Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Ryanair secrets?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Ryanair secrets?

Old 22nd Aug 2013, 20:47
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: U.K.
Age: 64
Posts: 374
Landflap,

Aren't many aircrew in what is known as a Double Bind?

"A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other.

This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation."

Double bind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good luck all and do the right thing!

Dream Buster is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2013, 22:53
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 937
22 Aug 2013 Ryanair Sues John Goss - High Court Dublin
16 Aug 2013 Ryanair Sues Channel 4/Blakeway Productions, Associated Newspapers (MailOnline) and Mirror Group. A writ of Summons has also been issued in Northern Ireland against the Belfast Telegraph.

Should these cases actually make it to court I'll attend the public area to sit quietly and listen. Unless of course the cases are being held in camera.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2013, 09:19
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
And there's at least another 4 or 5 other individuals currently showing actions filed against them in the Irish High Court, at least 4 of which are pilots.

So plenty of opportunities to "sit quietly and listen" to what they have to say - if you can find room after all the world's press and media have taken the best seats of course ....

Last edited by Aldente; 23rd Aug 2013 at 10:10.
Aldente is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2013, 13:55
  #264 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,274
Come on, Sky9 - tell us what you did with your extra '2000kgs'. Did you increase CMR by 2000kg? Did you hold for 40+ minutes? I'm intrigued. Presumably you had some idea why you carried it? As someone who spent half his flying life short of fuel I LOVE lots of it, but cannot see the point in tankering it around for no reason.
BOAC I really don't see what you are getting at.If you read my comment you will see that we agree. If I carried extra fuel I showed is as extra and annotated my voyage report with the reason; nobody ever questioned it.
I didn't carry extra fuel unless there was a good reason to do so.

If there was a good reason I carried enough to make a difference. There is absolutely no reason to carry fuel when the weather is fine and there are no delays, every reason in the book to carry fuel if the destination is forecast Cat3. Likewise if there are thunderstorms at the destination being able to hold gives time for the thunderstorm to pass through or leave you with sufficient fuel to go to the alternate knowing that others will be doing the same.

I would suggest that you read 2.1 page 17 of the Alicante incident.
sky9 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 02:38
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 383
Margin fuel

Fuel choice and management is a hell of a good discussion point, considering recent events.
"Extra" margin fuel is not at the complete discretion of the captain. If there are valid reasons why additional fuel is required, the captain must accept this position and correctly assess the various required amounts to arrive at "minimum fuel". The computer generated company flight plan fuel does not normally account for these additional fuel amounts, but the captain is compelled to do so.
The expert assessment of the actual amounts will depend on the experience and skill of the pilot. The expertly assessed additive is related to regulations and circumstances, and is not related to the profit culture of the operator.
Different pilots will have different expert assessments of the additive fuel required, but this does not mean the operator can influence a race to the bottom with incentives and disincentives. Perspectives might include sufficient fuel for a more distant alternate that is judged to be less busy when the destination is closed. Ideally, captain and operator could consult for the best solution.
The important point is that planned use, 5%, missed approach, then proceed to alternate plus 30 minutes is only sufficient under textbook circumstances. Other circumstances usually raise the minimum fuel required. This additive is required fuel, not extra fuel.
There are other considerations for a legally compliant flight, including conserving and continuing in-flight assessment of required fuel.

Last edited by autoflight; 24th Aug 2013 at 08:43.
autoflight is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 11:05
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: WORLD
Posts: 101
I think Ryanair pilots are using the flight and passenger safety to argue their discomfort in relation to their employment contracts. I think it is not a clean way to vindicate their employment status.

There is no secret about the working conditions. Pilots have been hired by an agency not by the airline. Conditions are explained to you ... If you work you earn money, you have no right to social security or unemployment benefit. Not even you will have the right to a pension for retirement because you have not paid into social security.

What OŽLeary is doing is legal.
NEWYEAR is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 11:31
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 562
"What OŽLeary is doing is legal. "

As presumably would the practice of towing aircraft to the holding point where they could start engines just before TOGA, hopefully allowing the requisite warmup time?

And I have yet to receive royalties for the bleeds off, packs-off, 1st pack on at 10,000ft, second on at 25,000ft procedure which I invented some time ago, when not quite myself, following discussion in the forum on 'bus unpressurised take-offs.

That in conjunction with 1st pack off at 25,000ft in the descent, followed by the 2nd pack at 10,000ft all finished off with a flourish by coasting onto the stand should save MO'L and the rest a real packet of fuel and therefore costs.

These fuel saving methods are presumably "legal", but are they safe and sensible?

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when it's proposed to the CAAs various, though judging by their recent record on (lack of) supervision and apparent subservience to BigCorp, they might even be actively considering the procedure?!

But I still claim the royalties....................................
BARKINGMAD is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 11:50
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 48
Posts: 557
"What O Leary's doing is legal"

In some countries it it legal to have sex with young children. Doesn't mean it's acceptable though does it.

In terms of their fuel policy, yes it is legal. Doesn't mean it's always safe though does it.

In terms of their employment/ contractor policy, some countries have tested it in court, and found it to be not legal. Some countries have yet to test it in court.

Last edited by PURPLE PITOT; 24th Aug 2013 at 11:52.
PURPLE PITOT is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 15:45
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
In terms of their employment/ contractor policy, some countries have tested it in court, and found it to be not legal. Some countries have yet to test it in court.

Is this really true? If so it should be heralded from the roof tops and thus stopped in its tracks and correct employment status conferred. but I'm yet to hear the cheers. If it has been found to be illegal in some countries what happened to the individuals; what happened to BRK & what happened to RYR? Big questions in need of answers.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 16:21
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hotels
Posts: 46
NEWYEAR,

NO, What Ryanair is doing is NOT legal.

Ryanair is actively participating in False Selfemployment, which, according to EU legislation, is fraud.
The Employee, or what FR calls self employed pilot, is in fact according to this legislation a victim, no matter what contract he/she signed. Even more, EU legislation very clearly states that it is the responsibility of the employer to offer a Legal contract. the employee is at no time responsible for signing an illegal employment contract.
this is EU employment legislation, and Ireland, as a EU member state HAS to abide by this.
Ryanair pilots get their roster from FR, they get their leave from FR, they get their uniform from FR. THIS makes them employee, no matter what fraudulous and criminal contract FR gives you through fraudulant " companies" and the Brookfield Maffia.

I am more than willing to give my real name if FR wants me to by the way. My claims are all based on facts.
Mind you, I do not comment on their Safety, although they were refueling during a thunderstorm last month in CRL


Ryanair management are the Bullies of this Industry. i was once bullied at school, since then, I vowed to accept this loathfull behaviour anymore and get them to pay.
Captaintcas is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 16:29
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 177
If your company want you to take the legal minimum fuel then that is what they want you to take. They then run the risk that if there are any unforeseen circumstances where you are delayed in arriving at your destination then you are going to go below the company minimum fuel, which will either result in a divert and/or an emergency call. If we think that the legal minimum is not safe then surely its the regulatory authorities that we should be attacking and getting them to increase the minimum fuel that is required to be carried. Chanel 4 should do documentary on the state of the Aviation Authorities in Europe and how they manage the aviation systems in Europe. Do a comparison as to how the US FAA manages their patch. Would make interesting viewing.

Last edited by Best foot forward; 24th Aug 2013 at 16:30.
Best foot forward is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 17:53
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 78
Posts: 3,682
Well, it was a long time ago but I was based at JFK when a PanAm 747 diverted from JFK to EWR one night. Two engines flamed out after landing and I think he only had one running when he got to the gate.

The problem was that his Plog only showed the straight line distance from JFK and EWR which was about 27 nms. In actual fact, by the time you got out of the JFK traffic pattern into the EWR traffic pattern was probably in excess of 100 nms.

Not one of the PanAm crew had picked up on this shortfall.

That's how the FAA dealt with the problem in those days.

I did not ever have to get close to that problem for we had told our Plog provider never to accept an alternate closer than 150 nms.
JW411 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 19:07
  #273 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,274
I thought this was an interesting blog on fuel policy and the Madrid divert.
Flight safety: Spanish aviation authority issues recommendations to Ryanair and the ICAO | AirObserver's Blog
sky9 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 19:11
  #274 (permalink)  

Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,274
Captaintcas
Ryanair is actively participating in False Selfemployment, which, according to EU legislation, is fraud.
The Employee, or what FR calls self employed pilot, is in fact according to this legislation a victim, no matter what contract he/she signed. Even more, EU legislation very clearly states that it is the responsibility of the employer to offer a Legal contract. the employee is at no time responsible for signing an illegal employment contract.
this is EU employment legislation, and Ireland, as a EU member state HAS to abide by this.
Ryanair pilots get their roster from FR, they get their leave from FR, they get their uniform from FR. THIS makes them employee, no matter what fraudulous and criminal contract FR gives you through fraudulant " companies" and the Brookfield Maffia.
In that case why do the IAA continue to provide an AOC to the company? I'm sure if what Ryanair are doing was illegal under EU rules, the IAA would tell them to change their employment policy or withdraw their AOC.
sky9 is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2013, 19:17
  #275 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Rec 19/13 is irrelevant since the PLOG fuel was calculated for the 'further' div. The fact that the crew did either not realise the facts due to the 'minimum' CMR 2000kg policy, or did not think about the sensible option compounded the problem.

I think someone else has raised the point that you cannot 'blame' RY for encouraging EU 'policy' on fuel - it is this itself that needs the focus.

It would be interesting to see what (if anything) RY have done since in 'instructions' and 'guidelines' to crews.
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2013, 09:44
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,175
Spanish ATC secrets

While not having any time for the antics of MoL and as the TV program was based mostly on the Madrid inccident(s) does the forum think that in the interests of fairness and balance we should have a Spanish ATC secrets thread ?
A and C is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2013, 09:58
  #277 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Fell free to join: http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/520...h-atc-why.html
BOAC is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2013, 10:16
  #278 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 179
HMRC have published simple guidelines regarding whether an individual is employed or self-employed

Employed or self-employed?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to determine whether the person works under a contract of service (employees) or under a contract for services (self-employed, independent contractor). For tax and NICs purposes, there is no statutory definition of a contract of service or of a contract for services. What the parties call their relationship, or what they consider it to be, is not conclusive. It is the reality of the relationship that matters.

In order to determine the nature of a contract, it is necessary to apply common law principles. The courts have, over the years, laid down some factors and tests that are relevant, which is included in the overview below.

As a general guide as to whether a worker is an employee or self-employed; if the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, then the worker is probably an employee:

Do they have to do the work themselves?
Can someone tell them at any time what to do, where to carry out the work or when and how to do it?
Can they work a set amount of hours?
Can someone move them from task to task?
Are they paid by the hour, week, or month?
Can they get overtime pay or bonus payment?

If the answer is 'Yes' to all of the following questions, it will usually mean that the worker is self-employed:

Can they hire someone to do the work or engage helpers at their own expense?
Do they risk their own money?
Do they provide the main items of equipment they need to do their job, not just the small tools that many employees provide for themselves?
Do they agree to do a job for a fixed price regardless of how long the job may take?
Can they decide what work to do, how and when to do the work and where to provide the services?
Do they regularly work for a number of different people?
Do they have to correct unsatisfactory work in their own time and at their own expense?

Last edited by Aldente; 25th Aug 2013 at 10:18.
Aldente is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2013, 11:28
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,510
In that case why do the IAA continue to provide an AOC to the company? I'm sure if what Ryanair are doing was illegal under EU rules, the IAA would tell them to change their employment policy or withdraw their AOC.

I'm not sure this issue falls within the jurisdiction of an XAA. It has nothing to do with EASA regs etc. nor, directly, with the financial well-being of the company. An XAA used to have an oversight of the well being to protect the pax from being dumped by a dodgy carrier going bust every week. One could argue these practices boost a carrier's potential to stay alive. I would have thought the local government's tax office would have jurisdiction.

I'm not following Agri B's thinking that things could be worse if this issue was addressed by the authorities. Surely if it was found to be non-koshewr the resulting change would be under the spot light by everyone; public, employees, media etc.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2013, 17:19
  #280 (permalink)  
MPH
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Love the part about Spanish ATC recommending FR better English for there flight crew As far as I have read in the report, both crew had a level 6 English proficiency and are both British citizens. Maybe level 6 for the Spanish ATC?
MPH is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.