O'Leary going to Jail?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 450
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any news yet? I bet MOL is a very nervous man this morning. I wouldn't like to be him. Even if he remains on the outside he'll be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. He has too many enemies to walk down a Dublin street on his own.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Day two: Ryanair's side of the story
Ryanair's side of the story has been getting an airing the High Court today. No mention so far of Michael O'Leary's biro, though... 
Full report (incl TV pics if you have RealAudio) on the RTE News website. Here's an extract...
Shamrock 602
Court hears from Ryanair executives
13 May 2005 12:34 [GMT+1]
Three Ryanair executives have told the High Court that the decision on whether pilot John Goss should be allowed to fly is inextricably linked with the issue of safety.
However counsel for Captain Goss said the pilot has been certified medically fit to fly and there was no corroborative evidence to ground him.
Mr Justice Barry White said that a form of blackmail was being applied to the court where it would be on the court's conscience if anything happened to an aeroplane flown by Mr Goss.
He said the issue was whether there is a court order and whether it has been disobeyed.
Counsel for Ryanair Richard Nesbitt SC said there was no issue of blackmail. ...
Full report (incl TV pics if you have RealAudio) on the RTE News website. Here's an extract...
Shamrock 602
Court hears from Ryanair executives
13 May 2005 12:34 [GMT+1]
Three Ryanair executives have told the High Court that the decision on whether pilot John Goss should be allowed to fly is inextricably linked with the issue of safety.
However counsel for Captain Goss said the pilot has been certified medically fit to fly and there was no corroborative evidence to ground him.
Mr Justice Barry White said that a form of blackmail was being applied to the court where it would be on the court's conscience if anything happened to an aeroplane flown by Mr Goss.
He said the issue was whether there is a court order and whether it has been disobeyed.
Counsel for Ryanair Richard Nesbitt SC said there was no issue of blackmail. ...
Last edited by Shamrock 602; 13th May 2005 at 14:52.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ireland
Age: 43
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He shouldn't chew that biro too much; the hotel will want it back!
I guess the chickens will come home to roost. The one question I have and perhaps someone could help: does having a criminal conviction (which would be the case if one were jailed for contempt) exclude one from any duties within an airline? Could the IAA say that because these individuals (particularly the Ops guys, rather than O'Leary) have convictions they can no longer hold their positions?
Also, if the IAA is responsible for quality and safety, as it clearly is, I wonder if the US example of Frank Lorenzo might be a suitable example to follow; you'll remember FL was a former CEO/ Chairman of CO and was excluded from airline management by the FAA. Not sure of the entire reasoning, but I believe that one of the contributory factors was that he had such a bad effect on morale that it felt that the airline's safety/procedures were undermined by having such a person running an airline (perhaps someone can clarify the reasons). Could the IAA take this view in relation to MO'L and exclude him from management of an Irish registered airline?
I guess the chickens will come home to roost. The one question I have and perhaps someone could help: does having a criminal conviction (which would be the case if one were jailed for contempt) exclude one from any duties within an airline? Could the IAA say that because these individuals (particularly the Ops guys, rather than O'Leary) have convictions they can no longer hold their positions?
Also, if the IAA is responsible for quality and safety, as it clearly is, I wonder if the US example of Frank Lorenzo might be a suitable example to follow; you'll remember FL was a former CEO/ Chairman of CO and was excluded from airline management by the FAA. Not sure of the entire reasoning, but I believe that one of the contributory factors was that he had such a bad effect on morale that it felt that the airline's safety/procedures were undermined by having such a person running an airline (perhaps someone can clarify the reasons). Could the IAA take this view in relation to MO'L and exclude him from management of an Irish registered airline?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contempt of Court is not in fact a "Crime" per se. You will not find it in any statute books therefore whatever the outcome Mr. O'Leary will not have a criminal record. Wishful thinking by some I'm afraid.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The case finished yesterday according to "normally reliable sources" who indicated that the judgment will be provided on Wednesday next. The judge directed that Captain Goss appear from Thursday next on the flying roster due to be published yesterday (Friday).
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If John Goss was suspended on 'fullpay' that begs another question. RYR pay, so I believe is made up about 50/50 of salary & sector pay. No sectors = half income. If so, it does not matter whether J.G. was suspended legally or not, he would have taken an income penalty, undeservedly. Surely this loss of income leads to another claim, (compensation), even more so if the suspension is proved to be illegal.
All in all it would seem that RYR's action in suspending an IAA authorised captain will create stress levels and negative effects in the individual far in excess of what it claims to be trying to avoid on safety grounds. That is a totally bogus argument.
All in all it would seem that RYR's action in suspending an IAA authorised captain will create stress levels and negative effects in the individual far in excess of what it claims to be trying to avoid on safety grounds. That is a totally bogus argument.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judgement due next Wednesday (18th May)
This report from The Irish Times (subscription required) gives a bit more detail. A few key points:
1. The evidence has now been presented in this interim hearing, and the next move on Wednesday 18th will be the judgement at 1100 local (GMT+1).
2. The judge's patience does indeed seem to be wearing thin. His reference to a certain Liam Lawlor concerns a politician who made history a few years ago by being the first ex-government minister to be jailed for contempt of court - for failing to obey a court order.
Next installment in a few days...
Shamrock 602
Decision on jailing of Ryanair executives next week
Irish Times, Sat 14th May 2005
A decision is to be given by the High Court on Wednesday next on an application to jail Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary and two other company executives for allegedly failing to reinstate a senior pilot with the company to flying duties in breach of a previous court order.
At one stage during yesterday's proceedings, Mr Justice Barry White said he wished to have the matter finalised.
He did not want the matter coming back to court on a daily basis and have somebody from Ryanair, "like Daniel O'Connell", working out how a "coach and four" might be driven through an order of the court.
Referring to previous High Court judgments involving Judge Brian Curtin and former TD [member of parliament] Liam Lawlor, he said it had been made abundantly clear that nobody in the State was above the law, and he certainly was not going to allow that in the present case.
At the conclusion of a two-day hearing on the application yesterday, the judge said that he had "a lot of reading to do" in connection with the case and he obviously wished to deal with it as soon as possible. He would give his decision at 11am on Wednesday.
The court instructed that a slot should be left open on the company's roster from Wednesday next to restore John Goss to flying duties in the event of him being successful in the judgment that day.
It is claimed by Mr Goss that Ryanair is in contempt of the earlier court order and he is seeking the attachment and committal of Mr O'Leary; the company's director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien; and its chief pilot, Ray Conway.
An order for the sequestration (seizure) of Ryanair's assets is also being sought.
Ryanair denies there is a breach of a court order. It had told Mr Goss that in its view it was operationally inappropriate that he should fly while the court proceedings are pending and that it was suspending him on full pay.
Two suggestions were made during yesterday's hearing to try to resolve the situation over the weekend but were not agreed to.
Initially, it was proposed that an independent medical expert from abroad might medically examine Mr Goss over the weekend to determine any aspect of stress on his part and report to the court.
Three names were suggested and, following an adjournment, counsel for Ryanair said it appeared that one of them was available to carry out the examination and that the company was agreeable to such a course.
The judge suggested that the case might be adjourned to allow the medical examination take place, with Mr Goss being rostered for duty but agreeing to waive his right to fly in the intervening period.
Richard Nesbitt SC, for Ryanair, said he could see sense in that suggestion. But Hugh Mohan SC, for Mr Goss, said he would not be happy with that course.
Mr Mohan said the previous court order was in place and had never been appealed.
Two medical examiners had given his client a clean bill of health to fly, and a psychiatrist had given a favourable report. All the medical evidence was in Mr Goss's favour.
In his submissions, Mr Nesbitt proposed that there was no contempt and referred to an affidavit of Mr Conway that at all times his decision in relation to Mr Goss was based on operational considerations for safety and in accordance with best practices.
© The Irish Times
1. The evidence has now been presented in this interim hearing, and the next move on Wednesday 18th will be the judgement at 1100 local (GMT+1).
2. The judge's patience does indeed seem to be wearing thin. His reference to a certain Liam Lawlor concerns a politician who made history a few years ago by being the first ex-government minister to be jailed for contempt of court - for failing to obey a court order.
Next installment in a few days...
Shamrock 602
Decision on jailing of Ryanair executives next week
Irish Times, Sat 14th May 2005
A decision is to be given by the High Court on Wednesday next on an application to jail Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary and two other company executives for allegedly failing to reinstate a senior pilot with the company to flying duties in breach of a previous court order.
At one stage during yesterday's proceedings, Mr Justice Barry White said he wished to have the matter finalised.
He did not want the matter coming back to court on a daily basis and have somebody from Ryanair, "like Daniel O'Connell", working out how a "coach and four" might be driven through an order of the court.
Referring to previous High Court judgments involving Judge Brian Curtin and former TD [member of parliament] Liam Lawlor, he said it had been made abundantly clear that nobody in the State was above the law, and he certainly was not going to allow that in the present case.
At the conclusion of a two-day hearing on the application yesterday, the judge said that he had "a lot of reading to do" in connection with the case and he obviously wished to deal with it as soon as possible. He would give his decision at 11am on Wednesday.
The court instructed that a slot should be left open on the company's roster from Wednesday next to restore John Goss to flying duties in the event of him being successful in the judgment that day.
It is claimed by Mr Goss that Ryanair is in contempt of the earlier court order and he is seeking the attachment and committal of Mr O'Leary; the company's director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien; and its chief pilot, Ray Conway.
An order for the sequestration (seizure) of Ryanair's assets is also being sought.
Ryanair denies there is a breach of a court order. It had told Mr Goss that in its view it was operationally inappropriate that he should fly while the court proceedings are pending and that it was suspending him on full pay.
Two suggestions were made during yesterday's hearing to try to resolve the situation over the weekend but were not agreed to.
Initially, it was proposed that an independent medical expert from abroad might medically examine Mr Goss over the weekend to determine any aspect of stress on his part and report to the court.
Three names were suggested and, following an adjournment, counsel for Ryanair said it appeared that one of them was available to carry out the examination and that the company was agreeable to such a course.
The judge suggested that the case might be adjourned to allow the medical examination take place, with Mr Goss being rostered for duty but agreeing to waive his right to fly in the intervening period.
Richard Nesbitt SC, for Ryanair, said he could see sense in that suggestion. But Hugh Mohan SC, for Mr Goss, said he would not be happy with that course.
Mr Mohan said the previous court order was in place and had never been appealed.
Two medical examiners had given his client a clean bill of health to fly, and a psychiatrist had given a favourable report. All the medical evidence was in Mr Goss's favour.
In his submissions, Mr Nesbitt proposed that there was no contempt and referred to an affidavit of Mr Conway that at all times his decision in relation to Mr Goss was based on operational considerations for safety and in accordance with best practices.
© The Irish Times
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being a lawyer, but looking at this in a simple straight forward way, I ask one question.
The order was given by the judge not to penalise J.G is anyway and indeed to reinstate him to flying duties. That seems plain and simple. If RYR deemed it prudent, for safety reasons, not to allow JG to fly, then surely it would have been the correct procedure to appeal the ruling, explaining its reasoning. Their defence that they ignored the ruling for this reason, but did not see fit to alert the judge to their expert judgement, may or may not be contempt but it sure is naively & blatently rude to someone who doesn't give 2 figs for the egoes involved.
The order was given by the judge not to penalise J.G is anyway and indeed to reinstate him to flying duties. That seems plain and simple. If RYR deemed it prudent, for safety reasons, not to allow JG to fly, then surely it would have been the correct procedure to appeal the ruling, explaining its reasoning. Their defence that they ignored the ruling for this reason, but did not see fit to alert the judge to their expert judgement, may or may not be contempt but it sure is naively & blatently rude to someone who doesn't give 2 figs for the egoes involved.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Dublin
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you are playing a high stakes political poker game involving a third party(the judge/court) and Lawyers who are only there to maximise thir cut through either winning or a negotiated settlment in which everybody except the Lawyers loose things don't always pan out as you planned them. I hope O Leary & his sidekicks go to jail but if the case goes against him will he be able to worm his way out of the proceddings by shafting his Ops Manager/Chief Pilot & denying all knowledge,hand,act or part in the proceedings ? Where are all the other crews who should be standing uo in court along with John Goss fighting for their T & C instead of paying for thir NG conversions & uniform rentals from O Leary and Co.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that Capt. Ray Conway is facing a possible commital to prison I would have thought given the stress he may be under that Ryanair should have decided that it was 'operationally inappropriate that he should fly while the court proceedings are pending and that it was suspending him on full pay.'
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Here there and everywhere
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, well... it turns out that the very point about the Chief Pilot flying under stress was made in court by the Goss legal team. Guess what, he said that he DID suspended himself two days after the mandatory injunction was granted (a few hours after his last flight). Interesting orientation given Ryanair's, ehh ..... history. (The CP continues to perform his other duties).
Apparently Ryanair are very conscious of the stress that pilots can suffer and appear to be particularly alert to the safety consequences. So there's one for everyone to think about! Some of us may have mis-understood them over all these years.
Apparently Ryanair are very conscious of the stress that pilots can suffer and appear to be particularly alert to the safety consequences. So there's one for everyone to think about! Some of us may have mis-understood them over all these years.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The exchange rate is another of RYR's figment of imagination. They have the idea that living on the continent is cheaper than UK. Now that really is a myth. The euro changed all that a couple of years ago.
I believe each overseas base has a different salary, all less than UK. If so, I would love to hear how Sweden or Dublin can be cheaper to live than Prestwick or Norfolk.
This is another anomoly which should be removed.
I believe each overseas base has a different salary, all less than UK. If so, I would love to hear how Sweden or Dublin can be cheaper to live than Prestwick or Norfolk.
This is another anomoly which should be removed.
Last edited by RAT 5; 17th May 2005 at 08:16.