PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Ryanair downsizing (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/624075-ryanair-downsizing.html)

Less Hair 2nd Aug 2019 08:25

Cologne-Schönefeld, FR's last remaining domestic german route is closing this winter.

Pilotenguy 2nd Aug 2019 12:01

From another group :

Ryanair maths debunked as FUD


-----
MOL video: "41% loss in two years"

Aside from the fact that any competent accounting dept. can doctor the profit/loss figures in either direction, this figure of 41% is mathematically incorrect because you cannot add up percentages in this way. e.g.: 100 minus 20% is 80, 80 minus 21% is 63.2. Compare 100 and 63.2 is 36.8% less, not 41% less.

Just sayin'
It's all FUD


-----
MOL video: "only 30 MAX's by summer 2020, instead of 58 as planned"

Under the "2014 Boeing Contract" Ryanair expects 20 MAX's by 31/3/2020. Another 52 by 31/3/2021. So 30 MAXs by "summer" 2020 seems to be exactly as planned.

The net increase in a/c in the Ryanair Group (including increase in A320 and planned returns/disposals) is 28 by 31/3/2020 and another 30 by 31/3/2021. So, the figure of 58 is the total net group fleet increase by 2021, not MAX deliveries by 2020.

In the same sentence, MOL mentions surplus of 600 crew, which at 2019 crewing ratio is 17 a/c. The actual number of MAXs expected to be delivered by summer 2020 is therefore 13?

Or is it all just FUD?


-----
further maths on "delay of MAX aircraft deliveries"

In his video, MOL mentions a shortfall of 28 a/c (from 58 down to 30) affecting 600 crew.
In today's letter to BALPA, Ryanair mentions a shortfall of "at least 30" a/c affecting 900 crew.

According to the 2019 annual report, Ryanair's crewing ratio is 35.8 per a/c. Pilots per a/c is 11.6.

28 a/c = 1001 crew of which 324 pilots
30 a/c = 1073 crew of which 347 pilots
600 crew = 17 a/c and 194 pilots
900 crew = 25 a/c and 291 pilots

ie, none of Ryanair's numbers are correct. It's all just FUD.


-----
DH letter to Strutton: "500 surplus pilots"

on 31/3/19 (FY/2019 report) we had 11.6 pilots per a/c
2018 we had 11.2 pilots per a/c
2017 we had 10.1 pilots per a/c

The 2017 ratio was too low hence rostering crisis and increased ratio in 2018. Ratio increased further in 2019.

Assuming the 2018 ratio is the "correct" one for RYR and the 2019 ratio was too high, this would mean we have 167 surplus pilots. Not 500.

However: Ryanair plans to have 499 aircraft on 31/3/2020.
at 2019 ratio we will need 5770 pilots by then
at 2018 ratio we will need 5593 pilots by then
Therefore, we need to INCREASE our pilot workforce by 324 (or 147 at 2018 ratio) if we want to meet the 499 a/c target

500 surplus pilots? It's FUD.


-----
Winter Grounding:

2017-18: 60 a/c = 15% of fleet
2018-19: 65 a/c = 15% of fleet
2019-20: if it's to be 15% again, should be 71 a/c

When they come out with a statement: "Ryanair will have to ground 71 a/c next winter due ... (Brexit/MAX/???)", we know one thing: it's merely FUD, because that is what they would have done anyway.

Hotel Tango 2nd Aug 2019 15:48

Whatever the facts are it really doesn't matter if MOL can get the press to swallow his BS hook, line, and sinker, which he normally does!

FlightDetent 2nd Aug 2019 18:28

Imagine he lets a balloon float just before the BA pilots are to decide about a strike, that the market is contracting. Literally hours before their final negotiations. Should they get weak in the knees and do not boxer a serious pay rise out of their employer, the overall pilot remuneration level stays not increased. Happy ending, or am I seeing things?

ph-sbe 2nd Aug 2019 21:59


Originally Posted by Longhitter (Post 10534646)
ph-sbe:

It doesn't work that way in Dutch civil law. The appeals judge will and must decide based on the facts and circumstances at the time of the disputed base closure and redundancies, as brought forward by the conflicting parties. RYR already cited the base as 'underperforming' and other economic difficulties and this argument was thrown out by the judge. The MAX grounding popped up after the start of conflict and can not serve as an argument in any appeal.

The judgement which is being appealed says:


Ryanair stelt dat de operationele omvorming van Eindhoven van basis naar bestemming is gegrond op bedrijfseconomische redenen, maar die stelling van Ryanair is ongeloofwaardig
Which, loosely translated, says that the court does not buy RYR's argument that the decision to close EHV was based for economic reasons. During the appeals proceedings, RYR will have every opportunity to make that point again. Yes, the initial court threw out RYR's argument, but that does not mean that the appeals court will do the same. In civil court proceedings, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in this case the air crew. RYR only has to establish that they closed EHV for economic reasons and the plaintiff needs to prove retaliation. My point is that RYR's arguments that they decided to close EHV for economic reasons have only gotten better. Does that mean they will win? Maybe not, as the courts in .nl generally are heavily favorited towards the employee. I'm just saying that this /could/ have an effect on the proceedings.

krismiler 3rd Aug 2019 00:15


the companies at the top pay next to nothing, the people at the bottom pay nothing so that leaves the guys and girls in the middle to pay everything
How true, not just the companies at the top either. Dentists, solicitors, accountants etc decide how much they want to take home and set their fees to give them that amount after tax. We effectively pay their tax bill for them from our after tax take home pay. These guys don't pay tax themselves, they pass it on to those using their services. Same thing with big company CEOs, wants $20 million in hand so gets paid $40 million to allow for this.

Perhaps we should do the same and bargain for take home pay instead, with airlines passing on our tax bill to the passengers.

the_stranger 3rd Aug 2019 02:12


Originally Posted by ph-sbe (Post 10535336)
The judgement which is being appealed says:



Which, loosely translated, says that the court does not buy RYR's argument that the decision to close EHV was based for economic reasons. During the appeals proceedings, RYR will have every opportunity to make that point again. Yes, the initial court threw out RYR's argument, but that does not mean that the appeals court will do the same. In civil court proceedings, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in this case the air crew. RYR only has to establish that they closed EHV for economic reasons and the plaintiff needs to prove retaliation. My point is that RYR's arguments that they decided to close EHV for economic reasons have only gotten better. Does that mean they will win? Maybe not, as the courts in .nl generally are heavily favorited towards the employee. I'm just saying that this /could/ have an effect on the proceedings.

Problem is (for Ryanair) that the closure isn't now, but was some time ago.
They can't come with current economic circumstances to defend a closure of Eindhoven at the time they closed it.

At that time, it was still economic to fly to and from EHV, especially seeing they continued to do so, just with other crew (not based there).

Twiglet1 3rd Aug 2019 06:08


Originally Posted by Pilotenguy (Post 10534859)
From another group :

Ryanair maths debunked as FUD


-----
MOL video: "41% loss in two years"

Aside from the fact that any competent accounting dept. can doctor the profit/loss figures in either direction, this figure of 41% is mathematically incorrect because you cannot add up percentages in this way. e.g.: 100 minus 20% is 80, 80 minus 21% is 63.2. Compare 100 and 63.2 is 36.8% less, not 41% less.

Just sayin'
It's all FUD


-----
MOL video: "only 30 MAX's by summer 2020, instead of 58 as planned"

Under the "2014 Boeing Contract" Ryanair expects 20 MAX's by 31/3/2020. Another 52 by 31/3/2021. So 30 MAXs by "summer" 2020 seems to be exactly as planned.

The net increase in a/c in the Ryanair Group (including increase in A320 and planned returns/disposals) is 28 by 31/3/2020 and another 30 by 31/3/2021. So, the figure of 58 is the total net group fleet increase by 2021, not MAX deliveries by 2020.

In the same sentence, MOL mentions surplus of 600 crew, which at 2019 crewing ratio is 17 a/c. The actual number of MAXs expected to be delivered by summer 2020 is therefore 13?

Or is it all just FUD?


-----
further maths on "delay of MAX aircraft deliveries"

In his video, MOL mentions a shortfall of 28 a/c (from 58 down to 30) affecting 600 crew.
In today's letter to BALPA, Ryanair mentions a shortfall of "at least 30" a/c affecting 900 crew.

According to the 2019 annual report, Ryanair's crewing ratio is 35.8 per a/c. Pilots per a/c is 11.6.

28 a/c = 1001 crew of which 324 pilots
30 a/c = 1073 crew of which 347 pilots
600 crew = 17 a/c and 194 pilots
900 crew = 25 a/c and 291 pilots

ie, none of Ryanair's numbers are correct. It's all just FUD.


-----
DH letter to Strutton: "500 surplus pilots"

on 31/3/19 (FY/2019 report) we had 11.6 pilots per a/c
2018 we had 11.2 pilots per a/c
2017 we had 10.1 pilots per a/c

The 2017 ratio was too low hence rostering crisis and increased ratio in 2018. Ratio increased further in 2019.

Assuming the 2018 ratio is the "correct" one for RYR and the 2019 ratio was too high, this would mean we have 167 surplus pilots. Not 500.

However: Ryanair plans to have 499 aircraft on 31/3/2020.
at 2019 ratio we will need 5770 pilots by then
at 2018 ratio we will need 5593 pilots by then
Therefore, we need to INCREASE our pilot workforce by 324 (or 147 at 2018 ratio) if we want to meet the 499 a/c target

500 surplus pilots? It's FUD.


-----
Winter Grounding:

2017-18: 60 a/c = 15% of fleet
2018-19: 65 a/c = 15% of fleet
2019-20: if it's to be 15% again, should be 71 a/c

When they come out with a statement: "Ryanair will have to ground 71 a/c next winter due ... (Brexit/MAX/???)", we know one thing: it's merely FUD, because that is what they would have done anyway.

I've never worked for an Airline that had the correct establishment. It suggests that no-one is leaving FR either. Its just a way of reducing the crews over the winter. - simples

fox niner 3rd Aug 2019 06:14

The way Rayanair tried to close down their Eindhoven base was insulting.
An insult to the whole country and contemptuous to the way things are run here. That is why they could not win. If you start business here, there are many opportunities to make money. But being a company/employer, that automatically makes you responsible for your workforce if you choose to close down.
Dont like that? Well, readcthe verdict.
That responsibility in NON-negotiable. I have tried to explain that a few months ago.
A company does not have to take care of its employees ONLY if it goes bust. That is why these proceedings are such a great read. It is almost funny how Ryr tried to twist the facts in Eindhoven. Looking forward to their appeal. What an outfit.

Longhitter 3rd Aug 2019 07:01

sbe,

RYR would have to come up with new, compelling evidence that there were economic reasons for closing the base at the time of base closure. Whatever economic reasons arose after that: they are irrelevant for the EIN court case.

squarecrow 3rd Aug 2019 09:00

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu...-idUKKCN1US126Worth a read. On Friday EU Orders France to recover 8.5million euros in illegal aid granted to RYR at Montpelier.

FRogge 3rd Aug 2019 17:33

Amazing that NAS and FR being about equally profitable in the last quarter. But no doubt that FR can probably cope with difficult times because of all the money they made the previous years.

nicolai 3rd Aug 2019 20:34

Eire's no tax haven for individuals, only for corporations.The corporation tax rate is low, but people who live there, which does include Mr O'Leary, pay taxes typical of European countries.

And as far as I know, Mr O'Leary does pay his personal taxes in full without any creative accounting. Only the company, Ryanair, tries to dodge paying for things in many ways.

tubby linton 3rd Aug 2019 21:17

MOL started his career as a tax accountant.

Crepello 4th Aug 2019 03:56


Originally Posted by fox niner (Post 10535487)
The way Rayanair [sic] tried to close down their Eindhoven base was insulting.
An insult to the whole country and contemptuous to the way things are run here. That is why they could not win. If you start business here, there are many opportunities to make money. But being a company/employer, that automatically makes you responsible for your workforce if you choose to close down.
Dont like that? Well, readcthe verdict.
That responsibility in NON-negotiable. I have tried to explain that a few months ago.
A company does not have to take care of its employees ONLY if it goes bust. That is why these proceedings are such a great read. It is almost funny how Ryr tried to twist the facts in Eindhoven. Looking forward to their appeal. What an outfit.

Yet apparently EIN was underperforming financially - perhaps unsurprising, given NL's labor regulation and hideously high cost of simply attempting to conduct business. Seems entirely fair for a company to curtail operations anywhere that isn't paying its way. And workers are responsible for their own destiny - not their employer, not any government - it's called personal accountability. But no, the Dutch courts appear to disagree - a sage reminder to any entity considering investing in, creating employment in The Netherlands. In short, *don't* - unless you've immense reserves to cover the risk. I'm curious as to why MOL would make such a costly error - though I wonder if he was blackmailed into "investing" in order to be granted landing slots?

Not a fan of MOL as an individual, but I admire all he's accomplished. And anything he can to to weaken unions will benefit the traveling public. Strikes grind my gears - you don't like your pay/conditions, go work for somebody else, rather than issuing ransom demands against the very people who pay your wages.

I lived in The Netherlands for several years of frustration - understaffed businesses, endemically hideous customer service, and little being done where *I* worked because at any given time, half the payroll seemed to be on vacation (paid), taking a half day (paid), experiencing a personal emergency (paid) or indefinite sick leave due to 'stress' - naturally, on full pay. Occasionally we *would* get a solid day's work done, but I heard that all the successful Dutch entrepreneurs had already emigrated, so I moved to Texas - bingo! Booming economy thanks to low costs of employment, and people can be fired on the spot for any reason, anytime - so we're productive and dedicated, and give our customers the respect they deserve. See a plot of land you like in one of our fast growing cities? Boom - you can open a retail establishment there within about 6 weeks from permit applications to breaking ground. California would take 3 years, plus who knows how many back-handers to corrupt liberal politicians. Benelux.... I'm assuming it would be deemed "not possible". ;) :P

cumulustratus 4th Aug 2019 07:48


Originally Posted by Crepello (Post 10536115)
Yet apparently EIN was underperforming financially - perhaps unsurprising, given NL's labor regulation and hideously high cost of simply attempting to conduct business. Seems entirely fair for a company to curtail operations anywhere that isn't paying its way. And workers are responsible for their own destiny - not their employer, not any government - it's called personal accountability. But no, the Dutch courts appear to disagree - a sage reminder to any entity considering investing in, creating employment in The Netherlands. In short, *don't* - unless you've immense reserves to cover the risk. I'm curious as to why MOL would make such a costly error - though I wonder if he was blackmailed into "investing" in order to be granted landing slots?

Not a fan of MOL as an individual, but I admire all he's accomplished. And anything he can to to weaken unions will benefit the traveling public. Strikes grind my gears - you don't like your pay/conditions, go work for somebody else, rather than issuing ransom demands against the very people who pay your wages.

I lived in The Netherlands for several years of frustration - understaffed businesses, endemically hideous customer service, and little being done where *I* worked because at any given time, half the payroll seemed to be on vacation (paid), taking a half day (paid), experiencing a personal emergency (paid) or indefinite sick leave due to 'stress' - naturally, on full pay. Occasionally we *would* get a solid day's work done, but I heard that all the successful Dutch entrepreneurs had already emigrated, so I moved to Texas - bingo! Booming economy thanks to low costs of employment, and people can be fired on the spot for any reason, anytime - so we're productive and dedicated, and give our customers the respect they deserve. See a plot of land you like in one of our fast growing cities? Boom - you can open a retail establishment there within about 6 weeks from permit applications to breaking ground. California would take 3 years, plus who knows how many back-handers to corrupt liberal politicians. Benelux.... I'm assuming it would be deemed "not possible". ;) :P

​​​​​​
And the award for the least enlightened post of the day goes to...

Jack D 4th Aug 2019 09:17

So I moved to Texas - bingo! Booming economy thanks to low costs of employment, and people can be fired on the spot for any reason, anytime - so we're productive and dedicated, and give our customers the respect they deserve. See a plot of land you like in one of our fast growing cities? Boom - you can open a retail establishment there within about 6 weeks.

El Paso perhaps ...?

UAV689 4th Aug 2019 09:50

This video is no different to the memos of the past. You can see how unauthentic he is, having to read from a union busters cue cards.

People forget that there are 200 odd max coming. The company is very open about getting to moving 200m + per year. That plan has not changed.

One of PB legacy’s was to front load recruitment, they said it in one of their previous city announcements! Yes the max is a little late, but the company is still expanding, only last week announced new routes from BRS.

smoke and mirrors, all due to the ballot in UK, and strikes coming up in Portugal and Spain.

I hope the weak do not fall for it, for what happens in ryr will follow your career in terms of wages for ever!

Global_Global 4th Aug 2019 10:33

Now the leopard does not lose it's spots... An extra reason to not want to be associated with this outfit in any way... Go to decent employers at any of the other low costs but stay away from this guy.. I can understand Peter Bellow his reasons to leave: try to manage a company in a professional way or in this intimidating pathetic lying and cheating way...

I refuse to fly them and wish all their employees all the best :(

fab777 4th Aug 2019 10:39

[QUOTE=Crepello;10536115]Booming economy thanks to low costs of employment, and people can be fired on the spot for any reason, anytime -/QUOTE]

That is so cooool! I can fire people whenever I want, I am so powerful...

Wasn't particularly impressed by the quality of life in TX, btw, so maybe a less booming economy may be more beneficial to people.


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:53.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.