Ryanair looks at Latvian licence as a way of cutting costs

[DFC]

I think that the next appology is going to be made to the other Journos - Helen Bruce and Charlie Weston.

They said: "Dublin Airport should exist for the benefit of the travelling public, and not for feather bedding the high salaries and restrictive practices of pilots, many of whom in Ryanair's case earn over €130,000 per year for a legally capped maximum of 18 flying hours a week."

The bold emphasis was put there by CamelhAir who for some reason thinks that it is wrong or untrue.

This is typical of the Ryanair Bashing that degrades this forum on a continuous basis. Perhaps people should check their facts. People in Ireland will have in many cases listened to for example Pat Kenny's radio show yesterday which dealt with this issue.

Their employment expert concluded that if costs could be saved by moving the AOC to Latvia then that was a good idea for a low cost business remaining within the EU. There is a draft EU directive dealing with employment issues surrounding companies based in one EU country employing people from a second country. This was also discussed at length on the same radio show and perhaps everyone should familiarise themselves with that first.

Any comparison between this and any shipping issues is a false comparison as any person familiar with the recent Irish Ferries dispuite will know. Again this was dealt with on the above mentioned radio show.

Of course the dominant sourse for Ryanair Bashing is the UK where they may not in a position to listen to Irish radio or be aware of the details of Irish Ferries recent actions and are blind when it comes to reading European documents until after they are finalised and have only the ability to moan after the fact.

However, in Ireland most primary school children know that there are 52 weeks in the year and 18 *52 = 936. Their older brother/sister at secondary school will know that workers are entitled to a minimum of 2 weeks holiday per year. Back to the primary school child for 2*18 =36 and 936-36=900.

Any child can work out that one.

Perhaps someone thinks that pilots fly lots more than 900 hours per year?

Regards,

DFC

[Ramsey]

18 hours a week for 52 weeks is 936. So it seems it is actually less. 17.3 hours per week. That is average over a year so not completely untrue.

[maxalt]

Does duty time not count as work then ?

Pressman - Don't expect McEneaney to either know, care, or wish to clarify the difference to a cynical public. His own job depends on his slavishly following the Editorial byline and policies of his millionaire boss - and writing articles aimed at demolishing all resistance to reform of the labour market.

The media - not just in Ireland, but worldwide, are a tool of the business establishment.
They are BIG BUSINESS themselves!!

Why else do we see the rise of the 'Blogging' phenomenon, or the success of forums such as this. Intelligent, discerning people now prefer to get their NEWS and FACTS direct from the source, rather than digested, spun, and 'interpreted' by a pack of liars such as we find in journalistic employment.

Who hasn't read a news story with which they were familiar - and then marvelled at the errors, the stupidity, the exaggeration, the sheer damn laziness of the work these hacks do in their reporting? The way the truth is twisted by them so it becomes barely recognisable? Well - don't you stop to wonder then - is the REST of their daily scribbling equally full of sh1te?
The plain answer is, YES, of course it is.

Hope that your name doesn't reflect your real job Pressman.

And by the way, regarding Latvia - those of you who voted for the Nice treaty and now find your jobs under threat - DOH!!

[CamelhAir]

I am not aware of any regulation that stops me doing more than 18 hours flying per week. Maybe, DFC, you could point me to it?
I also like to consider time from check in to end of duty as my work time. To the uniniated, that article would have you believe that pilots can only do 18 hours work per week. Which of course was FR's plan.
The article was misleading and contained false information. Period.

[the grim repa]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/Investing...ES-RYANAIR.xml

heres a good one.looks like mol found out at yesterdays monday meeting that all his crews have run out of hours,despite dob's best attempts to pull the wool over the iaa and mol's eyes.boeing strike,my arse.its over with months and they are still openeing new routes.work that out newly arrives journo's.long live the irish times.


merry christmas to one and all,including leo.might get a visit from the ghost of christmas future.

http://www.sbpost.ie/breakingnews/br...x&n=3539687&x=

funny how we will be fully operational by april,when the crew hours are once again illegally zeroed.

[CargoOne]

Latvia is full EU member, under EASA regulations and JAR-OPS adopted. I believe that 900 hrs is max annual there. Anyway with Subpart Q coming soon it wouldn't be different.

However I really doubt if Latvian CAA can cope with a carrier of RYR size unless they will expand the staff by 3 times. Latvian (like all Baltic states) market is short of pilots, I'm note aware of any unemployed pilots there suitable for a 737 type rating. So unless MOL will attract the pilots from other operators there is no real supply.

[atse]

The bold emphasis was put there by CamelhAir who for some reason thinks that it is wrong or untrue.

DFC, it is wrong, it is untrue and it is also misleading (the latter being the real objective).

All of us by now are familiar with Ryanair positions which rely on a kernal of truth (so that they can be defended) but which are essentially misleading shorthand that are attractive to journos (especially if they are up against a deadline). All you have to do is repeat their claim and you have done Ryanair's job for them.

DFC can you tell us now where the 18 hours per week legal maximum is stipulated? THAT is the claim. Your calculation does not justify that claim - indeed it is a matter of fact that Ryanair regularly exceed the very 18 hours per week that they claim to be a legal maximum.

Once again your credentials as a Ryanair fellow traveller are demonstrated for all to see.

[Idunno]

I've just read your post DFC, and out of interest I looked up that radio interview you used to bolster your argument.

Anyone interested in listening to it can find it on the RTE website - at this link: Pat Kenny Show.
You need RealPlayer to listen. The bit on Ryanair starts at minute 46:08.

DFC said:

There is a draft EU directive dealing with employment issues surrounding companies based in one EU country employing people from a second country. This was also discussed at length on the same radio show and perhaps everyone should familiarise themselves with that first.
Any comparison between this and any shipping issues is a false comparison as any person familiar with the recent Irish Ferries dispuite will know.
Again this was dealt with on the above mentioned radio show.

If you actually listen to the replay you'll hear the 'employment law expert' say at minute 47:08 that while moving the AOC may be an effective and simple way for FR to reduce licencing costs - there is no guarentee that it would not have a negative impact on employee terms and conditions if (quote) "the move was to be part of a larger agenda."(unquote)

Ryanair having larger agendas? Perish the thought!!

The 'expert' expands on this at minute 48:10 by suggesting that FR could simply hire people on contracts written in Latvia - thereby circumventing any current 'issues' with the 'legacy states' labour laws or protections.
He goes on to explain about the new 'Services Directive' which will legally enshrine mobility of companies within the EU in future. The services directive will facilitate 'flagging out' of employment.
He mentions at minute 50:00 that this new law 'will not apply to transport companies (quote) "...for the moment as currently drafted." Thats very reassuring - NOT!

He also suggests (at minute 52:00) that there is already a simple way around the new Services Directive (as drafted) which is to simply open a HQ in your east european country of choice, and use the 'country of origin' legislation to claim shelter from legacy states EU labour laws.

This neutral (?) expert then goes on to say that this new directive is great because it gives opportunity to businesses. When asked what it does for employees he stuttered a bit and suggested it was "good for workers unless you believe in the Race To The Bottom theory as forwarded by the unions".

So - do you?

By the way - the Services Directive is at draft stage. It is not expected to become law until 2010. Meantime - its a free for all.

Any comparison between this and any shipping issues is a false comparison...

Really? In what respect?


Finally, you suggest that "...the next appology is going to be made to the other Journos - Helen Bruce and Charlie Weston.

Lets take a look at the language used by these two reporters.

They said: "Dublin Airport should exist for the benefit of the travelling public, and not for feather bedding the high salaries and restrictive practices of pilots, many of whom in Ryanair's case earn over €130,000 per year for a legally capped maximum of 18 flying hours a week."

Are we meant to accept this as 'fair and balanced' comment?
What is the agenda here, if not to blacken and discredit FR's pilots?

This is not about Ryanair bashing - as you suggest. Quite the opposite! Its about Ryanair bashing their staff in an ongoing war of attrition on their terms and conditions.

[DFC]

CamelhAir,

Please revise your 50 times tables.

19 hours per week means 19*50=950 hours in a year.

MOL wants people like you who think that is a great idea to work for the IAA.

I also like to consider time from check in to end of duty as my work time.

Don't we all!!

To the uniniated, that article would have you believe that pilots can only do 18 hours work per week

No.

To people who are educated and understand printed english, the words "flying hours a week" means flying hours a week.

Perhaps if it was printed in the Sun or the Mirror, such big words would cause concern. However, the average reader of the Irish Independent can understand basic english phrases.

Pilots are only being productive when they are flying. Everything else while it may be essential to the operation is not directly making money.

Now if Ryanair only paid pilots per flying hour and expected them to do everything else for free like many UK operators I am familiar with, then you would have cause for complaint.

I know of and the CAA are aware of at least 1 UK pilot flying for a UK operator who has flown more than 100 hours in atleast 1 28 day period over the past summer. That pilot was only paid per flying hour and not for duty time ( thus the pilot did as much as possible). Nothing is done. What is the difference between this actual failure of regulatory oversight by the CAA and the alleged failures that you talk about?

This kind of trash is befitting of the UK gutter press and those that struggle to read it. It does not have any place on a professional forum.

Regards,

DFC

[atse]

This kind of trash is befitting of the UK gutter press and those that struggle to read it. It does not have any place on a professional forum.

Is this, I wonder, a moment of insight and reflection by DFC on the content of this own written perambulations and justifications?

You certainly have been well exposed!! (Neat demolition job I dunno).

[CamelhAir]

However, the average reader of the Irish Independent can understand basic english phrases.

Correct, particularly as no big words were actually used. You are however missing/ignoring the point. As intelligent as the average Indo reader may be, he/she is totally unaware of FTL's and anything to do with them. Jo(e) Public neither knows nor cares what way Ryanair have calculated their 18 hours. They only see one thing: lazy pilots.

the words "flying hours a week" means flying hours a week.

Does it need to be spelt out? The public knows pilots fly, they see we do "18 flying hours per week" and assume thats all we do. If you think the public know/care anything at all about duty times/sim time/recurrent training time, you are very much mistaken.
Any pilot on this forum who can't see the (not so) hidden agenda here is clearly advocating that agenda or is really stupid. The statement is utterly misleading and no matter how you dress it up, it will remain so.

Pilots are only being productive when they are flying. Everything else while it may be essential to the operation is not directly making money

Absolute rubbish. If it is essential to the operation, whatever it is, it is productive. A pilots job is a package of many parts, all with the same goal of taking the public from A to B in safety. No parts are indispensible. You can't fly without the add-ons, if you can't fly, you can't make money. So everything from sims to recurrent CRM to recurrent SEP is in fact very much productive time.

[Faire d'income]

Wow a lot has happened since my last post on Mr McEnaney.

The mentioned article about the environmental push factors represented a very dramatic u-turn from his items published in the few weeks prior.

Here are some interesting words from our new poster:

Monday July 4th,

" In May, Aer Lingus announced that it was pulling the service ( Orlando ) after January because it could not get Impact, the union which represents cabin crew, to agree to changes in work practices.It is understood that Impact wanted its members to be allowed a stop-over in Orlando, effectively giving them a free short break every time they flew the route ( is that what it was Tom? )."

Ready for the bad news? It is understood that Aer Lingus lost €500,000 on that one route in May alone.

Of course this is a secret. The company never told us. Presumably there was no reason why we, the taxpayers, should know ( Eh how do you know? A balanced leak? ).

It is not fair to blame the Aer Lingus employees. They signed on for what were comfortable jobs with good conditions and a few nice perks. In many ways it is not fair to ask them to give that up for life in the new low-cost environment.

When you join Ryanair, you know what you are getting into, and you don't expect Michael O'Leary to lay on a bus to take you to and from the car park( His car park is beside his HQ. The referred to Aer Lingus one was 1/3 mile away. How would you like your sister walking through dark car-parks after work alone at 2am? ). This was only one of the many perks which Willie Walsh and his guys got rid off. Because the Government did not want to deal with the embarrassment of passengers being told that flights they had already paid for would not be available, Aer Lingus put off the termination date for the Orlando route until next January ( Funnily enough despite the route now making money [as new routes can do after a while] the aircraft will be switched to Dubai ) . How much the company will lose in the meantime is anybody's guess.

Tom McEnaney


Balanced Tom? Well researched?? Hardly, but there you go.

And now for the start of the article:

"THE real question for anybody interested in the future of Aer Lingus is not when will it be privatised and therefore get access to the cash it needs to complete its transformation into a low-cost carrier on short- and long-haul routes.

The real question is what will there be to privatise once, and if, the Government gets around to it.

For the company, which last week won Airline of the Year, is losing money hand over fist and, surprisingly, very few people seem to be shouting about it. A few weeks ago, this newspaper informed you that the company lost money every month this year, including May."

The Indo has gleefully prophesised the demise of Aer Lingus and the FR takeover for many years now. Thankfully every year despite their best efforts to scupper things, they are wrong.

Sorry for the ultra long post but to finish here is Mr McEnaney on July 6th, 2 days after the above:

"Aer Lingus lost money in every one of the first five months of this year, although it is understood that the losses were nominal. Under the terms of the business plan being followed by Aer Lingus management, the pre-tax profit target for 2005 is €105.5m."

[Wing Commander Fowler]

DFC - you are so full of 1t

Any comparison between this and any shipping issues is a false comparison as any person familiar with the recent Irish Ferries dispuite will know

This is a clear case of flagging out old china! The comparison is plain to see and I don't give a flying fig whether you THINK you know all about the issues in the irish fairies dispute or not! When an employer seeks to offload all of his western european staff to employ cheaper labour from abroad and legalises this by re-registering his vessels in that country then this is flagging out..... The sole purpose for this is to increase profitability and it doesn't matter to the employer whose lives get wrecked in the process. I've seen it many times before and find it utterly deplorable.

[Flying Mech]

Just reading todays Irish Indo & our man Tommy is at it again! Amongst the usual FR propaganda/Drivel is a claim that all FR's -200's in DUB will be replaced by NG's by the end of the week. Can anybody verify this? There must be some FR Crews who are Ppruners who would be in the know. Sorry I can't post a link to the story as Computers are not my Forte!

[BBT]

The last couple of -200s in Dublin will indeed be gone by the end of the week - barring a last minute change of mind.

[tornadoken]

FR's many wrongs

1.This mere punter ventures here sadly. Just stop it, please. The career risks to FR's professionals do not lie with the incumbent frontman: if a crew strike were to topple him, the replacement devil would be of the same ilk. Pilots do not run businesses well. Don't rely on media/public sympathy, 'cos you are perceived as rich.
2.In 1992 I did some advisory work with EI and drew a total blank when I expressed their losses as IŁ per Irish taxpayer and asked why air travel should be so privileged. I then did some work with Debonair Franco, whose Business Plan involved cheap links to novel, fun places such as Perugia, his home town, and to ex-military ports such as near FRA. Silly, I said, so what do I know about finding and retaining airline revenue. Rather less than MOL.
3. How lucky you all are that the best Euro-application of the Southwest LO-CO model is an employer of Irish citizens, more every day, limited only by the modest shoal of fish in that small pond.
4. You face 2 risks which you should help MOL to deal with: Greens banging on about NOx emissions, so short haul is immoral; and the pyramid nature of the capital per seat. The day will dawn when the average capital service per seat will not benefit from upfront discounts, deals and deferments. Crew are in the same boat as owners and bosses.

[Wing Commander Fowler]

Welcome to our whingeathon Ken - "pilots don't run businesses well" Bit of a sweeping statement isn't it? Are we given to generalising on occasion Ken? I wasn't born a pilot and not many of us were! Can you hand on heart claim that your statement is fair????

Come now...... I know of several pilots who have run VERY successful business and a few that still do! According to Copenhagen's now deleted post Willy Walsh is one of them

[Idunno]

This threads turning into a bit of a deletion fest.

Tornadoken, do you seriously think pilots would 'strike to topple him [MOL]'? I think you've got a poor grasp of the situation.

In 1992 ALT was a different animal to what it is today. The staff have taken a lot of pain and accepted a lot of change. Its in good health now, and profitable. Whats your point?

Are we meant to be grateful MOL is "an employer of Irish citizens"? Is he a registered charity?
Get the violins out!
I'd like to see a link to a credible source showing the number of Irish employees he has, and the number of non-Irish for comparison. The whole point of MOL's model (don't compare him with SouthWest or Herb Kelleher) is to employ AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE for AS LITTLE PAY AS POSSIBLE! Its called PRODUCTIVITY. You should understand the concept.

And hey - I may not be a tree hugger but I'm concerned about the environment. And I personally do also worry about the rampant consumerism in society. And I'm concerned about workers rights. MOL and FR are problematic on all three counts.

[Faire d'income]

Here is an apparent conflict of spin that our hacks never seems to pick up:

From Ryanair.com 4th oct 2005.

“The recent announcement of the cessation of the Boeing strike will in turn enable our aircraft deliveries to be “back on track” by the end of December 2005. We anticipate there will be no material adverse impact on the company’s financial performance or passengers carried arising from the strike.

Word in the Irish Times is that due to the Boeing strike over a thousand flights could be cancelled ( or amalgamated or whatever ) in the first 3 months of 2006.

The word on the apron is that it has little to do with Boeing. More to do with crewing or lack thereof maybe. Are many guys up on 900 hours? Or is it people leaving?

[CamelhAir]

Our old friend Mr McEnaney is spouting the same stuff in the Indo today about the so-called strike effects. As indeed the word on the ramp is that it has little to do with aircraft deliveries and all to do with crewing problems, one wonders if Mr McEnaney has done as much research into the story has he has claimed he does do. Unless he feels that believing as gospel an FR press release counts as research.