of year, there wouldn't have been one going till next day so he didn't have much leeway but to take them because they probably would have been faced with the same situation next day etc etc".
My main priority here is to protect the person in question & his privacy hence my perceived evasiveness.
Regards
Coco
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since when has 'mitigating circumstances' meant a Commander has discretion to break the rules (or his company force him to do it) - assume Irish CAA are no different to everyone else - and also avoid straight common sense on safety issues
Coco pls...
Coco pls...
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coconuts,
If this Captain is as you say a good friend of yours then he probably would be very grateful if you ceased from bringing up your constant arguments in his defence.
We all of us feel concern for anyone who has to lose their job. The gentlemen in question rightly fell on his sword to preserve his dignity and to stop any further witch hunts. He knew he was in the wrong and regardless of what you say there are no mitigating circumstances.
We all of us know the rules and we also all of us within professional aviation know that should we, in anyway, bend or break those rules and get caught then we have no choice but to resign or get sacked.
If he is such a great friend of yours do him a favour and let this thread go and let the man get on with his life.
If this Captain is as you say a good friend of yours then he probably would be very grateful if you ceased from bringing up your constant arguments in his defence.
We all of us feel concern for anyone who has to lose their job. The gentlemen in question rightly fell on his sword to preserve his dignity and to stop any further witch hunts. He knew he was in the wrong and regardless of what you say there are no mitigating circumstances.
We all of us know the rules and we also all of us within professional aviation know that should we, in anyway, bend or break those rules and get caught then we have no choice but to resign or get sacked.
If he is such a great friend of yours do him a favour and let this thread go and let the man get on with his life.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see FR made the Irish Independent (described as "air rage" in headline) for refusing to board pax due 732 door damage requiring 25 seats left vacant and not enough volunteers.
Damned if they do, it seems...
Damned if they do, it seems...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coconuts,
this would be fine if it were not for the fact that your actions contradict your apparent intentions.
and
There can't be too many newly employed ex-Ryanair pilots around can there, especially one who was voted "Captain of the Year"? If his new employer reads this and puts two and two together (it wouldn't take Einstein to do that) then you might well find you have cost your friend his new job and how will you explain that to him? Tell him you are sorry but you were only trying to defend him against his fellow pilots? A lot of comfort that would be to him.
You also appear to have forgotten one of the important rules of posting in here: that we do not make personal attacks on other posters. What happens on other sites is irrelevant here.
My main priority here is to protect the person in question & his privacy hence my perceived evasiveness
in your new job
who was last year voted "Captain of the Year"
You also appear to have forgotten one of the important rules of posting in here: that we do not make personal attacks on other posters. What happens on other sites is irrelevant here.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: to close
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think coconuts is just trying to defend a friend as we all would. The capt had resigned about 3 weeks before this happened anyway and was due to leave 3 or 4 days later so it was just as easy to leave a few days earlier
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In answer to the question, what would an FO do if faced with that situation.... personally I'd refuse to fly. If the captain insisted, I'd get off- if necessary by the escape rope.
For the record, I am not exagerrating.
For the record, I am not exagerrating.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coconuts
You should be aware that virtually every airline on the planet has a clause in their employment contract, relating to staff travel, that lays down fairly clearly that failing to return via a flight on a staff ticket is no excuse. If the flights were full, why did they think it was a smart move to try and go to Gerona on a staff ticket? There are absolutely NO mitigating circumstances in this case.
And, as others have mentioned, you are doing more to finger your friend, than to help him.
Got the Tshirt and Tan (insurance)
Firstly before I entered this discussion, I asked my father what the real story is. He spent 30+ at Lloyds as a broker dealing in - wait for it - aircraft hull insurance.
Not everybody leases - there are still several airlines around that own a large proportion (if not all) of their aircraft. In any case, the insurance is usually taken out by the airline as a requirement of the lease - and as has been noted - and yes the leasing company will get paid - but the airline will end up footing the bill. Some carry insurance for this event, and it is that which will not pay out. Why do you think an insurance company would take the risk, when any hull loss claim will be an automatic payout, regardless of fault? They must charge like wounded bulls to cover that risk.
You should be aware that virtually every airline on the planet has a clause in their employment contract, relating to staff travel, that lays down fairly clearly that failing to return via a flight on a staff ticket is no excuse. If the flights were full, why did they think it was a smart move to try and go to Gerona on a staff ticket? There are absolutely NO mitigating circumstances in this case.
And, as others have mentioned, you are doing more to finger your friend, than to help him.
Got the Tshirt and Tan (insurance)
Firstly before I entered this discussion, I asked my father what the real story is. He spent 30+ at Lloyds as a broker dealing in - wait for it - aircraft hull insurance.
Not everybody leases - there are still several airlines around that own a large proportion (if not all) of their aircraft. In any case, the insurance is usually taken out by the airline as a requirement of the lease - and as has been noted - and yes the leasing company will get paid - but the airline will end up footing the bill. Some carry insurance for this event, and it is that which will not pay out. Why do you think an insurance company would take the risk, when any hull loss claim will be an automatic payout, regardless of fault? They must charge like wounded bulls to cover that risk.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got The T-Shirt is quite correct - any leasing company or financier of an aircraft will usually require a clause known as 'First loss payee' to be in the lease or finance contract with the airline and in parallel they are named as 'first loss payee' in the insurance schedule that the airline has to take out to cover the mutually agreed minimum hull value of the aircraft - whereby as GTT correctly states if there is a payout the leasing company and/or financier will get paid first in preference to any other claimant i.e. the airline - that money is paid to them direct by the insurers company and does not get transferred via the airline or any other third party - this is 'First loss payee'
However where GTT is incorrect is that should for any reason the insurance not pay out because of violation of rules etc. etc. the insurers do not pay out to the 'First loss payee' either - a 'Hold harmless' clause can be a huge number of things but does not relate to this situation and in fact means that someone will protect someone else from being held liable 'held harmless' and the lessor/financier will require that the airline have a 'hold harmless' clause in the contract negating/protecting the former from any liability or action due to the use of their asset by the said airline - nothing to do with insurance payouts - if the insurance doesnt pay out no one gets paid and the lessor/financier will come after the airline for the money, plain and simple
In addition to that of course any leasing or finance agreement makes the airline 100% liable for the asset to the airline and if for example the insurance doesnt pay out, there is a shortfall or the aircraft just wasn't insured the airline is completely liable/responsible to pay the lessor/financier regardless
Whether an aircraft is leased or owned with the purchase being financed (a loan) by a financial institution is irrelevant - only where an airline has total 100% ownership of the asset (i.e paid in cash or paid off the loan) can they decide not to insure the hull - clearly then and only then it is their choice and their risk as it is solely their property (and i have never known it happen)
Think there appears some confusion there...but is thread creeping...
However where GTT is incorrect is that should for any reason the insurance not pay out because of violation of rules etc. etc. the insurers do not pay out to the 'First loss payee' either - a 'Hold harmless' clause can be a huge number of things but does not relate to this situation and in fact means that someone will protect someone else from being held liable 'held harmless' and the lessor/financier will require that the airline have a 'hold harmless' clause in the contract negating/protecting the former from any liability or action due to the use of their asset by the said airline - nothing to do with insurance payouts - if the insurance doesnt pay out no one gets paid and the lessor/financier will come after the airline for the money, plain and simple
In addition to that of course any leasing or finance agreement makes the airline 100% liable for the asset to the airline and if for example the insurance doesnt pay out, there is a shortfall or the aircraft just wasn't insured the airline is completely liable/responsible to pay the lessor/financier regardless
Whether an aircraft is leased or owned with the purchase being financed (a loan) by a financial institution is irrelevant - only where an airline has total 100% ownership of the asset (i.e paid in cash or paid off the loan) can they decide not to insure the hull - clearly then and only then it is their choice and their risk as it is solely their property (and i have never known it happen)
Think there appears some confusion there...but is thread creeping...
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: The World
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm insurance is an interesting topic. If I recall correctly my airline used to split its insurance coverage. The hull insurance was kept in house and had its own contingent fund to fully meet its obligations. The labiality part was farmed out due to its potentially high payouts and was usually spread out among a multitude of insurance underwriters as no one insurance company would assume the risk alone. I understand this basket approach to insurance labiality is how all the majors do it.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's right. One airline I worked for carried contingency insurance for some of the situations mentioned above.
I am fairly sure that an airline would not be permitted (by the CAA in the UK) to operate an aircraft without the hull being insured... they absolutely would not be able to operate without liability insurance for passengers, employees, and third parties (which costs more in any case).
As Boss Raptor says, there is no automatic payout by an insurance company to an aircraft lessor in the event of a hull loss. If the insurance company had a case for negligence or wilful damage by the airline (or its employees), they won't pay, and it will be up to the leasing company to sue the airline (which is what I was trying to say above).
The Silkair and Concorde crashes are good examples of what the insurance companies get up to when there is a whiff of culpability on the part of the airline...
I am fairly sure that an airline would not be permitted (by the CAA in the UK) to operate an aircraft without the hull being insured... they absolutely would not be able to operate without liability insurance for passengers, employees, and third parties (which costs more in any case).
As Boss Raptor says, there is no automatic payout by an insurance company to an aircraft lessor in the event of a hull loss. If the insurance company had a case for negligence or wilful damage by the airline (or its employees), they won't pay, and it will be up to the leasing company to sue the airline (which is what I was trying to say above).
The Silkair and Concorde crashes are good examples of what the insurance companies get up to when there is a whiff of culpability on the part of the airline...