Ryanair Unsafe ?? I don't think so

[EI-CFC]

I don’t know how you interpret this memo Sean, but there are flight crew in Ryanair who interpret this as a clear warning that they should be very careful about their level of sickness.

Not to rain on your parade, but I've seen stuff like this in non aviation industries...

[Aloue]

EI-CFC, that indeed is the case. But you are not "raining on my parade" at all. The difference is that in aviation people have responsibilities - in law, at a minimum - to behave in a certain way. There is a difference when people turn out to be unwilling/unable to deliver on those safety responsibilites due to the employment climate.

Do we really have to redo these subjects every few months? Is the point not that Ryanair stands accused of creating and perpetuating an environment in which:

(a) the individual carries the responsibility for behaving in a particular way,

(b) the operator sustains an environment in which the required behaviour is clearly not encouraged (putting it as softly as one can),

(c) by doing so a mismatch between "power to deliver" and "responsibility to delivery" is created,

(d) all of this takes place in an environment where, apparently, the ability to make a bone fide safety report to either the operator or licensing authority has, in the eyes of many/most flight crew, been undermined.

The fact that we can all identify practices and produce documents from other areas that are "worse" (some in the building industry come to mind) is not really the point. We know in the aviation industry what the obligations and responsibilities are - and we should be concerned and interested in what underlies a repeated failure to discharge those responsibilities. My reply to you is the same as it is to Sean, which is that your comment, however true, does not address this subject.

I say that the practices complained of by Sean are widespread, while he claims that it just never happens. Somebody is wrong here.

[bacardi walla]

Interesting to see that my posts have been deleted. What happened to free speech ?

[Faire d'income]

Interesting to see that my posts have been deleted. What happened to free speech ?

It has been re-branded as low cost speech.

[Danny]

Nice one Faire d'income. Bacardi Walla, it may appear to be free to you but unless you are able to grasp the concept that whilst you may sit in front of your screen smug in the knowledge that you are an anonymous poster on here, I on the other hand have to deal with the threats of legal action from Ryanairs lawyers because some posters spout off on issues such as safety without one iota of knowledge of what is permissible and what isn't. To put it simply, if I were to identify you and publish on here that i thought you were of unsound mind and were likely to go around attempting to kill people then you wouldn't be too happy. Well, you wouldn't if I didn't have any substantial evidence to back up my claims.

So, unless your comments are to do with the thread topic and I consider them to be within the rules of what is allowed to be stated then they simply will be deleted. Of course, you are free to email me your personal details and address and should Ryanairs lawyers come after me again because I allowed something you wrote to remain on here but they thought constituted a libel or unfounded allegation, I would be more than happy to forward your details to them so as to allow me more time to have a life instead of trawling through every Ryanair thread and removing some of the unsubstantiated crap that appears on here. After all, Ryanair are a well known airline and as far as I'm aware all their pilots are just as professional as you or I. Just because of one incident you don't label the whole workforce as cowboys. The same applies to their maintenance standards.

On the other hand, you can of course discuss the issues as raised in Aloue's post. I see that today in the letters section of this weeks Flight International there are two letters about stress and company culture. I would suggest you read those and observe how to debate the sensitive subject without necessarily making unsubstantiated allegations.

[bacardi walla]

danny thanks for the post. Please don't you start to threaten me, this is an open forum, managed by your goodself, and my opinions should be most welcome on here. I am fully aware of how FR operate, and treat their crews, and they're motives. I've experienced it first hand some time back.

My comments were completely in line with the topic raised by our friend Aloue

How you at Pprune can be threatened by FR's legal team is beyond me especially as 95% of people on here post fact, and not fiction. BUT, I know that at the first chance of legal action being taken, FR will go for it.

After all, Ryanair are a well known airline and as far as I'm aware all their pilots are just as professional as you or I. Just because of one incident you don't label the whole workforce as cowboys. The same applies to their maintenance standards.

One incident ? I'd say more than one and most people on here would agree with me, including the Irish Courts.

I've never labelled the whole workforce as cowboys.
Their maintenance standards are under scrutiny.

unsubstantiated crap

say's who ?

Keep up the good work you and the other moderators do, but please, don't be threatened by the bullies at FR. I've seen crew members in tears as a result of FR's intimidation tactics so I know how their minds work at times.

I see that today in the letters section of this weeks Flight International there are two letters about stress and company culture. I would suggest you read those and observe how to debate the sensitive subject without necessarily making unsubstantiated allegations.

I don't need to read those. As I said before, I've experienced their culture and it ain't pleasant.

Thanks Danny, I won't waste my time answering any FR threads and voicing my opinion.

[arewenearlythereyet?]

What I cannot understand is that MOL keeps on popping up and harping on about how much bigger and better than BA and all the other major airlines Ryanair is but then feels the need to go after anyone expressing criticism about anything that they think might affect safety, such as the stress that management put on their workforce with examples such as the memo reproduced about sickness. I do not see BA or any of the other major airlines going after Pprune when there is anything to discuss about safety issues so why does MOL feel the need to shut off discussion if he is as big as he claims to be? The only reason I can think of is that perhaps he really does have something to hide. With the kind of cost cutting that MOL brags about we can only assume that there is absolutely no fat left to cater for the unforeseen human aspects such as sickness, fatigue or just plain old fear of poor man management.

While I agree that should someone suffer from a prolonged bout of sickness at regular intervals, they should indeed review whether they are suitable for the job, to send out threats after only three days of sick leave smacks to me of management pressure and is very likely to cause some pilots to perhaps not consider taking a sick day when in reality they should be away from work. It may not matter as much in some jobs but those of us who enjoy working in a very small, fast moving office with fantastic views and the responsibility for transporting many fragile lives, it can be a different matter.

It may or may not be considered properly by MOL and his management team but it seems that the IAA may have done us all a favour by highlighting the approach/landing incident at Skavsta where the captain claims that stress was a factor in his poor decision making. His claim that it was marital stress is really irrelevant as it does not matter what the source and as we have been reading here about the various court actions that Ryanair are involved in regarding their pilots, whether it is about union recognition, moving to new types or getting sued because of unfair dismissal, all these go some way to causing an atmosphere that is conducive to increasing stress levels beyond what is considered background. As we all know, add in any problem that affects a flight and those stress levels soon start to soar and we don't need those levels elevated in the first place by poor man management.

The questions raised by the Skavsta incident should also focus on why the captain did not think it was worthwhile reporting sick for his flight if he knew he was already stressed and also why the first officer did not think it worthwhile reporting the incident after he realised there was a problem with the captain in the first place. It is possible to associate the reluctance of the top Ryanair management to recognise that the pilots would like to have independent recognition by a union or association of their choice where they know that they would be in a better position to face up to management bullying tactics, one example of which is the memo reproduced here about sick days.

It is one thing to be able to say that your maintenance is some of the best in the business and that the quality is going to be improved with all these new gizmos when in fact there possibly is a problem with the individuals who operate the aircraft because they may have a background stress level that leaves little room for additional stress in order to cope with anything out of the ordinary that may occur in flight. Cutting costs to the bone may get you recognition from the annual bean counters awards but shows many people on here that their staff are considered to more of an expense rather than an asset. There is more to a successful business than high profits if the underlying culture of the company relies on bullying and intimidation of its staff. We all know that the most successful businesses have staff that enjoy working for their employer and will go that extra mile without having to put up with the stress that can cause major problems.

[Idunno]

Ireland has had terrific economic success over the last decade, and very many observers put it down to the implementation of a system of national wage agreements introduced 16 years ago.

That system is renewed every 3 - 5 years, and is up for renewal again now.

The governing party (Fine Fail) have just held their annual party conference, which was addressed by representatives to the major Trade Unions, who told the conference that there would be no renewal of the agreement unless issues surrounding union recognition at work, and workplace standards, were dealt with to their satisfaction.

This is a threat aimed directly at O'Leary.

The Government is due to call an election here within the next 18 months. The flow of events is turning against O'Learys style of bullying management.

I predict further defeats for him in the coming months.

[captplaystation]

arewenearlythereyet, I think you have summed it up very succintly. The IAA unfortunately have only identified the nettle but absolutely won't grab it;wonder why?

[bear11]

I suppose I'll be shot here for pointing out some facts, and God forbid I'd ever be seen as MOL's biggest supporter - but:

1) Idunno - never going to happen. The economy here is based mainly on large multinationals such as Intel who came to Ireland on the specific promise that there would be no union interference in their workings. The unions, in fairness to them, played ball at the time, and in doing so, ensured there would never be compulsory union recognition in Ireland - so they can huff and puff all they like, but it will not be a requirement in Ireland as a result, and MO'L is excercising that right as is his due.

2) arewenearlythereyet? How far will one "stressed" flaky pilot take your case? It may appear to an outsider that banging on about safety isn't working, as all Ryanair have to do is show that everything is being done to the required IAA standard, ie; within EASA standards, FTLs, etc, etc. So, the next level of argument is about levels of stress, which is an ethereal, unmeasurable thing at the best of times. Stress sounds to many laymen as the modern-day equivalent of a "bad back" to get off work, or an excuse for bad work when you're found out - a la Skavsta. Not only is it impossible to measure it, it's also impossible to measure what effect it has on any given individual - and in raising the issue, you're handing a big stick to those people in the business who are in love with things like psychometric profiling. I think stress also falls into the "unsubstantiated crap" category.

I agree with you entirely on one thing - the key to this is the non-reaction and non-reporting by the F/O of a Captain who busted SOPs, and yet flew again immediately after. You can have all the safety regulations in the world, and people will still do stupid things - the real test of safety, however, is that when it is compromised, it is found out and dealt with immediately in order to prevent the problem happening again.

[GGV]

bear11 it looks to me like you have examined the evidence and missed what it is / may be telling you.

1) Your comments to Idunno suggest that you have no idea about the Industrial Relations legislation being used by IALPA, nor about their comprehensive victories in using that legislation - reported here by several people - in both the Industrial and Legal courts. If you are resident in Ireland you cannot have missed the importance currently being given by SIPTU to the exploitation of labour as the underlying reason for its reluctance to enter into a new "partnership" deal (exploitation being the very thing that the act is intended to prevent).

2) You seem to have managed to read the Skavsta report and missed what the investigators were saying about stress. Does you really mean that when management use "stress" (e.g. by the Chief Pilot of Ryanair in the John Goss case) it is somehow real, but when others use it is "flakey"? You seem to happy to write off the stress aspect, just as investigators used to write off the fatigue aspect in accidents and incidents (as not being "provable"). However for some years now investigators have been willing to comment upon fatigue, just as they are increasingly willing to comment upon stress. Yet you seem to think of stress as an excuse.

3) You say that

the key to this is the non-reaction and non-reporting by the F/O of a Captain who busted SOPs, and yet flew again immediately after.

Lots of people have suggested here what the reason for such behaviour might be. In fact so many have done so that even the odd Aviation Authority might, one day, pay attention.

Why don't you consider that there may be important messages in the very matters that you claim in your post to have no substance? Of one thing I am sure - there is no danger, as you put it, of "being shot for pointing out facts" - mainly because you are actually expressing opinions.

[Sunfish]

With the greatest of respect Bear, I think you have missed the signifigance of the letter sent to flying staff if their absentee rate exceeds a threshold. I hadn't seen it before

That letter if it is real and not a wind up, is absolutly and positively workplace bullying. For those of you who don't have English as a first language, I will deconstruct:

"Over the past year over 10,000 days have been lost through absenteeism in RYANAIR, which equates to 7 un-crewed aircraft every day, all year around!!!" = This is an attempt at legitimising or justifying the policy that is about to be spelt out on the basis that Ryanair should not have to absorb the costs of crew sickness. You have absolutely no right to be absent from work, despite whatever sick leave provisions you think you have. This is false

"Your attendance record shows that you have been absent from work on X occasions during the last 12 months." = This is an allegation, the crime is being ABSENT, there is no mention of cause, therefore any absence, legitimate or otherwise is an offence

"This high frequency of absence cannot be sustained, as other people within your area have to pick up additional work in your absence." = another attempt at self justification -you have no right to be absent(for any reason),
because you are letting your fellow staff down

"All absences in the future will be closely monitored and, I need to see a dramatic and sustained improvement in your attendance in the months ahead." =We are going to watch you like a hawk now that we have detected your non compliance with our internal rule. If you are absent again you will be punished (thats contained in the phrase "I need to see") - what if he doesn't see????? - its an implied threat

"Please confirm receipt of this letter and measures you will take to eliminate further absence from work. If you have any queries on the above please do not hesitate to contact me." This is an invitation to self incrimination and meek acceptance of the policy. By telling this bloke what "measures" you are going to take, you are agreeing with the company that your absence has been excessive

And of course once you have had one of these letters you had better not get the flu had you?

Furthermore, if there is an accident, this letter will be used as evidence that you had acknowledged you had problems.

Ryanair will simply sit back and primly deny it put any pressure on you to fly - and it didn't did it?

It's a common tactic in large companies - outward compliance with the rules but an internal culture that rewards breaking the rules and punishes anyone that abides by them to the letter.

Are we sure this letter isn't a wind -up?

[delwy]

Nope, Sunfish, it is not a wind-up. It has been posted here before and there is a direct copy (image) of the original on the REPA site. Brillo deconsruction by the way - you got it exactly as we have learned to interpret it. BTW, it is mainly used to get at cabin crew (and it works).

[bear11]

Let's not throw smoke bombs here, lads - I never commented on the Ryanair memo, it strikes me though as an over the top version of what people in other industries have to cope with. It's either legal or it isn't, but still doesn't excuse it, and it amazes me that cabin crew will pay to train for a company when they know they will be treated like this once trained.

GGV, what I was saying earlier is that there is life outside Ryanair, IALPA, and aviation - and anyone familiar with what has happened when the big American companies came to Ireland will back this up. You should educate yourself about the deal which was done between unions here, government and the companies, and if you think that all this will be wound back just to suit IALPA and Ryanair pilots, you have a painful fight ahead. And why throw smoke bombs about SIPTUs annoyance at the exploitation of labour (which is correct), and try and tie it in to Ryanair and ALPA?

Stress (in my opinion, as you rightfully point out) is a flaky argument whoever uses it, apart from being a great excuse if you screw up. And I sincerely hope also the IAA will pay attention to your third point if Ryanair are unwilling or unable to.

[GGV]

why throw smoke bombs about SIPTUs annoyance at the exploitation of labour (which is correct), and try and tie it in to Ryanair and ALPA?

There are no smoke bombs. The “tie in” is to be seen in reasons as to why the 2001 Industrial Relations act was created, the firms to which it is applicable (which certainly are not the “quality” multinationals), the criteria for its use AND the quite explicit statements made at the SIPTU conference regarding Irish Ferries and the “race to the bottom”. In fact, the very matter of the potential breakdown of partnership talks has been well discussed in the media over recent days, along with the reasons for the potential breakdown. Did you not pick up what was being discussed? This bears directly on the act that IALPA is using ….. hence the connection between the different matters discussed (and not discussed, such as GAMA, also publicly mentioned in recent days in the same context). So, when you say:

You should educate yourself about ........

…. you might wish to reconsider whether these words might even apply to yourself. You clearly have not heard the rather emphatic union statements and the public position adopted by a certain Mr. B. Ahearn on this delicate matter. ‘Nuff said?

[RogerIrrelevant69]

bear11,

I wouldn't go as far as to say it will never happen as Mr. Ahern's deal-making skills over the last 20 years are legendary on the industrial relations front (long time before he made Taoiseach), the home front (Northern Ireland) and of course the international front. On his track record, the man could quite possibly reconcile the Israelis and the Palestinians given half a chance.

However, cast your mind back 20 or so years when Ireland had industrial relations strife as bad as pre-Thatcher UK and an economy that was officially rated by the UN as "second world" (which was equal to a typical Communist eastern block country at the time, that is very piss poor) and any suggestion of trade unions getting veto like powers over industrial development will more than raise an eye brow or two. What I grew up with in the 70's and 80's was an economy on a downward spiral to bankruptcy. I remember it well. Rightly or wrongly many people attribute some of that malaise to the totally irresponsible behaviour of a minority of radical left wing trade unions. No one will ever vote to going back to those days. No one (and that includes Labour) would dare ask anyone to vote to go back to those days. So my guess would be that existing legislation will probably stay where it is. Sure deals will be done, but I doubt mandatory union recognition will be on the cards.

[VIKING9]

sunfish

Are we sure this letter isn't a wind -up?

I know crew members who have received such drival !

[Runway 31]

The tone and contents of the letter/memo regarding sickness are the norm in most workplaces and I see very little if anything different than worked elsewhere.

[bear11]

Roger, I also remember them only too well. Some of the lunatics are still around in the likes of CIE, the ESB, and An Post. The economy here has changed radically in large part because we were able to attract many large US corporations to set up their European shop here through low corporate taxation, grants, and an educated (and non-unionised) workforce. If you want to see just how big a potential can of worms this issue is, just go to senior management in the likes of Intel or HP in Ireland, say the word "unions", and stand back.

GGV, let’s get to the bottom line here – you can flute around all day in the High Court and push Statutory Instrument 145 of 2000 and the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2001 as far as you like, and you can have your opinion and I mine on this, but fact remains that there is the small issue of the 1937 Irish Constitution to deal with once the smoke clears. And Ryanair have the bucks and the bloodly-mindedness to drag this all the way to the Supreme Court. For the benefit of those not acquainted with the Irish Constitution, I quote from Michael Halpenny of SIPTU,
“When de Valera framed the 1937 Constitution, he provided in Article 40.6.1 “the right of citizens to form associations and unions.” This article is the bedrock of the Constitutional right of workers to join a trade union. The problem is that while the Constitution giveth, it also taketh away in that although the worker has a fundamental right to be a union member, the Constitution does not compel the employer to recognise the union. This position has been confirmed over time in a succession of legal cases, which, while reasserting the union rights of workers, has supported the right of employers at law not to be compelled to recognise or negotiate with unions, except where they voluntarily agree to do so.”

[RogerIrrelevant69]

Yeep that quote from Mr. Halpenny just about sums it up. You can join the Monster Ravng Loony party for all the difference it will make to some employers.

However, if Ahern needs a deal, he may go after one. Questionable though he needs one at all. If he does need a deal, you can guarantee it won't be allowed to upset the likes of Intel or HP. Time will tell.