Ireland: Ryanair Fears €20m Pilot Hit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: right behind you
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We,the pilots at ryanair are determined to uphold the highest safety srandards for the transport of our passengers and also to ensure that the public recieve the best service and lowest fares,despite the efforts of a minority of greedy managers within ryanair.managers on £800,000 plus bonuses per year who would screw the public out of a few quid.
The ruling on this case at the supreme court today will not now or ever deflect us from our mission to cheaply,safely and comfortably carry our passengers from country to country.We will also protect the environment,despite our managers unwillingness to do so!
The ruling on this case at the supreme court today will not now or ever deflect us from our mission to cheaply,safely and comfortably carry our passengers from country to country.We will also protect the environment,despite our managers unwillingness to do so!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whey exactly should the Labour Court intervene in a situation like this involving a non unionised workforce??
Ryanair are non-unionised only in that management, as yet, don't recognise the union. Ryanair are unionised in so far as most pilots are members of the union.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airlines doesn't recognise any union. It doesn't work that way. You all know this and under Irish law, FR are not required to recognise a union.
Under new legislation introduced in 2004, workers in companies which do not recognise unions can have their grievances investigated by the Labour Court - with or without the participation of the employer in question.
And this is where we stand, where we always stood. The Supreme Court has upheld this legislation. So FR doesn't have to recognise the union BUT the Labour Court does have the right to investigate the grievance.
You all know this and under Irish law
So, your idea is to recognise and uphold the pieces of Irish law that you like, whilst ignoring the pieces (like the Labour courts right to intervene in non-unionised companies) that you don't?
It doesn't work that way either.....
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Good ol' USA
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You went to a low cost carrier, you knew the rules, don't expect a sociolistick government to bail you out! Never pay for training, and a 500hr pilot should be flight instructing, not in a jet with lots of people. Automation will not always save the day.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: WTF? Which city is this?!
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
alibaba:
Since I am The Defender of Moral, I'm not satiesfied with a churc. My cathedral is almost finished, payed for with the money I saved on NOT paying RYANAIR otr other LCC to work for them!
To be a little more serious:
Off course, I have full understanding for people needing a job. But as long as pilots are paying for TR, things will never change.
You say the best thing would be an overall ban for self-funded TR. Now, who do you think have to make sure that happens? The airlines?
It is up to us, the pilots, to ensure good workinconditions etc.
As the marked for pilots is on the rise we should start setting the standards.
The airlines, with LCC in the lead, don't give a flying f*ck as long as it saves them money!
This thing with CTC or similar Cadet-schemes is the same ****, if not worse. If a guy has £20.000 to spend on a rating up front, thats one thing. Another is a guy fresh out of flight school with a huge morgage. In addition he/she joins CTC and will suffer for the next 3,4,5 years with reduced pay!
I understand that the airlines want value for the money they spend on their pilots. I see bonding as an acceptable way. Lets say FR pay for the 737TR for a new pilot, to the cost of £20.000 incl hotels transport etc. Those 20k is devided in 36 equal parts, one part each month for 3 years. 1/36 of 20k is then deducted from the TR cost as long as the pilot works for the company, while the pilots recieves normal pay. If he leaves after 24 mnths, he must pay the remaining 12/36... You can use 3 years or 5 years, whatever... The point is that the pilot dont suffer by paying himself. He pays the airline back by working for them. Thats one option...
Since I am The Defender of Moral, I'm not satiesfied with a churc. My cathedral is almost finished, payed for with the money I saved on NOT paying RYANAIR otr other LCC to work for them!
To be a little more serious:
Off course, I have full understanding for people needing a job. But as long as pilots are paying for TR, things will never change.
You say the best thing would be an overall ban for self-funded TR. Now, who do you think have to make sure that happens? The airlines?
It is up to us, the pilots, to ensure good workinconditions etc.
As the marked for pilots is on the rise we should start setting the standards.
The airlines, with LCC in the lead, don't give a flying f*ck as long as it saves them money!
This thing with CTC or similar Cadet-schemes is the same ****, if not worse. If a guy has £20.000 to spend on a rating up front, thats one thing. Another is a guy fresh out of flight school with a huge morgage. In addition he/she joins CTC and will suffer for the next 3,4,5 years with reduced pay!
I understand that the airlines want value for the money they spend on their pilots. I see bonding as an acceptable way. Lets say FR pay for the 737TR for a new pilot, to the cost of £20.000 incl hotels transport etc. Those 20k is devided in 36 equal parts, one part each month for 3 years. 1/36 of 20k is then deducted from the TR cost as long as the pilot works for the company, while the pilots recieves normal pay. If he leaves after 24 mnths, he must pay the remaining 12/36... You can use 3 years or 5 years, whatever... The point is that the pilot dont suffer by paying himself. He pays the airline back by working for them. Thats one option...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: cloud 9
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Labour court's original decision was that it had the right to hear Ryanair's case.
It based this decision on certain arguments that the supreme court has ruled were incorrect.
Now the labour court has been ordered to hold another hearing to decide if it can investigate the grievance.
Given that the supreme court has ruled that the arguments previously used by the labour court (to determine that it had jurisdiction) were incorrect it's hard to see how any hearing could establish that the labour court has a right to hear the case.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, there doesn't seem to be much point in either side claiming victory just now, now does there?
The Supreme Court found that procedures used by the Labour Court in its preliminary hearing were flawed, and has ordered a re-hearing of the case.
Doesn't take a legal expert to determine what that means. Procedural problems with original hearing so start again....
No room for crowing on either side.
The Supreme Court found that procedures used by the Labour Court in its preliminary hearing were flawed, and has ordered a re-hearing of the case.
Doesn't take a legal expert to determine what that means. Procedural problems with original hearing so start again....
No room for crowing on either side.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue06, I think we are in danger of going off thread here!
We seem to be singing off the say hymn sheet here (so to speak). IFALPA would be the organisation that could implement a recruitment ban for self funding types. So it could be organised and you are right to say that the only people to change the airlines doing this practice should be the pilots themselves. Unfortunately life is not that simple. Most of us wish it was.
I sincerely congratulate you for not having to fund your own TR, you were or are in a very fortunate position. I wouldn't be so quick to slam other colleagues that choose to take this direction in their own career though. They have a choice and I think they are well aware of the consequences of there choices. If pilots could choose to not pay for TR's and be bonded I think 90% of the total numbers doing TR's would be getting bonded. Bonding arrangements should be the way pilots should be doing TR's but it isn't the way most of the industry is operating at the moment.
The pretext that it is only LCC charging for TR's is wrong though. Many airlines do this and have been doing this for years especially in the charter area and in the regional part of the industry so everybody should wise up. It is just that FR is willing to push the boundaries that little bit more. The USA is not exempt from this either "free at last". If I remember rightly there are many candidates from COMAIR, American Flyers and Flight Safety buying types with regional and night cargo operators. It is not something confined to Europe but something that is international and wide spread. The only reason why the candidates are not buying types for the major's is that they have too many pilots at this current point in time and there is already a large supply from the military and regionals to fill seats. Also there is good T+C's set down with flight crew partner unions such as ALPA for the practice not to take off with the majors. A liberalisation of employment laws combined with a lax approach of European based pilot unions about their members T+C's has led to the current state of affairs that pilots now suffer in Europe.
Just because the FO might not have 2000hrs chugging around in a C150 doesn't make him a poor quality pilot.
A good pilot with good CRM skills doesn't mean 10,000hrs total either. We have all flown with experienced and inexperienced pilots and the ability of the pilot generally has nothing to do with his total time. It just means he has been sitting in the seat longer!!! After line training all pilots should have the minimum standards as set down under the authorities for 2 pilot operations. Have a look at a few safety reports into accidents such as CFIT related accidents and you will find that it is the most experienced of crews that often make the worst mistakes. Overconfidence can be the deadliest of killers!
I would like to comment about the statement that if it is so bad in LCC why don't you get a new job? This is a pathetic argument and something that the uneducated in employment bullying and harassment do not understand. People on the whole wish the best for their company and there own colleagues in that company. Sometimes it is better to try and change a company’s employment policy to its staff so that the philosophy doesn't move onto other companies. You have to draw the line somewhere! I think this is what the FR pilots are trying to achieve and should be getting help from fellow pilots like ourselves. Because to put it bluntly if the pilots and employees in FR do not draw this line, you can bet your bottom dollar that this type of practice will be coming to a airline or employer to a place allot like yours. So it is easy to leave and not put up a fight. It might change your live for the better in the short term, but it won't in the long term. As these practices will eventually make there way to your new employer!
Oneworld22 you are so far of the mark….
... The law has been ruled to be lawful and constitutional in terms of the Labour Courts right to rule in this case and the actions sought by IALPA. However it has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Ireland that the particular proceedings of the case as heard in the Labour Court Judgment weren't correct with respect to the current law therefore the case has been asked to be heard again by the Labour Court with respect to proper proceedings undertaken the next time. So the emphasis is back on Impact and IALPA to prove that FR doesn’t directly negotiate by an independent non arbitory manor and that intimidation of pilots does take place in the company. I don't think that will be to hard to show now......
Do you?
We seem to be singing off the say hymn sheet here (so to speak). IFALPA would be the organisation that could implement a recruitment ban for self funding types. So it could be organised and you are right to say that the only people to change the airlines doing this practice should be the pilots themselves. Unfortunately life is not that simple. Most of us wish it was.
I sincerely congratulate you for not having to fund your own TR, you were or are in a very fortunate position. I wouldn't be so quick to slam other colleagues that choose to take this direction in their own career though. They have a choice and I think they are well aware of the consequences of there choices. If pilots could choose to not pay for TR's and be bonded I think 90% of the total numbers doing TR's would be getting bonded. Bonding arrangements should be the way pilots should be doing TR's but it isn't the way most of the industry is operating at the moment.
The pretext that it is only LCC charging for TR's is wrong though. Many airlines do this and have been doing this for years especially in the charter area and in the regional part of the industry so everybody should wise up. It is just that FR is willing to push the boundaries that little bit more. The USA is not exempt from this either "free at last". If I remember rightly there are many candidates from COMAIR, American Flyers and Flight Safety buying types with regional and night cargo operators. It is not something confined to Europe but something that is international and wide spread. The only reason why the candidates are not buying types for the major's is that they have too many pilots at this current point in time and there is already a large supply from the military and regionals to fill seats. Also there is good T+C's set down with flight crew partner unions such as ALPA for the practice not to take off with the majors. A liberalisation of employment laws combined with a lax approach of European based pilot unions about their members T+C's has led to the current state of affairs that pilots now suffer in Europe.
Just because the FO might not have 2000hrs chugging around in a C150 doesn't make him a poor quality pilot.
A good pilot with good CRM skills doesn't mean 10,000hrs total either. We have all flown with experienced and inexperienced pilots and the ability of the pilot generally has nothing to do with his total time. It just means he has been sitting in the seat longer!!! After line training all pilots should have the minimum standards as set down under the authorities for 2 pilot operations. Have a look at a few safety reports into accidents such as CFIT related accidents and you will find that it is the most experienced of crews that often make the worst mistakes. Overconfidence can be the deadliest of killers!I would like to comment about the statement that if it is so bad in LCC why don't you get a new job? This is a pathetic argument and something that the uneducated in employment bullying and harassment do not understand. People on the whole wish the best for their company and there own colleagues in that company. Sometimes it is better to try and change a company’s employment policy to its staff so that the philosophy doesn't move onto other companies. You have to draw the line somewhere! I think this is what the FR pilots are trying to achieve and should be getting help from fellow pilots like ourselves. Because to put it bluntly if the pilots and employees in FR do not draw this line, you can bet your bottom dollar that this type of practice will be coming to a airline or employer to a place allot like yours. So it is easy to leave and not put up a fight. It might change your live for the better in the short term, but it won't in the long term. As these practices will eventually make there way to your new employer!
Oneworld22 you are so far of the mark….
... The law has been ruled to be lawful and constitutional in terms of the Labour Courts right to rule in this case and the actions sought by IALPA. However it has been ruled by the Supreme Court in Ireland that the particular proceedings of the case as heard in the Labour Court Judgment weren't correct with respect to the current law therefore the case has been asked to be heard again by the Labour Court with respect to proper proceedings undertaken the next time. So the emphasis is back on Impact and IALPA to prove that FR doesn’t directly negotiate by an independent non arbitory manor and that intimidation of pilots does take place in the company. I don't think that will be to hard to show now...... Do you?
Last edited by alibaba; 1st Feb 2007 at 17:08.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: One hump; two if you're pretty.
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vincit omnia veritas.
REJOICE REJOICE REJOICE.
Gosh!
In other words, you're sunk.
Alexander (Vincit omnia veritas) 1.
Dwarf Investments Inc. (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) zero.
I do not think this makes any difference because what was involved was an inquiry as to the Labour Court’s own jurisdiction and the Labour Court was not entitled to make legal errors in considering its own jurisdiction.
I would allow the appeal. I would quash the decision of the Labour Court and order that there be a rehearing by the Labour Court in which the Labour Court would apply the procedures and the law as indicated in this judgment.
Alexander (Vincit omnia veritas) 1.
Dwarf Investments Inc. (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) zero.
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leo the referee was found to be unfit at the time of the match. The game will be replayed.
Hardly cause for World Cup winners style celebration, unless of course you have never won a match before.
Hardly cause for World Cup winners style celebration, unless of course you have never won a match before.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cartoon strip
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHC must have one of those funny little daily Latin phrase generators.
Today it popped up for him: "Vincit omnia veritas" which according to my knowledge of Latin and Goggle means: "Truth conquers all". Not exactly a phrase to be bandied lightly around FR I would venture but who and ever...
Or does it have relevance to the case at hand? Well not that I can see as from what has been published in the press so far indicates quite clearly that the case has to be re-heard from the start due to procedural problems. Therefore no truth has been established and therefore no conquering has occurred - if we follow LHC's wee quote.
Rejoice all you like. The game has to be replayed...
Today it popped up for him: "Vincit omnia veritas" which according to my knowledge of Latin and Goggle means: "Truth conquers all". Not exactly a phrase to be bandied lightly around FR I would venture but who and ever...
Or does it have relevance to the case at hand? Well not that I can see as from what has been published in the press so far indicates quite clearly that the case has to be re-heard from the start due to procedural problems. Therefore no truth has been established and therefore no conquering has occurred - if we follow LHC's wee quote.
Rejoice all you like. The game has to be replayed...
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: in a house
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leo – once again with childish references to Alexander and the Latin…. My dear fellow, how is it that you seem of an intelligent mind but are so hell bent on portraying yourself as a pseudo intellectual with the use pithy quotes from the internet.
You also seemingly unable to separate your apparent love Alexander, from the matter at hand. You claim to be a man of business and commerce and yet have no appreciation of accountability ?
I don’t agree that unions should run the show, but you can’t have it all your own way. You are not dealing with a commodity, you are dealing with people. Why do you persist with the stick approach at Ryanair, when in fact you could achieve even more by actually being a reasonable group of individuals ?
I am not looking for a come back with some juvenile Jerry Springer response about Euros in the bank, or employment figures, because that is not what we are discussing. In fact, I can only assume that your posts are just to provoke a response and you don’t really believe in what you say.
You also seemingly unable to separate your apparent love Alexander, from the matter at hand. You claim to be a man of business and commerce and yet have no appreciation of accountability ?
I don’t agree that unions should run the show, but you can’t have it all your own way. You are not dealing with a commodity, you are dealing with people. Why do you persist with the stick approach at Ryanair, when in fact you could achieve even more by actually being a reasonable group of individuals ?
I am not looking for a come back with some juvenile Jerry Springer response about Euros in the bank, or employment figures, because that is not what we are discussing. In fact, I can only assume that your posts are just to provoke a response and you don’t really believe in what you say.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: limbo
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1-0? I don't think so leo......
Leo,
You must have a short memory? I think the score is more like this:
Ryanair : 1 (Supreme court orders a rematch in the Labour Court)
Others : 4 (Cliodhna Duggan, John Goss, Millionth Pax, Repa Court Case)
So back to the Labour Court we go then. Round Two! Ding, Ding.
Alexander (Vincit omnia veritas) 1.
Dwarf Investments Inc. (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) zero
Dwarf Investments Inc. (Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) zero
Ryanair : 1 (Supreme court orders a rematch in the Labour Court)
Others : 4 (Cliodhna Duggan, John Goss, Millionth Pax, Repa Court Case)
So back to the Labour Court we go then. Round Two! Ding, Ding.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bottom line is you guys lost. Even if you consider that we both go back to the starting point Ryan Air has the financial staying power,that IALPA does not,to drag this out for years.
When are you guys gonna learn.Unions are dead.
What is wrong with you all anyway.Great salary and home every night. Thats why every body wants to come here.
When are you guys gonna learn.Unions are dead.
What is wrong with you all anyway.Great salary and home every night. Thats why every body wants to come here.