Ryanair & Positioning Pilots
Position in uniform listed as supernumerary = on duty and log duty time.
Position " " " on day off paying no APT is tax fraud and blatant contravention of duty regulations. It cannot be "positioning".
Run a shipping line and need to avoid inconvenient regs and oversight, register in Panama or the Phillipines.
Where do you register to do that in aviation?
Position " " " on day off paying no APT is tax fraud and blatant contravention of duty regulations. It cannot be "positioning".
Run a shipping line and need to avoid inconvenient regs and oversight, register in Panama or the Phillipines.
Where do you register to do that in aviation?
Interesting read this is.
I find it somewhat of a conflict where people "commuting" in their own time are essentially making a donation of that time to their employer. It seems from many comments that this is acceptable to the point that some get quite huffy defending this donation.
Of course this charitable gift to the airlines is reciprocated by them in return to the flight staff, isn't it!
As a matter of interest, when you are donating this time by commuting on 'days off', are you covered by worker compensation insurance or your 'loss of licence' insurance should you suffer a work related injury or even death as the direct result of this 'commuting'
CC
I find it somewhat of a conflict where people "commuting" in their own time are essentially making a donation of that time to their employer. It seems from many comments that this is acceptable to the point that some get quite huffy defending this donation.
Of course this charitable gift to the airlines is reciprocated by them in return to the flight staff, isn't it!
As a matter of interest, when you are donating this time by commuting on 'days off', are you covered by worker compensation insurance or your 'loss of licence' insurance should you suffer a work related injury or even death as the direct result of this 'commuting'
CC
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Montreal Convention 1999 (which replaced the Warsaw Convention) would not apply to persons travelling on this basis. Passengers require a ticket, even a 'free' ticket.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Checklist Charlie, if an employee chooses out of his own free will to commute, then why would the employer be liable for his insurance? I never felt that I donated my free time to the company. It was always my decision not to live near base and always took full ownership of my commuting. I do think the employer should do their best to facilitate commuting if their own policies (base closing/opening/commands) tend to displace people.
As for private insurances, as far as I know 'commuting' is not one of the exclusion grounds for your loss of license cover, but if you have any indication that this is indeed the case, please let us know. I'll double check the small print. Anyway, commuters tend to be on the road less than their 'locally' based colleagues, I see no higher risk for the LOL-insurer. Travel insurance can be a bit more tricky though, but some insurers are happy to insure your commuting for a small surcharge. Same goes for your car insurance if you keep your car based at a foreign airport. It took a bit of shopping around but I found an insurer that was happy to cover my car all over Europe for no surcharge. And when the inevitable damage occurred they paid out with no questions asked.
Health insurance should be no problem at all for most commuters, they will be well acquainted with the E106 form (or whatever it is called these days).
.
As for private insurances, as far as I know 'commuting' is not one of the exclusion grounds for your loss of license cover, but if you have any indication that this is indeed the case, please let us know. I'll double check the small print. Anyway, commuters tend to be on the road less than their 'locally' based colleagues, I see no higher risk for the LOL-insurer. Travel insurance can be a bit more tricky though, but some insurers are happy to insure your commuting for a small surcharge. Same goes for your car insurance if you keep your car based at a foreign airport. It took a bit of shopping around but I found an insurer that was happy to cover my car all over Europe for no surcharge. And when the inevitable damage occurred they paid out with no questions asked.
Health insurance should be no problem at all for most commuters, they will be well acquainted with the E106 form (or whatever it is called these days).
.
Last edited by PENKO; 10th Jan 2016 at 06:51.
Position in uniform listed as supernumerary = on duty and log duty time.
Position " " " on day off paying no APT is tax fraud and blatant contravention of duty regulations. It cannot be "positioning".
Run a shipping line and need to avoid inconvenient regs and oversight, register in Panama or the Phillipines.
Where do you register to do that in aviation?
Position " " " on day off paying no APT is tax fraud and blatant contravention of duty regulations. It cannot be "positioning".
Run a shipping line and need to avoid inconvenient regs and oversight, register in Panama or the Phillipines.
Where do you register to do that in aviation?
See also NLH
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I was asking was what is the difference on the body when you sit in an aeroplane at the behest of an operator, or whether you do it on your own dime?
I am with PENKO on this, we have to distinguish what we have to do on behalf of the operator, and what we do in our free time. One is called positioning and rightly so included in the flight time limitations, and any other activity is private life, this can be sports, commuting, child raising, etc...
For private life there is the requirement to take aedequate measures to show up rested for duty. PENKO showed it in an easy understandable way that this is not as black and white as the paragraf nitpicking fraternity would like to see it, and we can never run the system without trust in pilots judgement.
Well now the crucial question is: are there operators out there, where pilots are homebased in A, have a week of flights in B, and proceed to B in their free time without adding this travel time into flight duty limits? That would seem against the rules in my opinion, but has cclearly nothing to do with the private choice of not living at your homebase. So let's keep these two issues separate.
In the case of a false "positionng" crew the airline considers them not on duty and cannot be responsible for compensation whereas the Montreal Convention would not recognise them as pax.
They thus presumably fall between two stools, or in other words they're right in amongst the stools...up to their eyes. Presumably they or their estate would have to sue the airline which then isn't protected by any limitations dictated by the Montreal Convention. When all these ticketless "positioning" shenanigans came out in court the company would be looking a bit sheepish and I suspect the damages would make their eyes water.
Meantime its likely a long, rough road for the employee or his estate. It doesn't take a very pubic crash either, who is liable if the employee falls off the steps for instance? Or breaks bones in turbulence? It strikes me that the employees are very badly exposed in all this.
btw, this is nothing to do with Ryanair bashing, it's to do with some airlines systematically bending or breaking the law to suit their otherwise unsustainable rosters and brutal Ts and Cs, and doing so to the detriment of some of their hardest workers. Why is it anything but good to be flagging this sort of scam up? Except, I suppose, for those employees who find a uniform and id card a useful way to travel any time they like for free, a benefit unavailable to everyone else who isn't working for a flag of convenience carrier.
We know this is illegal. We know people have been threatened with arrest at LHR for doing this. We know most other EU carriers wouldn't dream of bending the system like this. Ireland is subject to the same rules from the same regulatory body as the rest of the EU, inc. the Montreal Convention as regards ticketing. They should abide by them.
Last edited by Wageslave; 10th Jan 2016 at 10:08.
Midnight cruiser, you seem to have missed the fact that Ryanair are not operating on the US register! How did you miss that?
Are you saying that positioning BA crews not correctly ticketed then, and just walk on with uniform and id?
It's no good wailing that we "should" be able to do this - we'd all love to have such a perk. It's just that it ain't legal.
I also think there is a world of difference between reporting to one regular base and being expected to report anywhere on the route network on day one with travel on an alleged day "off". Isn't that the norm in Ryanair?
Are you saying that positioning BA crews not correctly ticketed then, and just walk on with uniform and id?
It's no good wailing that we "should" be able to do this - we'd all love to have such a perk. It's just that it ain't legal.
I also think there is a world of difference between reporting to one regular base and being expected to report anywhere on the route network on day one with travel on an alleged day "off". Isn't that the norm in Ryanair?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The topic is being overshadowed by the word 'commuting'. I have BA friends who 'commute' from GVA to LHR/LGW. They use common sense and are expected to be professional in every aspect. They choose to work in A & live in B and accept any risks for their employment should they screw up.
The same can be said of contractors (if they indeed really exist) who end up being based in X and decide to remain living in Y. I would assume that they'd prefer to be based as close as possible to Y as possible, but sometimes, for reasons beyond the wit of man, they are based at the most inconvenient place possible; often a place where there is no direct flight any day of the week, or places without daily flights. It is their professional responsibility to arrange their travel to be a fit state to do their job.
The lucky ones are those who live & work within normal travelling distance.
Where the gripe is bordering on an abuse is where the contractor(?) is then rostered at a couple of days notice to report at a non-normal base way across the network. They start with an early so need to make convoluted A-Z travel arrangements the day before, which is rostered as a day off and no duty. No duty time, no pay, no costs. Is that honest & correct? This to me is the real issue: can this travelling really be non-duty and not accounted for in collective duty time?
The same can be said of contractors (if they indeed really exist) who end up being based in X and decide to remain living in Y. I would assume that they'd prefer to be based as close as possible to Y as possible, but sometimes, for reasons beyond the wit of man, they are based at the most inconvenient place possible; often a place where there is no direct flight any day of the week, or places without daily flights. It is their professional responsibility to arrange their travel to be a fit state to do their job.
The lucky ones are those who live & work within normal travelling distance.
Where the gripe is bordering on an abuse is where the contractor(?) is then rostered at a couple of days notice to report at a non-normal base way across the network. They start with an early so need to make convoluted A-Z travel arrangements the day before, which is rostered as a day off and no duty. No duty time, no pay, no costs. Is that honest & correct? This to me is the real issue: can this travelling really be non-duty and not accounted for in collective duty time?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT is correct up to a point - in reality there is no difference from your average office wretch who commutes into London from say Swindon because he/she chose to live there for personal reasons.
The difference is when they ask you to change the pattern at short notice to suit their plans - there should be some compensation in that case
The difference is when they ask you to change the pattern at short notice to suit their plans - there should be some compensation in that case
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wageslave
Some categories of people are not regarded as passengers for APD purposes when they are engaged in duties on a flight. As such, APD is not charged on their carriage. These are:
flight crew
cabin attendants
persons not carried for reward who are
escorting a passenger or goods
undertaking repair, maintenance, safety or security work
ensuring the hygienic preparation and handling of food and drink
These people are also exempt if they carry out the above duties within 72 hours of the flight ending. The same exemption applies to people who begin a return journey within 72 hours after performing any of the above duties provided that they are returning to base, that is the place where they are normally stationed or from where they normally operate.
However, when these people are travelling as passengers, and are not engaged in these duties or returning to base having been engaged in such duties on a previous flight, they are passengers and are chargeable for APD purposes.
A registered commuter can easily be shown to comply with the above.
Some categories of people are not regarded as passengers for APD purposes when they are engaged in duties on a flight. As such, APD is not charged on their carriage. These are:
flight crew
cabin attendants
persons not carried for reward who are
escorting a passenger or goods
undertaking repair, maintenance, safety or security work
ensuring the hygienic preparation and handling of food and drink
These people are also exempt if they carry out the above duties within 72 hours of the flight ending. The same exemption applies to people who begin a return journey within 72 hours after performing any of the above duties provided that they are returning to base, that is the place where they are normally stationed or from where they normally operate.
However, when these people are travelling as passengers, and are not engaged in these duties or returning to base having been engaged in such duties on a previous flight, they are passengers and are chargeable for APD purposes.
A registered commuter can easily be shown to comply with the above.
Last edited by PENKO; 10th Jan 2016 at 11:28.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where the gripe is bordering on an abuse is where the contractor(?) is then rostered at a couple of days notice to report at a non-normal base way across the network. They start with an early so need to make convoluted A-Z travel arrangements the day before, which is rostered as a day off and no duty. No duty time, no pay, no costs. Is that honest & correct? This to me is the real issue: can this travelling really be non-duty and not accounted for in collective duty time?
That is a completely different scenario. That's not commuting at all.
Having said that, is this common practice in Ryanair? A friend of mine was moved to a different base only once in five years. Still not ideal, but, well, he knew who he was working for!
Without it, a fairly unpleasant and movable job would simply be unbearable.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Commuting vs. positioning
Disclaimer: I'm just an interested SLF, planning to get a PPL some time.
I think what a lot of people here are missing is that Magplug wasn't referring to commuters, he was referring to pilots who are based, e.g. in London but expected to show up for work one week in Rhodes, the next week in Lanzarote, another week in Nuremberg, etc.
If you choose to live far from your base, your commute is your own problem. If your employer offers you to travel his network for free, good for you.
However, if your employer wants you to show up for work at a distant airport, all the regs should apply, the employer should probably pay for a place to stay there and the usual duty time regs should apply for the trip there.
I heard that there are some US airlines that do indeed expect a pilot living and based in Seattle to show up for work in Miami, fly a plane to New York, then maybe another sector to Dallas, leave work and return home. The time between Miami and Dallas is paid and counts towards duty time, the rest is "commute".
Regarding the procedures for getting airside, I think that should be as hassle-free as possible for the pilots. I don't know how it's handled, but as a PPL holder in Germany, you had to get a security background check. After the check, you get a security ID that allows you to get airside with fairly little hassle.
I wonder what would happen if a pilot wants to go on vacation, buys a ticket, checks in normally, however doesn't want to deal with the queue in front of the passenger security and uses his ID for just go airside and board the plane.
I think what a lot of people here are missing is that Magplug wasn't referring to commuters, he was referring to pilots who are based, e.g. in London but expected to show up for work one week in Rhodes, the next week in Lanzarote, another week in Nuremberg, etc.
If you choose to live far from your base, your commute is your own problem. If your employer offers you to travel his network for free, good for you.
However, if your employer wants you to show up for work at a distant airport, all the regs should apply, the employer should probably pay for a place to stay there and the usual duty time regs should apply for the trip there.
I heard that there are some US airlines that do indeed expect a pilot living and based in Seattle to show up for work in Miami, fly a plane to New York, then maybe another sector to Dallas, leave work and return home. The time between Miami and Dallas is paid and counts towards duty time, the rest is "commute".
Regarding the procedures for getting airside, I think that should be as hassle-free as possible for the pilots. I don't know how it's handled, but as a PPL holder in Germany, you had to get a security background check. After the check, you get a security ID that allows you to get airside with fairly little hassle.
I wonder what would happen if a pilot wants to go on vacation, buys a ticket, checks in normally, however doesn't want to deal with the queue in front of the passenger security and uses his ID for just go airside and board the plane.
I wonder what would happen if a pilot wants to go on vacation, buys a ticket, checks in normally, however doesn't want to deal with the queue in front of the passenger security and uses his ID for just go airside and board the plane.
As a non-scheduled commercial pilot I sit in security lines and am thankful the whole experience is so awful, otherwise I wouldn't be so busy.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT5,
That is a completely different scenario. That's not commuting at all.
Having said that, is this common practice in Ryanair? A friend of mine was moved to a different base only once in five years. Still not ideal, but, well, he knew who he was working for!
That is a completely different scenario. That's not commuting at all.
Having said that, is this common practice in Ryanair? A friend of mine was moved to a different base only once in five years. Still not ideal, but, well, he knew who he was working for!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, where does one start with the perks at BA/VS/KLM/AF? (practically free family LH F tickets ++ etc etc - yikes)
Back to the thread.....
Are we talking about pilots based at Stansted travelling to a short term base transfer outside the UK? If they are they should be on a duty ticket provided by the company.
However, if they are based abroad and simply wanting to come home for their days off surely they should be treated like all other commuters, flying on a rebated staff ticket, paying all the taxes, like other commuters.