Flight Intl. raises qs. about IAA and Ryanair
The problems of effective regulation are not new nor confined to the aviation industry, in fact they are well understood and have been studied for decades as part of economics courses.
The key issue is what is called "regulatory capture" whereby the relationship between the regulator and those regulated ceases to be at arms length. The problem typically starts with staff of the regulator and the regulated having a common background (eg. ex airforce), it rapidly worsens if staff move from regulated entity to regulator, it blossoms fully when those regulated start providing a bit of "corporate hospitality" at Board level and above.
I have heard criticism of the Australian regulator, CASA, being called "the group captains club", and of course the Australian Treasury is terribly kind to the big banks here, because where else is a bright Treasury economist going to make their first million?
If the relationship isn't strictly arms length, then you will ALWAYS have problems in relation to effective supervision.
Then of course there is the overriding issue of the possibility of conflict between a beautiful set of SOP's and operations manuals and the actual corporate culture that I have alluded to before.
The key issue is what is called "regulatory capture" whereby the relationship between the regulator and those regulated ceases to be at arms length. The problem typically starts with staff of the regulator and the regulated having a common background (eg. ex airforce), it rapidly worsens if staff move from regulated entity to regulator, it blossoms fully when those regulated start providing a bit of "corporate hospitality" at Board level and above.
I have heard criticism of the Australian regulator, CASA, being called "the group captains club", and of course the Australian Treasury is terribly kind to the big banks here, because where else is a bright Treasury economist going to make their first million?
If the relationship isn't strictly arms length, then you will ALWAYS have problems in relation to effective supervision.
Then of course there is the overriding issue of the possibility of conflict between a beautiful set of SOP's and operations manuals and the actual corporate culture that I have alluded to before.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Inside the whitehouse
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Camel is busy
Quarterly results due out so the Camel is busy.
Share price needs to be bolstered, despite ABN, Citigroup and Merrion all recommending investors to "reduce".
As the prince asked:
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them"
The Camel will return, once he gets out of the newsagent's queue for his latest copy of Village magazine, the latest issue has a French flavour to it.
Leo, don't disappoint your loyal subjects, and go easy on the Con-man when you read the article.
Share price needs to be bolstered, despite ABN, Citigroup and Merrion all recommending investors to "reduce".
As the prince asked:
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them"
The Camel will return, once he gets out of the newsagent's queue for his latest copy of Village magazine, the latest issue has a French flavour to it.
Leo, don't disappoint your loyal subjects, and go easy on the Con-man when you read the article.
Last edited by Gigginstown ERC; 2nd Feb 2006 at 08:22.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dwarf and David Learmount.
I see the Dwarf has wheeled out the heavy artillery of erudition, this time, and enlisted the services of Reed Business Information’s self anointed oracle on all maters aeronautical in the latest innings of their evidently favourite pastime, Join the Dots and whack Ryanair.
Firstly, in terms of spirit, I fully agree. Human Factors is the key issue in aviation flight safety today, and its only right that we, all of us in the industry, embrace any attempts to improve flight safety at the HF level, with hearty enthusiasm. But what sort of assessment should we embrace, how will it be objectively measured and, crucially, how will improvements be implemented and by whom? These are questions that should be playing on the collective mind of all industry leaders, not just limited to LCC’s. It should be industry wide. However, Learmount’s argument, though beautifully crafted, is fundamentally flawed in two areas.
The Vibes? Good God. Shagadelic, baby. One wonder’s at what other lengths he goes to in order to get the vibes. Ear to the railway track? Oija Board? Tossing the runes perhaps? Couldn’t be that the Dwarf has found your ear, by any chance? I'd check for pods pubis if he got too close, Davey boy.
Why has Ryanair invited all this attention all of a sudden? Certainly we’re the biggest and the best. We do it better, faster and cheaper than any of our so-called competitors, and will continue to do so, so long as our rigid commitment to flight safety is maintained and customers continue to vote in their droves with credit card details. From a personal perspective, I derive a great deal of professional satisfaction from working for a kick-ass, wildly successful company, and I’m certainly not alone there. No, its not the high profile, its not the personality and demeanour of our ‘colourful’ CEO, neither is it the ongoing legal wrangling at our Dublin base where a group of long time employees have permitted themselves to be whipped into a state of near hysterical discontent, because IALPA has persuaded them that their largely self-inflicted complaints have basis in a) fact, b) legal merit, c) ethical relevance and d) a chance of winning, when in fact they have e) none of the above.
Nope, its none of this, at least not according to Learmount. It’s about Skavsta, Beauvais and Ciampino. The three relatively recent incidents that have provoked the Bard of Quadrant House and the seemingly indefatigable Dwarf into a frenzy of rather clever finger pointing. In all three cases, SOP’s went down the toilet as pilots under operational duress tried to be ‘creative’ in solving complex problems. I don’t intend to dissect the incidents here, its been done to death and, in the case of Pprune, with a truly heroic disinclination toward factual discourse. The implication is that our “revolutionary model”, as Learmount’s article puts it, is worthy of closer and a different sort of scrutiny The implication is that there is something about the way we treat our people or the attendant differences in flying as we do, as measured against legacy carriers, which lends itself to these sorts of incidents. It is driven principally by the knowledge of these three events. Three events in the history of a 20year old carrier with 100 Boeing 737-800’s, an additional 200 on the way, and a certain future in Transatlantic long haul in a post Openskies market. A carrier who, at the moment, moves 100,000 Europeans every day on 800 flights using over 1000 pilots to do it. I never wanted to be an actuary, very dull individuals in the main, but even a schoolboy grasp of mathematics and probability will reveal that these three incidents, though serious and important to us as an airline, are statistically and operationally aberrant to the way we do things.
So much for the “why now”. Lets have a closer look at the “why Ryanair” bit. Call us silly, call us old fashioned, call us crazy brave, but Rynair has an open reporting culture, as distinct from the antithetic urban myth seen here and elsewhere on the subject. We believe that when one of our crews gets it wrong, for whatever reason, we have a very close look at why, and present our findings to everyone in the company. And why do we do this? Because we take the evidently “revolutionary” view that every incident presents a learning opportunity. A window of development whereby all pilots can advance their operation with the intent of avoiding the same pitfalls in the future. And why do we do this? To advance flight safety. And why do we give a fiddlers about that? Because our business will advance as a result. Why Ryanair? Why indeed. We take, or at least took, the view that openness advances safety. Little did we know that those with oblique agendas, those with vested interests in our failure or curtailment, would use this openness and the incidents it highlights as a stick to bash us with.
Now then, why don’t we hear about other airlines incidents? Why indeed. Why haven’t we heard about the two occasions when both pilots (operating for a certain carrier with a fondness for Orange) returning from Athens in the middle of the night found themselves sound asleep over Belgium, gently woken by an F-16 on their wingtips? Why haven’t we heard about the very recent occasion when a 744 operated by a certain G registered airline found itself trying to performing a go-round at Heathrow with landing flap, gear down and speed decay to 105 knots, stick shaker and all? (Oh come gentle jumbos and fall on Slough, it isn’t fit for humans now.) Why indeed. Do you really think, Mr. Learmount, that the OFDM or equivalent departments in ALL European operators have nothing to examine? Really?
I don’t. I put it to you that every operator in Europe has similar HF related aspects to their operations and will do so long as we use Human beings to operate large transport aircraft. Why don’t we hear about them? Because they’re dealt with internally and so ‘managed’ as to avoid the likelihood of adverse publicity. You hear about ours because we’re honest. Wouldn’t it be ironic if, in using our honesty and open commitment to flight safety as a baseball bat to whack us with, Ryanair responded to you by modifying its reporting behaviour to reflect the best practice of our competitors? I wonder if you consider the potential consequences of your article as you nod off at night, Mr. Learmount, beyond those that appeal to your vanity, I mean.
Have another look closer to home before pointing the finger west across the Irish Sea. Much as I know we Irish are always in season for you lot, those in glass houses, as they say.....
Firstly, in terms of spirit, I fully agree. Human Factors is the key issue in aviation flight safety today, and its only right that we, all of us in the industry, embrace any attempts to improve flight safety at the HF level, with hearty enthusiasm. But what sort of assessment should we embrace, how will it be objectively measured and, crucially, how will improvements be implemented and by whom? These are questions that should be playing on the collective mind of all industry leaders, not just limited to LCC’s. It should be industry wide. However, Learmount’s argument, though beautifully crafted, is fundamentally flawed in two areas.
And all the vibes coming from the big low-cost carriers
Why has Ryanair invited all this attention all of a sudden? Certainly we’re the biggest and the best. We do it better, faster and cheaper than any of our so-called competitors, and will continue to do so, so long as our rigid commitment to flight safety is maintained and customers continue to vote in their droves with credit card details. From a personal perspective, I derive a great deal of professional satisfaction from working for a kick-ass, wildly successful company, and I’m certainly not alone there. No, its not the high profile, its not the personality and demeanour of our ‘colourful’ CEO, neither is it the ongoing legal wrangling at our Dublin base where a group of long time employees have permitted themselves to be whipped into a state of near hysterical discontent, because IALPA has persuaded them that their largely self-inflicted complaints have basis in a) fact, b) legal merit, c) ethical relevance and d) a chance of winning, when in fact they have e) none of the above.
Nope, its none of this, at least not according to Learmount. It’s about Skavsta, Beauvais and Ciampino. The three relatively recent incidents that have provoked the Bard of Quadrant House and the seemingly indefatigable Dwarf into a frenzy of rather clever finger pointing. In all three cases, SOP’s went down the toilet as pilots under operational duress tried to be ‘creative’ in solving complex problems. I don’t intend to dissect the incidents here, its been done to death and, in the case of Pprune, with a truly heroic disinclination toward factual discourse. The implication is that our “revolutionary model”, as Learmount’s article puts it, is worthy of closer and a different sort of scrutiny The implication is that there is something about the way we treat our people or the attendant differences in flying as we do, as measured against legacy carriers, which lends itself to these sorts of incidents. It is driven principally by the knowledge of these three events. Three events in the history of a 20year old carrier with 100 Boeing 737-800’s, an additional 200 on the way, and a certain future in Transatlantic long haul in a post Openskies market. A carrier who, at the moment, moves 100,000 Europeans every day on 800 flights using over 1000 pilots to do it. I never wanted to be an actuary, very dull individuals in the main, but even a schoolboy grasp of mathematics and probability will reveal that these three incidents, though serious and important to us as an airline, are statistically and operationally aberrant to the way we do things.
Why now, and why Ryanair?
Now then, why don’t we hear about other airlines incidents? Why indeed. Why haven’t we heard about the two occasions when both pilots (operating for a certain carrier with a fondness for Orange) returning from Athens in the middle of the night found themselves sound asleep over Belgium, gently woken by an F-16 on their wingtips? Why haven’t we heard about the very recent occasion when a 744 operated by a certain G registered airline found itself trying to performing a go-round at Heathrow with landing flap, gear down and speed decay to 105 knots, stick shaker and all? (Oh come gentle jumbos and fall on Slough, it isn’t fit for humans now.) Why indeed. Do you really think, Mr. Learmount, that the OFDM or equivalent departments in ALL European operators have nothing to examine? Really?
I don’t. I put it to you that every operator in Europe has similar HF related aspects to their operations and will do so long as we use Human beings to operate large transport aircraft. Why don’t we hear about them? Because they’re dealt with internally and so ‘managed’ as to avoid the likelihood of adverse publicity. You hear about ours because we’re honest. Wouldn’t it be ironic if, in using our honesty and open commitment to flight safety as a baseball bat to whack us with, Ryanair responded to you by modifying its reporting behaviour to reflect the best practice of our competitors? I wonder if you consider the potential consequences of your article as you nod off at night, Mr. Learmount, beyond those that appeal to your vanity, I mean.
Have another look closer to home before pointing the finger west across the Irish Sea. Much as I know we Irish are always in season for you lot, those in glass houses, as they say.....
"The INTRODUCER"
Response from Flight International
Leo,
you wrote, among other things: <their evidently favourite pastime, Join the Dots and whack Ryanair.>
You're entitled to your opinions. but accusing anyone on Flight International of ever doing that is utter drivel. I challenge you to show any evidence to support your allegation.
In fact, on the contrary, we have several times pointed out that it is a distinguishing feature of the big UK/irish LCCs that, despite their extremely cost-driven business case, they have invested in remarkably high-spec aircraft and infrastructure and have outstanding safety records any way you measure it. We have frequently pointed this out to the general media when contacted about assorted shock-horror allegations.
Algy
you wrote, among other things: <their evidently favourite pastime, Join the Dots and whack Ryanair.>
You're entitled to your opinions. but accusing anyone on Flight International of ever doing that is utter drivel. I challenge you to show any evidence to support your allegation.
In fact, on the contrary, we have several times pointed out that it is a distinguishing feature of the big UK/irish LCCs that, despite their extremely cost-driven business case, they have invested in remarkably high-spec aircraft and infrastructure and have outstanding safety records any way you measure it. We have frequently pointed this out to the general media when contacted about assorted shock-horror allegations.
Algy
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Beds
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>I put it to you that every operator in Europe has similar HF related aspects to their operations and will do so long as we use Human beings to operate large transport aircraft. Why don’t we hear about them? Because they’re dealt with internally and so ‘managed’ as to avoid the likelihood of adverse publicity. You hear about ours because we’re honest.<<
Being open and honest does not detract from the need to solve problems.
Being open and honest does not detract from the need to solve problems.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pride goeth before a fall.
Good on you, Algie. Keep up the good work.
Just so we're singing from the same song sheet, Algie, I was referring to IALPA and their vertically challenged windbag in chief, not Flight International. But while we're on the subject, I'm sure you guys intend no private editorial comment in your selection of photographs of our Chief Executive from time to time? Oh, and give those dopes in the subscription department a kick up the arse from me, will you. Deliveries are all over the place like a mad woman's breakfast.
All the best,
Leo.
I challenge you to show any evidence to support your allegation.
All the best,
Leo.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Leo,
It is again with great intrest that I read your post. You have found many words to make your point. You talk about an open culture, you point at others that have incidents and this is the highlight of your defence..... weak, weak weak!!!
I reminds me of my sun when he was about 8 years old "yes daddy but he did the same" and "everyone is teasing me"
No Leo not the way I'd say. Past occurrences have raised the questions asked by Mr Davy.
Remember the following issues:
Co-pilot being sacked, before any HF objective investigation,for making a safety decision.
Captain demoted for refusing to continue operating...Oh sorry he was a pain in the b.. as you have said before.
The australien captain.....what exactly did you call his country again?
I can go on and on but I won't. Leo, maybe if FR treated it's people with RESPECT may this "open" culture work, but as long as the operational pressure is considered more importand then anything else you will not be taken serious. Shouting does not help, or make your point any more true neither do many words.
Finnaly I challenge FR, have an independent safety audit (IOSA or something like that) and see where you really are!
Kind regards, Nick
It is again with great intrest that I read your post. You have found many words to make your point. You talk about an open culture, you point at others that have incidents and this is the highlight of your defence..... weak, weak weak!!!
I reminds me of my sun when he was about 8 years old "yes daddy but he did the same" and "everyone is teasing me"
No Leo not the way I'd say. Past occurrences have raised the questions asked by Mr Davy.
Remember the following issues:
Co-pilot being sacked, before any HF objective investigation,for making a safety decision.
Captain demoted for refusing to continue operating...Oh sorry he was a pain in the b.. as you have said before.
The australien captain.....what exactly did you call his country again?
I can go on and on but I won't. Leo, maybe if FR treated it's people with RESPECT may this "open" culture work, but as long as the operational pressure is considered more importand then anything else you will not be taken serious. Shouting does not help, or make your point any more true neither do many words.
Finnaly I challenge FR, have an independent safety audit (IOSA or something like that) and see where you really are!
Kind regards, Nick
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: With all the other nuts
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Leo,
Every now and then my mind plays with the idea of working for Ryanair before being brought to my senses. So, thanks for reminding me again how abominable it would be to work for you (or passenger with you for that matter). You may make some good points but I find it difficult to listen to such a pompous donkey. Good luck crewing all those new aircraft...
Chips
Every now and then my mind plays with the idea of working for Ryanair before being brought to my senses. So, thanks for reminding me again how abominable it would be to work for you (or passenger with you for that matter). You may make some good points but I find it difficult to listen to such a pompous donkey. Good luck crewing all those new aircraft...
Chips
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three events in the history of a 20year old carrier with 100 Boeing 737-800’s, an additional 200 on the way, and a certain future in Transatlantic long haul in a post Openskies market. A carrier who, at the moment, moves 100,000 Europeans every day on 800 flights using over 1000 pilots to do it. I never wanted to be an actuary, very dull individuals in the main, but even a schoolboy grasp of mathematics and probability will reveal that these three incidents, though serious and important to us as an airline, are statistically and operationally aberrant to the way we do things
Statistically the unplanned behaviour of the famous rubber 'O' ring on the space shuttle booster was an equally small event in "actuarial" terms, but, at the time, this same backwards looking logic to risk/safely/reliability assessment was being applied.
Furthermore, the number of planes you have on order does not change the reasoning in this subject, it merely shows arrogance.
Mr. Camels argument can be reduced to the following, my comments in bold:
1. Flight is picking on Ryanair and is biased against it. could be true, I don't know
2. "Cosi Fan Tutti" (everyone is doing it) Everyone has the same problem, not just Ryanair. This is a irrelevant. We are talking about a single airline - Ryanair.
3. The three "relatively recent" incidents are statistically insignifigant. No they are not, read Richard Feyneman's appendix. If you've never read it, read it now.
4. The incidents were a direct result of the failure of the pilots concerned to follow Ryanair's SOP's and all blame is therefore on their shoulders, it has nothing to do with Ryanair. Wrong. It has everything to do with Ryanair because no matter how beautiful the SOP's and Operating manuals look, the corporate culture must be aligned with them otherwise they are window dressing. There appears to be some evidence that that this may be the case as evidenced by the demotion of a Captain after claiming that he was too fatigued to fly. There is also the famous "bullying" letter sent to pilots who have been absent
5. We never hear about other airlines incidents, why pick on us? because you appear to have had three incidents involving pilot error that may or may not have had a related cause - stress.
Lets hope that there are no more such incidents.
1. Flight is picking on Ryanair and is biased against it. could be true, I don't know
2. "Cosi Fan Tutti" (everyone is doing it) Everyone has the same problem, not just Ryanair. This is a irrelevant. We are talking about a single airline - Ryanair.
3. The three "relatively recent" incidents are statistically insignifigant. No they are not, read Richard Feyneman's appendix. If you've never read it, read it now.
4. The incidents were a direct result of the failure of the pilots concerned to follow Ryanair's SOP's and all blame is therefore on their shoulders, it has nothing to do with Ryanair. Wrong. It has everything to do with Ryanair because no matter how beautiful the SOP's and Operating manuals look, the corporate culture must be aligned with them otherwise they are window dressing. There appears to be some evidence that that this may be the case as evidenced by the demotion of a Captain after claiming that he was too fatigued to fly. There is also the famous "bullying" letter sent to pilots who have been absent
5. We never hear about other airlines incidents, why pick on us? because you appear to have had three incidents involving pilot error that may or may not have had a related cause - stress.
Lets hope that there are no more such incidents.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: In my skin
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOP is what the word says it is “Standard Operating Procedures”.
Regarding SOP that focus on handling the aircraft; it is important to give enough consideration during training how to recover from a situation that has put you outside the SOP envelope.
You have to train beyond what is normally required. What you do not know, you do not recognize. Stress makes it even more difficult.
David Learmount is wrong; it's not the operator’s business model or CAA audit model but the access to the profession of Airline Pilot that has become a complete joke.
But let’s be realistic, there are more people killed every year by medical malpractice then pilot error.
Just read "The logic of Failure"
Regarding SOP that focus on handling the aircraft; it is important to give enough consideration during training how to recover from a situation that has put you outside the SOP envelope.
You have to train beyond what is normally required. What you do not know, you do not recognize. Stress makes it even more difficult.
David Learmount is wrong; it's not the operator’s business model or CAA audit model but the access to the profession of Airline Pilot that has become a complete joke.
But let’s be realistic, there are more people killed every year by medical malpractice then pilot error.
Just read "The logic of Failure"
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard Feyneman's [sic] appendix. [to the Challenger disaster report]
See also "Mr Feynman goes to Washington: Investigating the space shuttle Challenger Disaster", the 2nd section of “What do you care what other people think? - Further adventures of a curious character" by Richard P Feynman. A very good read and full of lessons about having, or not having, an effective safety culture.
His first book is also an excellent read covering among other (rather more entertaining) things his work on the Manhattan project and his Nobel prize.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman which includes:
His opinion of the cause of the accident differed from the official findings and was considerably more critical of the role of management in sidelining the concerns of engineers. After much petitioning, Feynman's minority report was included as an appendix to the official document. The book What Do You Care What Other People Think? includes stories from Feynman's work on the commission. His engineering skill is reflected in his 98% estimate of the Space Shuttle's reliability, which is underscored by the two failures over the 114 flights of the Space Shuttle as of 2006.
Last edited by egbt; 2nd Feb 2006 at 21:20.
PersonalTitle to help support PPRuNe against legal bullying.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: France
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Sexing Up" the references...
I didn't intend to bend the thread by referring (without direct reference) to Mr Feynman's work, but I think it is now valuable to point out that given Leo Camel's display of superiory and pride, he is not likely to be the sort of person who would be readily open to reading something that looks like it may contain any statistics.
However, in the hope that we manage to engage and influence the key managers positively, I would like to point out that the same Feynman was also famed for his documented efforts to chase women and be a bit of an exhibitionist - maybe this is a more appealing lure to Leo Camel and his types, and might move him and others in his organisation to consider reading the prescribed works.
After all, they follow and respect a 'colourful' leader - Feynman also could certainly be described in the similar terms, though a direct comparison between him and MOL would be quite inapproriate.
However, in the hope that we manage to engage and influence the key managers positively, I would like to point out that the same Feynman was also famed for his documented efforts to chase women and be a bit of an exhibitionist - maybe this is a more appealing lure to Leo Camel and his types, and might move him and others in his organisation to consider reading the prescribed works.
After all, they follow and respect a 'colourful' leader - Feynman also could certainly be described in the similar terms, though a direct comparison between him and MOL would be quite inapproriate.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Somewhere between here and there....
Posts: 1,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leo Hairy-Camel
Certainly we’re the biggest and the best. We do it better, faster and cheaper than any of our so-called competitors, and will continue to do so, so long as our rigid commitment to flight safety is maintained .....
This is the first time in FR's history that they have had mass cancellations. It's not Boeing. It's not low passenger bookings. It's no crew.
Now just how many pilots are happy to stay working in this culture of lies and deceit
One day, some day, and god forbid, one of them shiny new toys will end up in a mess and it will not be FR's fault. It will be, according to FR, the crew's fault for not following SOP, or grieving over a lost one, or fatigue or some other rubbish that they can use to weedle themselves out of the problem.Lets try not have this post deleted. Surely if I want to express my opinion on here, I can
Worldwidewolly:
Just some observations here about low cost carriers, which mostly apply to US airline operations:
Is it a bit ironic that Southwest pilots are the HIGHEST-PAID B-737 pilots in the US, if not the world? They are described in the same paragraph as Ryanair pilots. If Southwest's pay were for many years as low as it is now at the other US majors, would Southwest have become as successful? One can not separate pay and benefits from morale, but Wall Street and most airline "leadership", to use the term very loosely, keep suggesting that there is no connection.
Based upon the new-age business mantra, much of Southwest's flying should have been "out-sourced" many years ago. Why was it not given away? Is it just an accident that Southwest pilots, whose flying was not outsourced, along with other staff, enabled their company to become so outstanding? Maybe outsourcing, this darling business model, so worshiped by Wall Street, is fundamentally flawed?
How well-paid are Ryanair's pilots? How about crew fatigue? How high is their morale?
Low cost and high productivity are not always the same thing. A major airline which wants to guarantee its flightcrews, by a proposed contract change, less than 4 hours and 15 minutes pay per day, is not interested in productivity, is it? It is the pilot unions which want to work more hours per duty period, but many upper or middle managers are against this. If your duty period is worth only 4:30 pay (typical), then why did the company not build the duty period with longer legs, or more legs to fly? The employer creates these trips-not the union.
Just some observations here about low cost carriers, which mostly apply to US airline operations:
Is it a bit ironic that Southwest pilots are the HIGHEST-PAID B-737 pilots in the US, if not the world? They are described in the same paragraph as Ryanair pilots. If Southwest's pay were for many years as low as it is now at the other US majors, would Southwest have become as successful? One can not separate pay and benefits from morale, but Wall Street and most airline "leadership", to use the term very loosely, keep suggesting that there is no connection.
Based upon the new-age business mantra, much of Southwest's flying should have been "out-sourced" many years ago. Why was it not given away? Is it just an accident that Southwest pilots, whose flying was not outsourced, along with other staff, enabled their company to become so outstanding? Maybe outsourcing, this darling business model, so worshiped by Wall Street, is fundamentally flawed?
How well-paid are Ryanair's pilots? How about crew fatigue? How high is their morale?
Low cost and high productivity are not always the same thing. A major airline which wants to guarantee its flightcrews, by a proposed contract change, less than 4 hours and 15 minutes pay per day, is not interested in productivity, is it? It is the pilot unions which want to work more hours per duty period, but many upper or middle managers are against this. If your duty period is worth only 4:30 pay (typical), then why did the company not build the duty period with longer legs, or more legs to fly? The employer creates these trips-not the union.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 5th Feb 2006 at 03:46.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recently worked in a branch of a company, non aviation. They were cutting costs like there was no tomorrow. They were onto every new cost cutting method they thought of. They treated us workers like idiots and ignored our objections and complaints. As is happens there is no tomorrow. That branch closed. Many of us knew it was coming for at least a year but the managers and others apparently couldn't or wouldn't see it.
Ryanair reminds me of that but more in the safety sense. Right now cutting costs is the holy mantra of Ryanair. Every trick is tried. We've seen them all. The airline is profitable and has an excellent safety record, thank mostly to the professionalism of the pilots. But like test flying a new aircraft you can only go the edge of the envelope. Cross that edge and you depart controlled flight. Ryanair has been pushing the envelope for some time now.
You see incidents, well publicised here and elsewhere. There is disquiet in much of the pilot ranks. We all know something is wrong and we all have our opinions as to how to solve them. Some like Leo see nothing wrong in part because nothing really bad has come his way. Nor does he believe the complaints of his fellow aviators. In his corner of Ryanair all is cosy. The issues have passed him by. Lucky Leo. I knew people like him in my old job. They would cut you short when you tried to discuss the issues. The closure was a total shock to them. They never saw it coming.
I knew several pilots who were dead men walking. They way they flew most of us who knew them knew that one day, we would read about them in the papers or gaze at the pictures on the six o'clock news. Ryanair is a bit like that now.
When the time comes for what we all know is almost inevitable. Some of us will be surprised. Most of us won't be. Leo will be. The public and media will be surprised and then horrified. They will ask 'Why was nothing done?'.
It's a good question.
Ryanair reminds me of that but more in the safety sense. Right now cutting costs is the holy mantra of Ryanair. Every trick is tried. We've seen them all. The airline is profitable and has an excellent safety record, thank mostly to the professionalism of the pilots. But like test flying a new aircraft you can only go the edge of the envelope. Cross that edge and you depart controlled flight. Ryanair has been pushing the envelope for some time now.
You see incidents, well publicised here and elsewhere. There is disquiet in much of the pilot ranks. We all know something is wrong and we all have our opinions as to how to solve them. Some like Leo see nothing wrong in part because nothing really bad has come his way. Nor does he believe the complaints of his fellow aviators. In his corner of Ryanair all is cosy. The issues have passed him by. Lucky Leo. I knew people like him in my old job. They would cut you short when you tried to discuss the issues. The closure was a total shock to them. They never saw it coming.
I knew several pilots who were dead men walking. They way they flew most of us who knew them knew that one day, we would read about them in the papers or gaze at the pictures on the six o'clock news. Ryanair is a bit like that now.
When the time comes for what we all know is almost inevitable. Some of us will be surprised. Most of us won't be. Leo will be. The public and media will be surprised and then horrified. They will ask 'Why was nothing done?'.
It's a good question.
