Ryanair secrets?

[JM737]

Unless youve worked for Ryanair you won't fully understand the issue the pilots are trying to raise here.

The issue is not whether the airline is safe or not its the fact that many of the people who work there (and not just flight crew) believe that the management culture is unsafe.

Ive worked there and I had some concerns about some of the things that happened but I would not have felt comfortable raising them through the official company channels. For a start raising any issue would immediately mark you out as a troublemaker and your report would inevitably end up on the desk of the person with the ability to decide if you got a pay rise that year, what shift you would be working, what base you would be transferred to in the winter and the ability to make your life hell.
I would not have felt comfortable raising my concerns directly with the IAA either as many of my former managers in Ryanair have now found a home there and I have absolutely no doubt that my correspondence would end up back on the desk of the person I refer to.
In Ireland we dont have Whistleblower legislation to protect people who go public on matters like this so that leaves very few options.

[slip and turn]

The secret is out for the count now?

I have waded through this thread and the Spectators thread a few times and I recall one poster made a fleeting reference to the fact that the IAA seem to have permitted perhaps sometime in the last 12 months that onboard passenger headcounts are no longer necessary.

I know that failed headcounts caused delays - I witnessed it many times.

I am very surprised that the solution to these unwanted delays is that headcounts simply stopped.

Anyone have a good perspective on this ? Apologies if it has been raised/debated previously on PPRuNe.

[J.O.]

The IAA wouldn't be the first jurisdiction to permit it. Provided that the operator has a boarding pass verification system that ensures that all passengers who have checked baggage have in fact boarded, some jurisdictions have allowed operators to eliminate the need for a head count.

[Pablo_Diablo]

One issue with that procedure especially in some places where you park on the apron not using a boarding-gate leading the passenger directly to the aircraft door.Must be far more likely having the bag without pax scenario there.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by slip and turn

I have waded through this thread and the Spectators thread a few times and I recall one poster made a fleeting reference to the fact that the IAA seem to have permitted perhaps sometime in the last 12 months that onboard passenger headcounts are no longer necessary.

- by no means uncommon,S&T. BA stopped doing them years ago - probably before 2000.

[slip and turn]

So how do we know that passengers who have checked in baggage actually board the flight if they can get as far as the apron and then wander off unchallenged and leave the airport via another route e.g. via the stand next door at airports like Stansted or round the corner and over the fence at many smaller European airports?

For example, I was at little ol' Zadar this summer and could perhaps have stepped over a few plant pots straight from the melee joining one low cost flight straight into the airside outside coffee shop terrace i.e. having had my boarding pass slip taken, and then used another boarding pass to board another flight. As it was, I made a mistake because I was taking a domestic flight and after passport control (which is after security of course) and walked into the international lounge.

To show how easy it might have been, I even had a coffee on that terrace and watched proceedings as I was early, but then realised that a queue was forming in another waiting area adjacent which I could see through glass. So I walked back to passport control - did a double take at a hand made notice that said "<-- Zagreb flight" and walked completely unchallenged from one to the other. Could I not have checked a bag on the international flight and then done exactly as I did eventually and used a domestic boarding pass to catch another flight?

This was all in the EU of course - it's a big place these days!

And that reminds me, what about that other Ryanair/Swissport (Stansted) practice of farming the gate queue to pre-check boarding passes so that when you actually DO go through the gate they don't have to check just take the slip they want? And given the proximity of other flight queues, and kerfuffles that occur with arguments at that immediate vicinity of the gate (now hitherto perhaps known as the 'slip and turn' collection point? ) about size of bags and excess baggage charges of what is it, up to £120* for one late-checked bag high season ?!!!!, surely there is plenty of scope for to-ing and fro-ing around the gate given that such heated distractions as can occur, may not be so uncommon?

As with many of these new cost saving ideas I think we are gambling, and treating passengers and crew as unwitting guinea pigs to risks that may not have been completely thought through ...

*Edit: I think it might now be up to £130 actually - remind me not to be so brave as to try to take a slightly big cabin bag to Tenerife

[Pablo_Diablo]

Yeah indeed, perhaps a new day and age where cost cutting and time saving rule but unless they change the law which i didn´t hear anything about then it can be seen to relaxed some of these new techniques cutting corners.

turn and slip i can give you another example also from the same airline perhaps a year ago by now. Where a regulator approved/allowed or didn´t spot (don´t know) an airline introducing a "reserved seating" policy including the emergency exit seats - and as a result since few people actually bought these seats flew around with no one sitting there. Not a very good move in the unlikely event of an evacuation - where passengers sitting there obviously need to assist opening the over-wing exit doors. But lo and behold thats what happened until someone brought it up with the regulator and it was later on changed.

[RAT 5]

If regulators can 'approve/authorise' some of the dross in the manuals that some airlines shove under their noses for a stamp, which are then later amended when the guys at the coal face realise that it doesn't work, do not be surprised that something so apparently perfunctory could be allowed. If the hand that feeds you asks for permission to do something and offers assurances that it will work, the the stamp will be warm and waiting. It happens with a whole host of issues that will alarm you.
But don't forget to dot every i and cross every t on all the duplicated everyday flight paperwork. With out them a near dangerous flight may occur.

[J.O.]

Please quote for us which regulation said, "Thou shalt do a head count".

Never mind. There wasn't one. Head counts were simply a means to ensure compliance with regulations for things such as weight and balance and security requirements. Nowhere did those regs say that the head count was a mandatory step for compliance. The only requirement was, and still is, that the operator establish a suitable means of compliance. If the operator proposes a reasonable alternative to head counts as a means of complying, how exactly would a regulator say it wasn't acceptable? I have personally witnessed alternative processes at other carriers that are quite simple and yet highly effective. It isn't rocket science.

So unless someone can quote specific examples where the new process has broken down and threatened safety, why don't we dispense with this red herring and move on.

[cwatters]

Reminds me of..

BBC News - Boy, 11, boards plane to Italy at Manchester Airport without passport

An 11-year-old boy boarded a plane from Manchester to Rome on his own without a passport, tickets or boarding pass.

The airline said no head count was carried out on this flight and they would now become mandatory.

and google found..

Parolee Boards L.A.-Bound Plane At Lindbergh Field Without Ticket | KPBS.org

An investigation was under way today into how a parolee fresh out of jail managed to evade security at Lindbergh Field and get onto a Los Angeles-bound plane without a ticket, authorities reported.

Marc Rory Duncan, 38, allegedly walked through an emergency door at the airport's Commuter Terminal about 11 a.m. Tuesday, crossed the tarmac and boarded the propeller aircraft along with several dozen passengers, according to Marguerite Elicone, a spokeswoman for the Port of San Diego.

"The suspect was able to somehow blend in with them and get on the plane,'' she said.

An alarm notified security personnel about the breach, Elicone said. As officers were en route to the tarmac, airport personnel contacted the pilot of the commuter aircraft, who directed a flight attendant to conduct a passenger head count.

[fireflybob]

Errors do occur - on one of my flights years ago, after we got airborne I was informed by the cabin crew that one of the passengers was bound and ticketed for a different destination.

[Alexander de Meerkat]

Just watched O'Leary in the Swedish video - I simply do not buy his views and completely disagree with his take on what Ryanair does about employees and Unions. I think about the best and most informed post I have read to date on Ryanair and safety culture is that by JM737 - an excellent post that says it all.

[JM737]

The IAA can only endorse Ryanairs procedures and as they stated they are "on a par with the safest airlines in Europe", the problem is that they can really have no idea how those procedures are implemented or abused unless issues are brought to their attention either by Ryanair as a company or the individual themselves. The truth is that many of the employees would not want to do anything that brings them into any conflict with the management if there was any way to avoid it.
Employees who had any sort of concerns would see the options as,
1. Report it using RYR official channels (possible career suicide, especially if your a contractor)
2. Report directly to IAA (possible career suicide, especially if your a contractor)
3. Say nothing, stay off the radar, hope nothing comes of it or someone else reports it.

[slip and turn]

Originally Posted by J.O.

Please quote for us which regulation said, "Thou shalt do a head count".

Never mind. There wasn't one. Head counts were simply a means to ensure compliance with regulations for things such as weight and balance and security requirements. Nowhere did those regs say that the head count was a mandatory step for compliance. The only requirement was, and still is, that the operator establish a suitable means of compliance. If the operator proposes a reasonable alternative to head counts as a means of complying, how exactly would a regulator say it wasn't acceptable? I have personally witnessed alternative processes at other carriers that are quite simple and yet highly effective. It isn't rocket science.

So unless someone can quote specific examples where the new process has broken down and threatened safety, why don't we dispense with this red herring and move on.

JO, out of curiosity, what kind of animal do you consider yourself to be? A corporate one perhaps, who believes that regulations, regulators and compliance are hurdles to which lip service is always paid, and notice is never much taken unless it becomes uncomfortable not to, and which or whom might form a suitable whipping boy or horse or hiding place behind which you can perform profit making risky new ideas? Or have I marked you out unfairly?

As to how would a regulator refuse to accept a suggested alternative to a head count ? - well perhaps they might open their eyes and take a few flights.

[J.O.]

I'm about as far from being a "corporate guy" as you can get. Ask anyone who's worked with me, they'll tell you I was never afraid to call a spade a shovel, even to the CEO himself. I have a good deal of experience in the application of regulations both as a regulator and on the industry side. And no, I am not (and have never been) with the IAA or Ryanair. Wrong side of the planet.

Virtually every regulatory structure I know of states quite clearly that if an applicant meets the conditions of issuance, then the regulator shall issue a certificate, whether they like the applicant or not. Once issued, the regulator can only remove that certificate when the holder no longer meets those conditions. Certificates can't be removed (or even threatened) on the basis of an opinion or a gut feeling. There are plenty of examples where one operator maintains compliance in one way while their competitor uses a different method. Regulators can't pick and choose methods of compliance, they can only validate that compliance is (or will be) maintained.

Once again, please tell us which regulation Ryanair (or any other operator) is breaking simply by having an alternative to head counts as a means of passenger verification. As a regulator, I have "taken a few flights" (many actually) with operators who use an alternative to cabin head counts. The process works very well both from a load control and a security perspective.

[slip and turn]

Sorry, JO - got ahead of myself earlier - you do think I was unfair. Please accept my apologies for rushing to judge you incorrectly from your earlier words.

There is the given regulatory environment on the day for any particular operation, and there is of course the breadth of the legal requirement placed upon the captain in safeguarding the flight - not a simple tickbox exercise, that one, is it? There are recommendations and there is company practice and individual judgement, tolerance or compliance. There is always risk to be minimised, proactively managed or alternatively the responsibility is variously ignored, abdicated, otherwise mismanaged, gambled with or exacerbated.

And then when doors are finally closed there is only our captain who decides if it is a go or no go, based on whatever info of which he/she has availed himself/herself and whether it is deemed reliable, and yes, gut feeling wins the day.

On the proverbial bag loaded / passenger missing front I have a good idea what used to happen when some unfortunate like me advised a captain with doors closed and engines now running that it seemed a bag had been loaded but its requisite SLF item had not. Few captains would be particularly impressed I imagine, not least because their hand would be forced. For a captain on the ground there is only one thing to do about knowledge of a risk like that, isn't there? Or do daily wobblers like that get ducked now by keeping the actual monitoring to a minimum (ignorance is bliss / incident statistics will serve as a safe refuge if ever a storm befalls the operation)?

If simply satisfying the regulatory regime is seen as sufficient by any passenger airline then how can that airline claim that safety is their first priority ? They can't, can they? Safety regulation or even compliance with it isn't safety - it is at best regulation compliance. I know of no passenger airline that claims regulation compliance as its first priority. All airlines claim safety as their first priority. No airline and no captain can abdicate the one however and then claim that the other was fairly and logically expected to do the trick every time.

Since those very obvious and frequent head count reconciliation delays quietly disappeared (I used to overhear oh so many discussions involving so many musical intruments plus pax plus infants versus what was presented on the form involving ground team leaders/numbers 1-4 and the captain that I lost count!)

But I have witnessed no alternative to headcounts as a means of passenger verification. So are there any? I suspect not really as the head count may have disappeared round about the same time as that unoccupied reserved emergency row solution got hammered into shape over a period of some weeks before a final standard was settled upon. Wasn't that the same review that meant seats 2DEF could now contain one child I think, that anyone over 16 not over 18 could sit in an emergency row and that a blind eye might be turned to those slightly immobile types one often finds using emergency rows but who looked too business-like or too upper-klasse to question

I agree in my limited experience that other airlines do not lately seem to rely on a headcount either, but again, what are the rigorous alternatives being practised daily? I can tell you that my Lexmark inkjet does not impregnate my self-printed boarding pass with any proximity chip that might have been read by a sensor above the cabin door Maybe my mobile phone is how they do it - those redundant inflight mobile systems have a use afterall?

Pray someone, do tell us - what really are the alternatives to head counts with very busy airline operations like Ryanair who in the main use small airports with irregular security / passenger handling or big ones with local lo-negotiated modified or self-managed or third party outsourced arrangements? With any MO not shy of frequent heated conversations provoked between passengers and gate staff enforcing on the spot fines, I conclude that feature alone provides countless opportunities for irregularities. Distracting staff from noticing that a passenger has not arrived at the designated aircraft despite handing over a boarding slip for that flight, might be a doddle sometimes.

Parts of the operation at the 180 or so different airports that our Michael referred to whilst in Sweden might also be at risk of daily opportunities for mixing passengers between different flights. Long largely unsupervised walks past adjacent stands or past immediately adjacent easy routes back into the terminal as already possibly exists at Zadar which is just one off the top of my head? Carcassonne might be another interesting case study.

As an aside - one which highlights how local risk versus standard regulatory compliance may not be a neutral equation, I picked up an old spent 7.62mm cartridge case on the side of the road whilst in that newest EU country and also read that Croatia will not be declared clear of known minefields for another 6 years at least.

So do we think passenger head counts would be more or less useful in countries where sundry surplus weapons and explosives still abound or will those certificated airline minimum compliance standards complete the safety-first trick anywhere?

[Alexander de Meerkat]

indigopete - There has been no one more critical than me in the past of Ryanair pilots and the dreadful mistake they made in not embracing BALPA (UK pilots' union) when they had the chance. Nonetheless, I would have to say that I disagree with your take on this. Ryanair pilots are under intolerable strain from a voracious management team led by Michael O'Leary. They have been incredibly cunning by not employing pilots directly and therefore they can say that any pilots who get sacked or had their careers impeded for speaking out, are the responsibility of the agency for whom they work. Those agencies will deal very harshly with dissenters, as has been demonstrated on many occasions and stated so succinctly by J.O. That is why union representation was so vital. Also it is vital that someone with deep pockets take on Ryanair in a court over their anti-union stance and their effective blocking of workers' rights. I long for the day when Ryanair's failings and the truth of their treatment of their staff comes out, but that day is nowhere in sight at the moment.

As J.O. has said, it appears that a number of staff at the IAA are ex-Ryanair themselves and there is a clear suggestion that names of complainants would be passed back to Ryanair management. It is easy to criticise the pilots, but they are not in a position to do anything, as it is career suicide to speak out. As we have seen recently, one of their most senior Training Captains, John Goss, was sacked and is now being sued by Ryanair over the comments he has made on the Channel 4 Dispatches programme in the UK. As an aside, I thought the programme failed to produce a 'smoking gun' regarding safety at Ryanair. The editorial team also chose the wrong guy to present it, who came across more like a sentinel from 'The Matrix' than a professional and informed commentator on aviation matters.

As we are seeing, taking on Ryanair can be a dangerous and costly business for even large organizations, let alone individuals. One little error in your case could cost you everything you own plus your future career. They have managed to threaten with legal action just about everyone who speaks out from PPRuNe moderators through to the Aviation Herald, their own pilots and now even their own governing authority is waxing lyrical about the glories of Ryanair. Can you imagine Virgin or BA insisting on a public statement of support from the UK CAA to be read out at their own press conferences and getting it? Therefore I cannot find it too difficult to have a heart for the struggle of Ryanair pilots. I would love to give John Goss an award for bravery, and I hope he gets a jury with someone on it who has knowledge of the aviation industry on it. History has shown that 'whistleblowers' do not do well in the overall scheme of life, and most pilots know that. My experience of pilots, which now extends to many years, leads me to the view that they are fundamentally creatures of the herd and rarely stand out from the mass to rise up and be counted outside their immediate professional environment. When facing a resourceful and cunning adversary like the Ryanair management team, it will require a few individuals of extraordinary courage to stand up to them. I believe John Goss may be one of those people and I wish him nothing but the best of fortune in the days ahead - I think he will need it.

[JM737]

There are a lot more of them than there are of him. They need to stop sh*ttng their pants about being fired and articulate the problem

Indigopete, theres no logic to that argument, there are 25 million people in North Korea and only one despot dictator, "there are a lot more of them than there are of him", why dont they do something to improve their lot? It all boils down to the basic human instinct for self preservation, look what happened the last person who dared to speak out. You wont understand how it is unless youve worked there.
Take for example the fuel league table, MO'L has said no pilot will ever be sacked for taking more fuel, hes right they wont be sacked for "taking more fuel" but the perception is that while you wont be sacked for taking more fuel, you do not want to appear on the bottom of ANY managment league table of any sort especially if your a contractor and the number of hours you fly (ie how much you earn) or the base where you will be posted is decided by the very people who draw up these league tables.
The point about the IAA being staffed with ex RYR managers is fact, I regularly came into conflict with one particular manager when I worked there, and we had many heated discussions about how things "should be done", if I rang up the IAA to tell them what I witnessed there, hed probably answer the phone.

[racedo]

As J.O. has said, it appears that a number of staff at the IAA are ex-Ryanair themselves and there is a clear suggestion that names of complainants would be passed back to Ryanair management.

A pretty serious allegation that you are suggesting, can you provide me of the cases where this has occurred over last 25 years ?

[Alexander de Meerkat]

racedo - Just to clarify, I have not made any accusation regarding the IAA. I do think, however, that the IAA have, been extremely unwise providing reports praising their safety record to Ryanair for Michael O'Leary to read out at his press conferences. A critical function of any overseeing body is for them to be seen as completely independent and above the cut and thrust of day-to-day airline affairs. To that end, I would be actively impressed were a statement to be issued from the IAA to the effect that no airline pilot under their jurisdiction should be afraid of bringing safety-related concerns about their Company to them and that any such concerns raised would be treated in the strictest confidence. Also I would be even more impressed were they to give a definitive statement that no names of complainants have ever been released back to the airlines in question. Given the current very public discussions surrounding the 'Dispatches' documentary, these seem reasonable opinions to express, but you may disagree. You may even be a Ryanair lawyer sniffing round looking for people to sue - good luck mate. Find out who I am, and indeed who everyone else is on here, and take me to court - I will enjoy the day out.