Ryanair and 900 hours a year limitation?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 22.5 parallel
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good morning all.
Amazing discussions going on here. We follow it from a distance here and try to figure out what the real merits are. We think Banana Head is on the right track here.
Having said that, we got the Dutch newspaper "De Telegraaf" here this morning and it is reporting that a group of Ryanair pilots have published a report detailing what is wrong with their airline.
They ask for a full investigation by the EEC and have also asked the ECA for a full investigation.
The article quotes some topics from the report and they are so shocking and devastating that I don't dare to quote them here on this forum.
The newspaper asked Ryanair for their comment and they denied everything vehemently.
Our question is, do Ryanair pilots contributing on this forum, know that this report, written by their colleages exist ?
Both answers, yes and no, gives it an interesting twitch.
Best regards
A.V.
Amazing discussions going on here. We follow it from a distance here and try to figure out what the real merits are. We think Banana Head is on the right track here.
Having said that, we got the Dutch newspaper "De Telegraaf" here this morning and it is reporting that a group of Ryanair pilots have published a report detailing what is wrong with their airline.
They ask for a full investigation by the EEC and have also asked the ECA for a full investigation.
The article quotes some topics from the report and they are so shocking and devastating that I don't dare to quote them here on this forum.
The newspaper asked Ryanair for their comment and they denied everything vehemently.
Our question is, do Ryanair pilots contributing on this forum, know that this report, written by their colleages exist ?
Both answers, yes and no, gives it an interesting twitch.
Best regards
A.V.
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Be warned that the 'report' you refer to is an anonymous report and because the content is extremely libelous if it isn't true, it cannot be published here. There have already been several attempts to post the report on PPRuNe and we have had to remove it each time.
Unless the person who wrote the report has the evidence and moral fibre to put their name to it then it is nothing but an attempt by someone too ignorant to realise that without verification or accountability it is useless. As for the 'De Telegraaf' posting the report then I am sure that Ryanairs legal department are going to have field day with this one.
Unless the person who wrote the report has the evidence and moral fibre to put their name to it then it is nothing but an attempt by someone too ignorant to realise that without verification or accountability it is useless. As for the 'De Telegraaf' posting the report then I am sure that Ryanairs legal department are going to have field day with this one.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a fair point Danny.
One wonders however, where the FR legal department finds time to deal with all these different issues!
It must be one of the biggest departments in the company.
One wonders however, where the FR legal department finds time to deal with all these different issues!
It must be one of the biggest departments in the company.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: 22.5 parallel
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. PPRuNe,
I am with you, it was mentioned that the report was anonymus and yes, I could not believe what I was reading this morning.
But, you answered my question, the "report" is doing the rounds.
Forgot to mention that the article stated that the Scandinavian Pilot Organisation has verified the identity of the writers. So, maybe more to come.
Best regards
A.V.
I am with you, it was mentioned that the report was anonymus and yes, I could not believe what I was reading this morning.
But, you answered my question, the "report" is doing the rounds.
Forgot to mention that the article stated that the Scandinavian Pilot Organisation has verified the identity of the writers. So, maybe more to come.
Best regards
A.V.
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Brownstar, forget it. Anyone requesting a link to the report on PPRuNe is in breach of the rules and will lose their posting rights on here.
You have been warned!
You have been warned!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Legal proceedings, proceeding
The Legal Department would appear to be on it. This report says that their lawyers have been instructed to issue legal proceedings against the Dutch newspaper.
http://www.unison.ie/business/storie...a=80&si=789407
http://www.unison.ie/business/storie...a=80&si=789407
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Precisely why we will not allow the report to be published or linked to on here. Unless the person who wrote the report is prepared to put their name to it and provide evidence then it is useless. The fact that the Dutch newspaper felt it was worth publishing the details is irrelevant and they will have to deal with the consequences if Ryanair are successful with their suit.
The report contained many serious allegations but provided not one piece of evidence to back them up. The Irish newspaper reported:
The report contained many serious allegations but provided not one piece of evidence to back them up. The Irish newspaper reported:
" ...we are aware of this anonymous report which we have evidence is the work of a disgruntled former pilot who was dismissed over a year ago. These allegations are entirely untrue and without foundation."
Ryanair said it had instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against the Dutch newspaper.
Ryanair said it had instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against the Dutch newspaper.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Age: 48
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt. PPrune aka. Danny Fyne
I'm confused!
Professional pilots RUMOUR network!
If you expect all allegations on this network to be confirmed before written as a post, how can this network call itself a rumour network ? The report in question was confirmed yesterday 16/7 by a former Ryanair pilot on swedish national news.
Even if this report hadn't been confirmed I would clearly classify it as a rumour and therefore eligable for postings on this network.
I've seen lots of posts recently being removed and the authors of the posts having their account disabled. In the rules when registering :
Although the administrators and moderators of PPRuNe Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of PPRuNe Forums or Jelsoft Enterprises Limited (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of PPRuNe Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic for any reason.
- If any rules have been violated here it is the freedom of speech, and that violation is not made by the authors of the posts.
The actions taken by the moderators or "senior PPruners" is a total lack of judgement and in my mind directly childish. I would say that if a newspaper publish a report with a commercial intent, that is one thing, but to refer to or copy the report in ones post with the intention of making an argument or in an attempt to start a discussion, now that's a totally different thing. If the moderators are here for the purpose of protecting the forum against abuse in the manner described in the rules when registering, that is ok. But to disable accounts and removing posts that are hot subjects in the airline industry today, because of fear of legal prosecution, then I would call it cowardness, and abuse of power.
My account is not removed yet. But if it wasn't for your post I'm sure it would have been. But before taking that step I would suggest you clearify the rules on this network and take the consequences of it i.e. This forum would lose interest in a hartbeat.
Sorry, but this behaviour towards your members seeking a discussion of hot topics is inexcusable!!
I'm confused!
Professional pilots RUMOUR network!
If you expect all allegations on this network to be confirmed before written as a post, how can this network call itself a rumour network ? The report in question was confirmed yesterday 16/7 by a former Ryanair pilot on swedish national news.
Even if this report hadn't been confirmed I would clearly classify it as a rumour and therefore eligable for postings on this network.
I've seen lots of posts recently being removed and the authors of the posts having their account disabled. In the rules when registering :
Although the administrators and moderators of PPRuNe Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of PPRuNe Forums or Jelsoft Enterprises Limited (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.
By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.
The owners of PPRuNe Forums have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic for any reason.
- If any rules have been violated here it is the freedom of speech, and that violation is not made by the authors of the posts.
The actions taken by the moderators or "senior PPruners" is a total lack of judgement and in my mind directly childish. I would say that if a newspaper publish a report with a commercial intent, that is one thing, but to refer to or copy the report in ones post with the intention of making an argument or in an attempt to start a discussion, now that's a totally different thing. If the moderators are here for the purpose of protecting the forum against abuse in the manner described in the rules when registering, that is ok. But to disable accounts and removing posts that are hot subjects in the airline industry today, because of fear of legal prosecution, then I would call it cowardness, and abuse of power.
My account is not removed yet. But if it wasn't for your post I'm sure it would have been. But before taking that step I would suggest you clearify the rules on this network and take the consequences of it i.e. This forum would lose interest in a hartbeat.
Sorry, but this behaviour towards your members seeking a discussion of hot topics is inexcusable!!
Fokker-Jock,
Simply by posting disclaimers, such as the one you quote, website managers cannot exempt themselves from the libel laws. Website managers are involved in the publication of material submitted to bulletin boards or discussion forums such as PPRuNe. Consequently, they may be held liable for the contents.
However, whether simply posting a link to a report on another site can be construed as participating in its publication - that's not at all clear. This is something that the courts would need to establish. But do you want to see PPRuNe financially ruined trying to find out???
P.S. In response to your next post - in theory a website operator could be held responsible for opinions expressed by others in the same way that a newspaper editor could be held responsible for opinions expressed on its letters page. Why? Because both are involved in the publication of the material.
Simply by posting disclaimers, such as the one you quote, website managers cannot exempt themselves from the libel laws. Website managers are involved in the publication of material submitted to bulletin boards or discussion forums such as PPRuNe. Consequently, they may be held liable for the contents.
However, whether simply posting a link to a report on another site can be construed as participating in its publication - that's not at all clear. This is something that the courts would need to establish. But do you want to see PPRuNe financially ruined trying to find out???
P.S. In response to your next post - in theory a website operator could be held responsible for opinions expressed by others in the same way that a newspaper editor could be held responsible for opinions expressed on its letters page. Why? Because both are involved in the publication of the material.
Last edited by stagger; 17th Jul 2002 at 20:32.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Age: 48
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stagger:
Of course not. This network has been up to now one of my most visited sites for exchanging opinions about subjects related to my/our profession, but the freedom of speech right goes far, far beyond any webservers. As I said in my previous post, the report in question was confirmed, however my main reaction was to the behaviour of moderators towards those posting the messages in this case as the rules of the board does not say anything about the content of this report, and is very vague on what is allowed or not. And the fact that moderators may remove and disable accounts on own discretion is just totally out of place on a network meant for rumours.
Even though I'm no legal expert I question your statement that the owners of an internet domain is responsible for it's content in text of opinions of others (being a rumour network, for exhanging and discussing rumours etc.).
Of course not. This network has been up to now one of my most visited sites for exchanging opinions about subjects related to my/our profession, but the freedom of speech right goes far, far beyond any webservers. As I said in my previous post, the report in question was confirmed, however my main reaction was to the behaviour of moderators towards those posting the messages in this case as the rules of the board does not say anything about the content of this report, and is very vague on what is allowed or not. And the fact that moderators may remove and disable accounts on own discretion is just totally out of place on a network meant for rumours.
Even though I'm no legal expert I question your statement that the owners of an internet domain is responsible for it's content in text of opinions of others (being a rumour network, for exhanging and discussing rumours etc.).
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Since some of you are intent on dragging yet another topic off course, I will post an example of why it is irresponsible to post something that is anonymous which may contain libelous statements and therefore we do have the right to remove or edit posts.
Fokker-Jock emailed me this information:
The email goes on in much more detail but I think I may have proven my point here and I wouldn't want to embarrass Fokker-Jock any more.
Further discussion on this topic can be made in the Non-Air Transport Issues Forum. This thread should remain focussed on the title.
As far as I am aware the Dutch newspaper didn't actually publish the report but 'reported' its existence and repeated some of the allegations. I don't know how far the Ryanair legal team will get with a law suit in that case but if they can prove that the report contains lies and untruths, designed to damage the reputation of the company and the newspaper didn't try very hard to verify the information then I wouldn't want to be responsible for the purse strings there.
Inthe case of PPRuNe, it is not some large organisation with a huge budget and hundreds of staff. It is run by me and some friends with the help of over 60 moderators. Large, litigous companies will not get rich from us if they tried to sue us but they could force us to close down just by starting proceedings. So, Fokker-Jock, unless you are willing to fund any future action that may be forced upon us, and have the funds necessary then we retain the right to do what we want on this board. In over seven years we have managed to do the right thing even though I receive at least one threat of legal action every month.
You can discuss the fact that there is a report out there but you cannot disclose the content if there is a chance it is deliberatly false. Most other people realise that discussion about the behaviour of a company and its management is allowed but when there is a good chance that the discussion is malicious and possibly false then we at PPRuNe will retain our rights to edit as necessary. No preaching to me about free-speech because this website doesn't grow on a tree. Try having your say with a newspaper like this. Do you think it is as easy to get your opinions published to a large audience?
PPRuNe is not responsible if anything in the above statements and Fokker-Jock is not really called Bernhardt Johannsen and there is no airline called Royal Norwegian. If by fluke Fokker-Jock is really called Bernhardt Johannsen and/or there is an airline called Royal Norwegian then please send all solicitors threats to Nils Rassmussenson, Oslo, Norway. Tel: 0334 22 43 54 or email [email protected]
Fokker-Jock emailed me this information:
My real name is Bernhardt Johannsen and I am a pilot with Royal Norwegian. While I am not pleased about the way you run your forums I intend to publish the fact that Royal Norwegian are continually forcing pilots like myself, a junior first officer, to break the rules on flying limits. I have been told that if I do not carry out my work, even though I am fatigued, I will be suspended for breach of employment regulations. If I call in sick I will have my pay docked.
Also the captains are forced to fly the aircraft with as many as 20 or 30 defects and if they try to write new ones in the tech log they are called in to see a manager and they are threatened with punishmnet. So, we often fly aircraft that should be grounded.
I was also warned that if I continued visit certain bars I would face disciplinary action. My managers had seen me coming out of one place and because of that they have been picking on me because of my sexuality.
Also the captains are forced to fly the aircraft with as many as 20 or 30 defects and if they try to write new ones in the tech log they are called in to see a manager and they are threatened with punishmnet. So, we often fly aircraft that should be grounded.
I was also warned that if I continued visit certain bars I would face disciplinary action. My managers had seen me coming out of one place and because of that they have been picking on me because of my sexuality.
Further discussion on this topic can be made in the Non-Air Transport Issues Forum. This thread should remain focussed on the title.
As far as I am aware the Dutch newspaper didn't actually publish the report but 'reported' its existence and repeated some of the allegations. I don't know how far the Ryanair legal team will get with a law suit in that case but if they can prove that the report contains lies and untruths, designed to damage the reputation of the company and the newspaper didn't try very hard to verify the information then I wouldn't want to be responsible for the purse strings there.
Inthe case of PPRuNe, it is not some large organisation with a huge budget and hundreds of staff. It is run by me and some friends with the help of over 60 moderators. Large, litigous companies will not get rich from us if they tried to sue us but they could force us to close down just by starting proceedings. So, Fokker-Jock, unless you are willing to fund any future action that may be forced upon us, and have the funds necessary then we retain the right to do what we want on this board. In over seven years we have managed to do the right thing even though I receive at least one threat of legal action every month.
You can discuss the fact that there is a report out there but you cannot disclose the content if there is a chance it is deliberatly false. Most other people realise that discussion about the behaviour of a company and its management is allowed but when there is a good chance that the discussion is malicious and possibly false then we at PPRuNe will retain our rights to edit as necessary. No preaching to me about free-speech because this website doesn't grow on a tree. Try having your say with a newspaper like this. Do you think it is as easy to get your opinions published to a large audience?
PPRuNe is not responsible if anything in the above statements and Fokker-Jock is not really called Bernhardt Johannsen and there is no airline called Royal Norwegian. If by fluke Fokker-Jock is really called Bernhardt Johannsen and/or there is an airline called Royal Norwegian then please send all solicitors threats to Nils Rassmussenson, Oslo, Norway. Tel: 0334 22 43 54 or email [email protected]
Last edited by Capt PPRuNe; 17th Jul 2002 at 17:29.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sweden
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn´t that a cruel way of getting back at Fokker-Jock for disagreeing. For me there´s a big difference between an individual and an organisation. You´ve made your point. Friendly atmosphere to follow I´m sure...
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Sorry, it was meant to be a harsh but also humourous example and you may have missed the small print at the end of the post. Unfortunately my lack of eloquence and poor grammar may not have conveyed the intended humour. Apologies if that is the case but a re-read may be necessary.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sweden
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mistake. Sorry! I thought it was a bit too much to be coming from you. Will read the smallprints from here on.
I must admit that I made it even more funny with my reply...
Regards// Preflight
I must admit that I made it even more funny with my reply...
Regards// Preflight
Last edited by preflight; 17th Jul 2002 at 19:03.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Norway
Age: 48
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How the he.. did you get your hands on that E-mail ?
Now, yes you have made your point, but the way I read it, you totally missed mine. As I wrote: The allegations made in this, let's call it; "report", fake or not, was in fact confirmed by a former Ryanair pilot who was not very anonymous when appearing on swedish news yesterday. Now that in itself should be more than enough grounds for a discussion here at PPrune. My point is this: If this topic is too libelous to discuss openly here then most of us is guilty of having broken the rules of this forum at one time or another and consequently should be banned. Another thing is that if it's ok to discuss the content of the "report" then it must ok to publish it as well. Wouldn't be much point in discussing something, if just a few had a chance to read it ? It must be allowed to judge, swear at or make allegations against companies for the way they treat employees or at least for the sake of getting confirmation to rumours heard around. As Preflight wrote: There is infact a difference in making allegations against a company, organisation than towards an individual. (Didn't take your "allegations" very personal though)
If you don't agree that's allright. It's afterall exactly that, that makes us have a discussion and to exchange opinions. But if a group of people here, at own discreation removes accounts or edits post that make sane arguments and even referring to "reports" or other rumours, then at least clearify the rules in more detail, so that one can stear clear of any grey-zones. The fact that this "report" was referred to and published here, wasn't even close to being as libelous compared to some of the other posts made to that forum. (What does libelous mean anyway, never heard the word before
)
But ok, I have put forward my opinion, and I agree on yours not to continue the arguments in this thread. So let's leave it at that.
Just though I should have the final word, since you revealed my sexuality and other personal information
hehe,, Peace!
Now, yes you have made your point, but the way I read it, you totally missed mine. As I wrote: The allegations made in this, let's call it; "report", fake or not, was in fact confirmed by a former Ryanair pilot who was not very anonymous when appearing on swedish news yesterday. Now that in itself should be more than enough grounds for a discussion here at PPrune. My point is this: If this topic is too libelous to discuss openly here then most of us is guilty of having broken the rules of this forum at one time or another and consequently should be banned. Another thing is that if it's ok to discuss the content of the "report" then it must ok to publish it as well. Wouldn't be much point in discussing something, if just a few had a chance to read it ? It must be allowed to judge, swear at or make allegations against companies for the way they treat employees or at least for the sake of getting confirmation to rumours heard around. As Preflight wrote: There is infact a difference in making allegations against a company, organisation than towards an individual. (Didn't take your "allegations" very personal though
)If you don't agree that's allright. It's afterall exactly that, that makes us have a discussion and to exchange opinions. But if a group of people here, at own discreation removes accounts or edits post that make sane arguments and even referring to "reports" or other rumours, then at least clearify the rules in more detail, so that one can stear clear of any grey-zones. The fact that this "report" was referred to and published here, wasn't even close to being as libelous compared to some of the other posts made to that forum. (What does libelous mean anyway, never heard the word before
) But ok, I have put forward my opinion, and I agree on yours not to continue the arguments in this thread. So let's leave it at that.
Just though I should have the final word, since you revealed my sexuality and other personal information
hehe,, Peace!
Jolly Green Giant
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet again another pathetic anti-Ryanair post. A disgruntled ex-employee runs to the press whinging about this and that and of course many PPRuNers jump up and down foaming at the mouth asking for MOL's head.
I've said this before time and time again on this forum that if FR were abusing the sytem, either with regards to maintenance shortcuts or abuse of FTL's then believe me the busybodys at the IAA would be on them like a fly on s**t. Anyone who has to deal with the people at Hawkins street like myself and knows the culture that exists there knows full well that there are people in there who are just waiting to pounce on MOL and they will attempt to find any excuse to do it. The IAA are mostly ex AL and Aer Corps people, now they're typical civil servants. To anyone not familiar with the scene here, Ryanair are at war with the Government, in particular the governments inefficient airport operator Aer Rianta. Government officials and civil servants despise a company like Ryanair. Privately owned and run and highly successful, no government handouts needed here thank you! It's a cultural war between Nationalisation and privatisation.
The success of a company like Ryanair is undigestable to many, super efficient with a low cost base, an anethema to those who live in the comfort zone, those who are used to easy street, working 10 to 4 with 2 hour lunches.
Airlines don't regulate themselves, it's not like Enron or Worldcom, constant audits on maintenance and operations are carried out on airlines and as I said here, any anomoly found in FR procedures would be pounced on by IAA officials and paraded about for all to see.
To many of you out there, get the facts annd if you can't find any then change the record. It's getting awfully repetitive around here.
I've said this before time and time again on this forum that if FR were abusing the sytem, either with regards to maintenance shortcuts or abuse of FTL's then believe me the busybodys at the IAA would be on them like a fly on s**t. Anyone who has to deal with the people at Hawkins street like myself and knows the culture that exists there knows full well that there are people in there who are just waiting to pounce on MOL and they will attempt to find any excuse to do it. The IAA are mostly ex AL and Aer Corps people, now they're typical civil servants. To anyone not familiar with the scene here, Ryanair are at war with the Government, in particular the governments inefficient airport operator Aer Rianta. Government officials and civil servants despise a company like Ryanair. Privately owned and run and highly successful, no government handouts needed here thank you! It's a cultural war between Nationalisation and privatisation.
The success of a company like Ryanair is undigestable to many, super efficient with a low cost base, an anethema to those who live in the comfort zone, those who are used to easy street, working 10 to 4 with 2 hour lunches.
Airlines don't regulate themselves, it's not like Enron or Worldcom, constant audits on maintenance and operations are carried out on airlines and as I said here, any anomoly found in FR procedures would be pounced on by IAA officials and paraded about for all to see.
To many of you out there, get the facts annd if you can't find any then change the record. It's getting awfully repetitive around here.
Guest
Posts: n/a
"I was also warned that if I continued visit certain bars I would face disciplinary action. My managers had seen me coming out of one place and because of that they have been picking on me because of my sexuality."
I can see the point in the safety allegations, but what's wrong with the above statement?
Capt.KAOS
I can see the point in the safety allegations, but what's wrong with the above statement?
Capt.KAOS