Brookfield telling porkies
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 3,349
Likes: 1
From: FUBAR
Brookfield telling porkies
As this is a quote from a judge, I believe we can reproduce this on here without fear of wrath from the "dark side". . or pprune wimping out. 
Very surprised to hear of our Declan telling "Porkies"
what is the world coming to.
He rejected the testimony of Brookfield Aviation's Commercial manager Declan Dooney that the whole purpose of the complex employment arrangement was to ensure that the pilot paid tax and insurance contributions in Ireland.
The judge decribed Mr Dooney as a "voluble and freqently glib witness, who for the most part was not telling me the truth."
Very surprised to hear of our Declan telling "Porkies"
what is the world coming to.He rejected the testimony of Brookfield Aviation's Commercial manager Declan Dooney that the whole purpose of the complex employment arrangement was to ensure that the pilot paid tax and insurance contributions in Ireland.
The judge decribed Mr Dooney as a "voluble and freqently glib witness, who for the most part was not telling me the truth."
)
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 98
Likes: 5
From: UK
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
From: Gatwick
Boeingflyer
Very unlikely, by paying you have agreed to their terms of contract, i think you would have sue them, claiming that you were badly advised. The good news is that this case will set a precedent for the many others who leave without the full notice period. I alway found this contract to be odd and one sided, on the one hand you are not employed by Brookfield or Ryanair, but by a service agency that you are a director of, so if their is any breech of contract then it is with your service agency, but as a director you could agree to release your self anyway?
I think the line that these service companies are set up to ensure taxes and NI is paid in Ireland is fanciful, the easiest way of ensuring compliance would be to employ the pilots directly either through Ryanair or Brookfield, but of course that would mean one of those organisations paying employers national insurance contributions! and that's not what you want when your an Ultra low cost airline, non of this is illegal, but i would not be surprised if sooner or later this whole set up was looked at in detail, because were it set up with the sole aim of avoiding tax or NI then the rule makers may look again at the rules.
I will read with interest what the analysts at COPA make of the recent fall in profits despite a small rise in volume, it suggest to me that FR are finding it difficult to gain pricing traction sufficient to offset a rise in costs, which appears to be the opposite of others in the sector that have reported this past quarter, i have long held the view that other than a low price, their offering is nothing special, its safe because it has to be, its on time because the business model requires it, other than that, well?
No surprise that bagged charges have been hiked again and having to slow down because of a Ryanair in front of you!! that'll be a first, what cost index are they using? and more importantly what speed in descent?
I think the line that these service companies are set up to ensure taxes and NI is paid in Ireland is fanciful, the easiest way of ensuring compliance would be to employ the pilots directly either through Ryanair or Brookfield, but of course that would mean one of those organisations paying employers national insurance contributions! and that's not what you want when your an Ultra low cost airline, non of this is illegal, but i would not be surprised if sooner or later this whole set up was looked at in detail, because were it set up with the sole aim of avoiding tax or NI then the rule makers may look again at the rules.
I will read with interest what the analysts at COPA make of the recent fall in profits despite a small rise in volume, it suggest to me that FR are finding it difficult to gain pricing traction sufficient to offset a rise in costs, which appears to be the opposite of others in the sector that have reported this past quarter, i have long held the view that other than a low price, their offering is nothing special, its safe because it has to be, its on time because the business model requires it, other than that, well?
No surprise that bagged charges have been hiked again and having to slow down because of a Ryanair in front of you!! that'll be a first, what cost index are they using? and more importantly what speed in descent?
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
From: Polymer Records
and having to slow down because of a Ryanair in front of you!! that'll be a first, what cost index are they using? and more importantly what speed in descent?
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
From: UK
From the Legal Section of the Times (London):-
Contract workers are denied basic rights
The next time you complain of fees and sardine-tin conditions on a Ryanair flight, spare a thought for some of the airline’s pilots who, a court has ruled, face their own problems.
In a judgment that risks causing price rises for passengers, one of the Irish carrier’s agents was found to be breaching English employment law. It was also accused of exploiting crew.
The Surrey-based Brookfield Aviation International, which supplies pilots for Ryanair’s fleet of Boeing 737-800 aircraft, was denying pilots basic rights, a test case at the Mayor’s and City of London Court found.
Lawyers acting for the Irish Airline Pilots’ Association, which represented four pilots, argued successfully that Ryanair cockpit crew were unfairly penalised when they left short of their notice period. One pilot faced a €5,000 (£4,320) penalty for leaving shy of his three-month term.
The court also heard claims that pilots were regularly placed on unpaid standby at airports for up to four days in a 28-day period, lawyers said.
William Garnett, of the law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite, which represented the four pilots, said outside court that the practice could be dangerous, as pilots would be loath to refuse short-notice requests to fly, regardless of fitness. Mr Garnett said: “Ryanair wants a de-unionised workforce. It needs a large number of pilots but it refuses to employ them.”
Lawyers said that the court’s decision on penalties would make Ryanair renegotiate terms with many of its 3,000 pilots, half of whom are contracted through Brookfield. Higher passenger fares could result, they said.
The ruling comes after the leak in May of a Ryanair management diktat ordering pilots not to criticise the airline in public. A former air hostess said this year that staff had to fund their own uniforms and safety courses.
Ryanair said that it was “not aware of this [court] case or any ruling”, and it was a matter for the agent to start any appeal. It has used Brookfield for “many years”, but the other 50 per cent of pilots were employed directly, it said.
It denied that it would suffer financially and rejected claims that its practices could put safety at risk. “Ryanair and its pilots fully comply with all EU safety and operating regulations, which underpins Ryanair’s outstanding 29-year safety record,” a spokesman said.
Brookfield declined to comment.
Contract workers are denied basic rights
The next time you complain of fees and sardine-tin conditions on a Ryanair flight, spare a thought for some of the airline’s pilots who, a court has ruled, face their own problems.
In a judgment that risks causing price rises for passengers, one of the Irish carrier’s agents was found to be breaching English employment law. It was also accused of exploiting crew.
The Surrey-based Brookfield Aviation International, which supplies pilots for Ryanair’s fleet of Boeing 737-800 aircraft, was denying pilots basic rights, a test case at the Mayor’s and City of London Court found.
Lawyers acting for the Irish Airline Pilots’ Association, which represented four pilots, argued successfully that Ryanair cockpit crew were unfairly penalised when they left short of their notice period. One pilot faced a €5,000 (£4,320) penalty for leaving shy of his three-month term.
The court also heard claims that pilots were regularly placed on unpaid standby at airports for up to four days in a 28-day period, lawyers said.
William Garnett, of the law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite, which represented the four pilots, said outside court that the practice could be dangerous, as pilots would be loath to refuse short-notice requests to fly, regardless of fitness. Mr Garnett said: “Ryanair wants a de-unionised workforce. It needs a large number of pilots but it refuses to employ them.”
Lawyers said that the court’s decision on penalties would make Ryanair renegotiate terms with many of its 3,000 pilots, half of whom are contracted through Brookfield. Higher passenger fares could result, they said.
The ruling comes after the leak in May of a Ryanair management diktat ordering pilots not to criticise the airline in public. A former air hostess said this year that staff had to fund their own uniforms and safety courses.
Ryanair said that it was “not aware of this [court] case or any ruling”, and it was a matter for the agent to start any appeal. It has used Brookfield for “many years”, but the other 50 per cent of pilots were employed directly, it said.
It denied that it would suffer financially and rejected claims that its practices could put safety at risk. “Ryanair and its pilots fully comply with all EU safety and operating regulations, which underpins Ryanair’s outstanding 29-year safety record,” a spokesman said.
Brookfield declined to comment.
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: London
Call me a selfish RYR driver unaware of the realities of the real world, but we carry 80m people each yr. Lets put fares up by 1EUR per flight, that's an extra 80m EUR revenue. Take off a little tax, round figures 50%, and use the remaining 40m EUR to sort out the contractual problems with the workforce.
(Sorry to the pax now paying 1EUR more per flight).
(Sorry to the pax now paying 1EUR more per flight).
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
From: Cloud Cookoo Land
Ryanair said that it was “not aware of this [court] case or any ruling”, and it was a matter for the agent to start any appeal. It has used Brookfield for “many years”, but the other 50 per cent of pilots were employed directly, it said.
Last edited by Callsign Kilo; 2nd August 2013 at 08:01.
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 4
From: last time I looked I was still here.
Was this a case of BRK sue-ing an ex-pilot and the pilot refuting the claim in court? If so it would seem BRK went to court voluntarily, the very thing I thought they would have avoided at all cost. They do not want any attention to this arrangement.
Who paid the cost of the defence, and as they won what costs were awarded? And what happens next? Surely this is only the beginning.
Who paid the cost of the defence, and as they won what costs were awarded? And what happens next? Surely this is only the beginning.
