Ryanair faces inquiry as toilets on aircraft were used as seats
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting stranded staff on a jumpseat, whether with the agreement of the aircraft owner or not, is TOTALLY different to allowing them to sit in the toilet for the flight...I have flown on many jumpseats, either cabin or Flightdeck, all of which have had better restraint systems than the passenger seats (have you ever seen a passenger struggling with their 5-point harness?). This is another example of Ryanair trying to be clever and I for one am glad this has come to light...The travelling public are very fickle, and cheap seat or no cheap seat, will not fly with an airline that they perceive to be lacking in safety (quite rightly too). Lets hope this incident serves to demonstrate that even MOL and his lackeys are not above the law when it comes to legislating for safety standards.
PHX
PHX
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MikeKilo
If you were (or are) an airline captain, would you have allowed it?
Straight answer, please.
I agree that cockpit and jumpseats are different, but this situation was totally stupid and reckless.
The Captain behaved like an idiot and, sorry to say, deserved what happened.
If the "passengers" were in the forward toilets, then of course the whole cabin would have seen it. If in the Aft, then the back row on a B737 is right next to the toilets, so you couldn't fail to miss it.
So, I don't think a "tad unfortunate" at all, but well deserved.
If you were (or are) an airline captain, would you have allowed it?
Straight answer, please.
I agree that cockpit and jumpseats are different, but this situation was totally stupid and reckless.
The Captain behaved like an idiot and, sorry to say, deserved what happened.
If the "passengers" were in the forward toilets, then of course the whole cabin would have seen it. If in the Aft, then the back row on a B737 is right next to the toilets, so you couldn't fail to miss it.
So, I don't think a "tad unfortunate" at all, but well deserved.
Well yes; unsafe, wrong and illegal without doubt. But I can't help noticing how we are all so quick and keen to shop each other these days. Our modern western society is fast developing a spy-and-report mentality which I sometimes find quite frightning. What the RYR crew did was not so unusual. Years ago the pax would have found it amusing. Today's culture is, "I will report this" and ruin careers over what is an incredibly minor incident. YES, M I N O R, no matter what you know-it-all-do-gooder hypocrites (how often do you technically break the law each time you drive your car or ride your bike?) may think or say. A reprimand should have been enough.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Avman,
I have asked this question several times on this post and none of you has been able to answer it, so I will now ask you the same one:
What would have happened if there was an emergency on the flight and the presence of unknown passengers trying to escape from the toilets caused the hindrance of safe exit of other passengers and resulting in loss of life?
In this case, would a reprminand have been enough?
And if your wife and kids were caught up in this - would a reprimand have been enough?
We are not pretending to be know it alls - we are all adult enough to know the difference between the casual breaking of rules, compared to something that could have caused significant harm to others. Please do not be so condescending.
I have asked this question several times on this post and none of you has been able to answer it, so I will now ask you the same one:
What would have happened if there was an emergency on the flight and the presence of unknown passengers trying to escape from the toilets caused the hindrance of safe exit of other passengers and resulting in loss of life?
In this case, would a reprminand have been enough?
And if your wife and kids were caught up in this - would a reprimand have been enough?
We are not pretending to be know it alls - we are all adult enough to know the difference between the casual breaking of rules, compared to something that could have caused significant harm to others. Please do not be so condescending.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it would seem a tad unfortunate that the Capt. should lose his job as a result of doing an illegal favour for stranded staff. (as was said in an earlier post... some airlines have being doing this for staff travellers for many years.. albeit in the jumpseat rather than the toilet!)
Whist I don't support the general pomposity of some of the critisisms here I have to say the Captain was a pratt and would loose his job on any UK/Irish operator for that.
What happened years ago bears no relation to today and comparing jump seats and toilets shows that you know absolutely cock all about the processes for helping staff out and getting the maximum people on board whilst staying within the rules (even the anal FD jumpseat ones).
Still don't suppose it matters in your Cessna 152 does it?
NN
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AVIACO,
I'll give my view to your question to MK.....NO WAY!!!
He knew it was stupid, he got caught, now he's looking for a new job...This was NOT a minor incident, it was something that could potentially have cost lives in an emergency situation. Had anything have happened, how would it sit on the conscience of those involved???
PHX
NN,
Hopefully I don\'t fit into the category of "pomposity" regarding this post? I agree that the course of action that has ensued was the right one...Surely if the Captain did not jump he would have to have been pushed? Do favours for stranded crews whenever you can (we\'ve all been stranded at one time or another), but not at the cost of basic safety and common sense.
PHX
I'll give my view to your question to MK.....NO WAY!!!
He knew it was stupid, he got caught, now he's looking for a new job...This was NOT a minor incident, it was something that could potentially have cost lives in an emergency situation. Had anything have happened, how would it sit on the conscience of those involved???
PHX
NN,
Hopefully I don\'t fit into the category of "pomposity" regarding this post? I agree that the course of action that has ensued was the right one...Surely if the Captain did not jump he would have to have been pushed? Do favours for stranded crews whenever you can (we\'ve all been stranded at one time or another), but not at the cost of basic safety and common sense.
PHX
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. The Captain has done the right thing in resigning. Hope his professional colleagues have learned from it.
But, these things cannot go unnoticed. Ryanair MUST be heavily penalised and censured for this.
It's the only way they will learn.
But, these things cannot go unnoticed. Ryanair MUST be heavily penalised and censured for this.
It's the only way they will learn.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 49
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an interesting psychological phenomenon knownb as "Projecting".
Basically those that shout the loudest at a so-called "Out Rage" can be motivated by their own guilt.
From what many have said here, tho illegal, this practice of getting extra off duty crew on board has been happening for decades.
Avman's comments did not strike me as condescending, who hasn't driven their car or riden his bike at 100mph along the M4?
And Aviaco - that is not a simple ignoring of the rules surely! I wouldn't let anyone take my teenage son out on his sportsbike and smile at him "Ignoring the rules".
But anyway - like I said - those that shout the loudest frequently have the most to cover up.
For example those that are highly vocal over issues of sexuality frequently have issues with their own sexuality, "Projecting" is summed up in the well known "I think he dost protest too much!"
Basically those that shout the loudest at a so-called "Out Rage" can be motivated by their own guilt.
From what many have said here, tho illegal, this practice of getting extra off duty crew on board has been happening for decades.
Avman's comments did not strike me as condescending, who hasn't driven their car or riden his bike at 100mph along the M4?
And Aviaco - that is not a simple ignoring of the rules surely! I wouldn't let anyone take my teenage son out on his sportsbike and smile at him "Ignoring the rules".
But anyway - like I said - those that shout the loudest frequently have the most to cover up.
For example those that are highly vocal over issues of sexuality frequently have issues with their own sexuality, "Projecting" is summed up in the well known "I think he dost protest too much!"
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phoenix
No and I agree. Just don't put then in the loo
BA had a very high profile casualty a few years ago for having an infant on a knee on the jumpseat. He would have got away with it but p****d off the cabin crew so much they reported him.
NN
No and I agree. Just don't put then in the loo
BA had a very high profile casualty a few years ago for having an infant on a knee on the jumpseat. He would have got away with it but p****d off the cabin crew so much they reported him.
NN
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NN,
Thanks for that...If this is what it takes to kick these cowboys out of the industry then great, let's do it! The sooner the industry weeds out the crap and lets the safe operators get on with things the better.
PHX
Thanks for that...If this is what it takes to kick these cowboys out of the industry then great, let's do it! The sooner the industry weeds out the crap and lets the safe operators get on with things the better.
PHX
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Egnxema,
Nonsense. In my case, I am protesting because the incident was a genuine threat to the safety of 180+ people, and such incidents should not be allowed to happen and the company MUST be reprimanded by the relevant authorities, otherwise what's the point of having regulatory authorities???
Question to you - would you have permitted it?
Second Question to you - If the ball was now in your court and you were the Irish CAA or the UK CAA, what would you now do? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "ah well, these things happen..........."
I am very very sure that you wouldn't.
("Minor" breaches I referred to earlier would include parking on a double yellow for five minutes or forgetting to buy a parking ticket or renewing ones road tax on time. I agree that idiotic motorway behaviour that you describe above would also fall into the reckless and major category. Trust this clarifies.)
Nonsense. In my case, I am protesting because the incident was a genuine threat to the safety of 180+ people, and such incidents should not be allowed to happen and the company MUST be reprimanded by the relevant authorities, otherwise what's the point of having regulatory authorities???
Question to you - would you have permitted it?
Second Question to you - If the ball was now in your court and you were the Irish CAA or the UK CAA, what would you now do? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "ah well, these things happen..........."
I am very very sure that you wouldn't.
("Minor" breaches I referred to earlier would include parking on a double yellow for five minutes or forgetting to buy a parking ticket or renewing ones road tax on time. I agree that idiotic motorway behaviour that you describe above would also fall into the reckless and major category. Trust this clarifies.)
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
I happened to notice this thread in the "Latest" column and thought it might prove an interesting read, as indeed it has. Please bear with me as I do not work within the aviation industry, but I am puzzled by one thing; if these were staff trying to reposition why were they not put onto the passenger list first? Surely it makes more sense to have your staff where you need them at the appropriate time and to make prior arrangements for their travel? I realise that this would mean that the number of fare-paying passengers would be reduced but if the staff were not to be available for their next flight(s) could this not result in an even greater loss of revenue? If they were staff returning from holiday why did they not make sensible arrangements first? I am in no way condoning what happened. I am just glad I wasn't on that flight.
With MY reputation?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not fussed, as long as it's "Child Friendly"
Age: 52
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DX,
Sadly not...Usually the crew are repositioning from weekends off, visiting friend/relatives etc and therefore are doing it for their own purposes, and therefore it is THEIR responsibility to get back where they need to be on time. Most companies (including mine) have levels of disciplinary action in force for staff who fail to return in time to report for duty, and I don't doubt for one moment that FR, with their "forward thinking" management, will be any different.
PHX
Sadly not...Usually the crew are repositioning from weekends off, visiting friend/relatives etc and therefore are doing it for their own purposes, and therefore it is THEIR responsibility to get back where they need to be on time. Most companies (including mine) have levels of disciplinary action in force for staff who fail to return in time to report for duty, and I don't doubt for one moment that FR, with their "forward thinking" management, will be any different.
PHX
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: uk
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if these were staff trying to reposition why were they not put onto the passenger list first? Surely it makes more sense to have your staff where you need them at the appropriate time and to make prior arrangements for their travel? I realise that this would mean that the number of fare-paying passengers would be reduced but if the staff were not to be available for their next flight(s) could this not result in an even greater loss of revenue?
Will you come and run BA please?
NN
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 49
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviaco,
No I would not have permitted it, and if I were the IAA or CAA I would make sure the Crew members involved are disciplined, which it seems they have been.
What saddens me is the way that shouting down other airlines is too common these days. It seem to be a bad reflection on the industry that these things do happen, to Ryanair, and have happened, on countless other carriers, probably even yours!
I suggest that good practice be engendered in all operations, and that we should maybe give MOL a break, there is no doubt that may of his decissions suprise, shock, unnerve, irritate or simply amuse - the bottom line is, so far, most of them have made him and FR stacks of cash - and cash, at the end of the day, is why most outfits fly planes!
In no way would I fall out with you Aviaco.
PS - I don't and never have flown for FR.
No I would not have permitted it, and if I were the IAA or CAA I would make sure the Crew members involved are disciplined, which it seems they have been.
What saddens me is the way that shouting down other airlines is too common these days. It seem to be a bad reflection on the industry that these things do happen, to Ryanair, and have happened, on countless other carriers, probably even yours!
I suggest that good practice be engendered in all operations, and that we should maybe give MOL a break, there is no doubt that may of his decissions suprise, shock, unnerve, irritate or simply amuse - the bottom line is, so far, most of them have made him and FR stacks of cash - and cash, at the end of the day, is why most outfits fly planes!
In no way would I fall out with you Aviaco.
PS - I don't and never have flown for FR.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 43
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely the reason at the heart of this outrage is not one seemingly irelevant breach of the rules, but what this shows of FR in the bigger picture. Coming from an airline which, as we all know, is finding loop holes to make crew work their maximum hours, leading to many media articles of crew fatigue endangering pax, this incident is maybe just one of many such 'minor' incidents whch we do not know of. An airline which seems to be freely showing very little concern for safety and just lining the pockets of our friend MOL, surely needs to be repremanded?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: On a warm beach
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would not have been surprised if this happened years ago, but today it is a bit odd. In the 70's with a major us airline flying a charter, we had an extra 6 folks in the cockpit of a B727 for landing, kinda tight. While with a us upstart one of the captains always brought his wife, when it filled up he put her on the toilet. He was odd even back then.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: DE74
Age: 49
Posts: 767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MonarchA330
Stop! How many other airlines have broken these rules? Lots!
Why should FR be hammered?
FYI FR have an excellent safety record! They are almost up there with QF!
Stop! How many other airlines have broken these rules? Lots!
Why should FR be hammered?
FYI FR have an excellent safety record! They are almost up there with QF!