Ryanair and Brookfield in the news again
Moderator
RAT5 - I agree. The prime aim here is to bag Brookfield and, by association, Ryanair. There will be a small number of pilots caught in the crossfire, but the main target here are the companies rather than the individuals.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sand free now
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long can such an investigation take ? IR35 requires individuals (amongst other things) to have more than one user of their self employed services. No RyR pilots meet this requirement so are not self employed as defined by the HMRC itself. Job done.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT at least in Germany it's a different story. Public prosecution is chasing the pilots because they where based here and their home adress was/is also in Germany. Public prosecution mentioned that they investigate against more then 100 pilots. When the first pilot is finally convicted, they will start and chase BRK.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Hooverville
Age: 84
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think the tax man will be happy at just getting a few quids from the agencies and Ryanair and get all sympathetic with the poor hard done to pilots because big bad MOL was beastly to them, think again. If you want to know the extent of an investigation do a search of any accountants forum, do a search of HRMC's site, there's enough stuff to keep you awake well past the next filing deadline. Knowingly filing fraudulent returns is a criminal offence. Try getting a disclosure Scotland after that.
Scaremongering, overly sensationalising ? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone knows the saying, death and taxes....
Scaremongering, overly sensationalising ? Maybe, maybe not. Everyone knows the saying, death and taxes....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During a previous life, circa 2002 until 2005, Ryanair worked with two recruitment companies, one being Brookfield and I worked for, indeed I became in charge of Flight Crew recruitment of, the other, an anagram of "morSt Aviation".
In charge of Ryanair's HR had been an individual, a man, with the initials DD, as if quite suddenly he was leaving Ryanair and he was looking to be placed with either Brookfield or my then employer, whatever discussions then took place were above my level and DD was subsequently placed with Brookfield.
Ryanair's agency rates were pretty much p1ss poor, as I recall EUR5 per hour for a Captain, EUR3 per hour for an F/O so if either worked to the maximum of 900 hours per annum one was revenuing just EUR375/EUR225 per pilot per month, circa 25% the revenue of pilots placed with other operators, the only way a company was going to make any money from Ryanair was by a significant number of placements or, indeed, becoming a "letterbox provider".
By my then employer's interpretation of the law the pilots could be deemed to be self employed if they operated from no fixed base, i.e. they operated from one base one week and another base the next and Ryanair abused this to the hilt, of course each self employed pilot was legally responsible for paying their own taxes and social security in their nominated home domicile, whether they opted to do so or not was none of our legal concern.
Once DD became placed with Brookfield their pilot placements with Ryanair went through the roof whilst ours remained constant if not diminished, I'm out of the industry now, I'm my own boss so I can say what the hell I like, quite regarding the legalities of what I have posted here is not a subject I care to be drawn on, I'm just saying how it was some 10 years ago, please respect my honesty.
In charge of Ryanair's HR had been an individual, a man, with the initials DD, as if quite suddenly he was leaving Ryanair and he was looking to be placed with either Brookfield or my then employer, whatever discussions then took place were above my level and DD was subsequently placed with Brookfield.
Ryanair's agency rates were pretty much p1ss poor, as I recall EUR5 per hour for a Captain, EUR3 per hour for an F/O so if either worked to the maximum of 900 hours per annum one was revenuing just EUR375/EUR225 per pilot per month, circa 25% the revenue of pilots placed with other operators, the only way a company was going to make any money from Ryanair was by a significant number of placements or, indeed, becoming a "letterbox provider".
By my then employer's interpretation of the law the pilots could be deemed to be self employed if they operated from no fixed base, i.e. they operated from one base one week and another base the next and Ryanair abused this to the hilt, of course each self employed pilot was legally responsible for paying their own taxes and social security in their nominated home domicile, whether they opted to do so or not was none of our legal concern.
Once DD became placed with Brookfield their pilot placements with Ryanair went through the roof whilst ours remained constant if not diminished, I'm out of the industry now, I'm my own boss so I can say what the hell I like, quite regarding the legalities of what I have posted here is not a subject I care to be drawn on, I'm just saying how it was some 10 years ago, please respect my honesty.
I may be missing something here but I just completed the HMRC Employment Status Indicator, honestly answering the questions for the Brookfield arrangement. I got this:
Has anyone else done it? Did you get a different result?
The worker is self employed [Why?]
Summary of outcome.
There is a low indication of substitution. [Why?]
There is a high indication of control over the worker. [Why?]
There is a high indication of financial risk. [Why?]
Summary of outcome.
There is a low indication of substitution. [Why?]
There is a high indication of control over the worker. [Why?]
There is a high indication of financial risk. [Why?]
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kinda confirms what I always believed,namely that Brookfield IS Ryanair by the back (cheap ) door.
Ryanair put their head of HR in to Brookfield and thereafter Brookfield's pilot placements with Ryanair multiplied umpteenfold.
I'm out of the industry long since so I don't know the answer to this ..... But if Brookfield are truly independent they will be recruiting and placing personnel with umpteen airlines.
How many airline(s) do Brookfield actually recruit for and place personnel with?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anson H: Apologies, I may be dim, but I don't understand the conclusion of your questionnaire. Your message suggests you are self-employed, but the 3 points quoted don't seem to uphold that. Please clarify.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to put a positive spin on this, (and I realise that's probably against Pprune rules), but is there some chance cash could come the pilots' way because of this?
It's been mentioned that the Brookfielders who did it "properly" were paying both employers and employees NI. So if it turned out that they were technically employed, shouldn't some kind of rebate be in order?
Just sayin..
It's been mentioned that the Brookfielders who did it "properly" were paying both employers and employees NI. So if it turned out that they were technically employed, shouldn't some kind of rebate be in order?
Just sayin..
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Escaped the sandpit 53° 32′ 9.19″ N, 9° 50′ 13.29″ E
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....is there some chance cash could come the pilots' way because of this?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a long time since I did this, brain cells and all that, but 'we' employed personnel via an umbrella company.
I happen to know that the umbrella company we were using was a shambles, registered in UK but with an offshore arm also, if the personnel worked in the EU then they were with the UK umbrella company paying a whopping GBP35, and bugger all tax/NI, per month for the privilege and if they were non-EU it was a small percentage of their earnings per month.
Utilising an umbrella company was ideal for us because it is the umbrella company employing the personnel and responsible for all legalities including employer's NI (Social Security), I was aware that other recruitment companies were setting up personnel as their own limited company or similar however the legalities of that, well my employer didn't even want to go there!
At the end of the day it is the individual's responsibility for paying their NI/Social Security and income tax, perhaps the authorities believe they have a case against Brookfield and/or whoever the legal employer may be for not deducting these at source, there is only one party responsible for paying employer's NI (Social Security) and that is the employer ... Although the German authorities would have nothing to gain if employer's NI was appropriately paid in to the UK National Insurance system!
I happen to know that the umbrella company we were using was a shambles, registered in UK but with an offshore arm also, if the personnel worked in the EU then they were with the UK umbrella company paying a whopping GBP35, and bugger all tax/NI, per month for the privilege and if they were non-EU it was a small percentage of their earnings per month.
Utilising an umbrella company was ideal for us because it is the umbrella company employing the personnel and responsible for all legalities including employer's NI (Social Security), I was aware that other recruitment companies were setting up personnel as their own limited company or similar however the legalities of that, well my employer didn't even want to go there!
At the end of the day it is the individual's responsibility for paying their NI/Social Security and income tax, perhaps the authorities believe they have a case against Brookfield and/or whoever the legal employer may be for not deducting these at source, there is only one party responsible for paying employer's NI (Social Security) and that is the employer ... Although the German authorities would have nothing to gain if employer's NI was appropriately paid in to the UK National Insurance system!
I don't quite understand why politicians are so happy to turn a blind eye to these kind of practices.
I know of a number of politicians who are completely uninterested in their constituent's situation within the industry. Taking action and forcing change is a big challenge, but they were not even entertaining sympathy for the pilots in question.
It probably doesn't help that RYR is so actively anti-union.
Perhaps a Europe-wide multi-airline strike at all those airlines where there are contract/self-employed/non-airline-employee pilots would create enough attention for the issue to be properly looked at.
I know of a number of politicians who are completely uninterested in their constituent's situation within the industry. Taking action and forcing change is a big challenge, but they were not even entertaining sympathy for the pilots in question.
It probably doesn't help that RYR is so actively anti-union.
Perhaps a Europe-wide multi-airline strike at all those airlines where there are contract/self-employed/non-airline-employee pilots would create enough attention for the issue to be properly looked at.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought Sports Direct being in the spot light with all their 'agency workers' might be the crack in the dam. Politicians and the chief of the Institute of Directors have all been negative about many of those practices.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a Europe-wide multi-airline strike at all those airlines where there are contract/self-employed/non-airline-employee pilots would create enough attention for the issue to be properly looked at.
I worked for a UK DC10 operator back in the 70's, the (then) worldwide DC10 grounding cost the company millions, all employed crew sitting at home on full salary, by comparison the volcanic ash cloud over Europe the other year, I don't know but I can imagine which personnel were the first to be left sitting at home, the 'pay as you fly' contract personnel and, again, if I, and many of us here, were the airline Chief Executive we'd do exactly the same also.
In a previous life I worked for a cargo operator, all of a sudden we acquired a passenger wide-body for a summer long contract, we had no cabin services infrastructure whatsoever, we needed contract personnel just to man the contract, were we wrong to utilise such contract personnel?
To utilise a modest proportion of contract personnel is wise given the nature of the operation, it's the operators that extract the urine that need to be clamped down on, and as for:
politicians who are completely uninterested in their constituent's situation within the industry
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contrators, in any industry, should used to cover short-term extra demands on personnel, temporary extra duties/contracts, cover sickness etc. Those contractors should be employed by the agency and receive many of the normal benefits for employees. They should not be used, by the end-user, as full-time personnel to avoid normal costs associated with employee status.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5,
Right, "we' need X amount of crews to cover this summer's programme, how many crews are we going to need for the winter programme?
Well we haven't got a clue, commercial won't let us know until September, just employ contractors for the summer season.
September ... Wow, the tour operators are up for it, we can keep 80% of the contractors on for the winter season, come March we'll let you know about next summer ... and so on.
Getting the message?
Right, "we' need X amount of crews to cover this summer's programme, how many crews are we going to need for the winter programme?
Well we haven't got a clue, commercial won't let us know until September, just employ contractors for the summer season.
September ... Wow, the tour operators are up for it, we can keep 80% of the contractors on for the winter season, come March we'll let you know about next summer ... and so on.
Getting the message?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Where the company needs me not where I want to be!
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phileas Frog
How many winter/summers do you need to work out that you always need them then?
I did 7 years in FR as a "Contractor" I think it was a safe bet after say 3 years they would need me the next and the next, especially with new extra airframes arriving every month.
I understand the argument but there has to be a reasonable point.
How many winter/summers do you need to work out that you always need them then?
I did 7 years in FR as a "Contractor" I think it was a safe bet after say 3 years they would need me the next and the next, especially with new extra airframes arriving every month.
I understand the argument but there has to be a reasonable point.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apologies for this, but I thought it was worth reposting
During a previous life, circa 2002 until 2005, Ryanair worked with two recruitment companies, one being Brookfield and I worked for, indeed I became in charge of Flight Crew recruitment of, the other, an anagram of "morSt Aviation".
In charge of Ryanair's HR had been an individual, a man, with the initials DD, as if quite suddenly he was leaving Ryanair and he was looking to be placed with either Brookfield or my then employer, whatever discussions then took place were above my level and DD was subsequently placed with Brookfield.
Ryanair's agency rates were pretty much p1ss poor, as I recall EUR5 per hour for a Captain, EUR3 per hour for an F/O so if either worked to the maximum of 900 hours per annum one was revenuing just EUR375/EUR225 per pilot per month, circa 25% the revenue of pilots placed with other operators, the only way a company was going to make any money from Ryanair was by a significant number of placements or, indeed, becoming a "letterbox provider".
By my then employer's interpretation of the law the pilots could be deemed to be self employed if they operated from no fixed base, i.e. they operated from one base one week and another base the next and Ryanair abused this to the hilt, of course each self employed pilot was legally responsible for paying their own taxes and social security in their nominated home domicile, whether they opted to do so or not was none of our legal concern.
Once DD became placed with Brookfield their pilot placements with Ryanair went through the roof whilst ours remained constant if not diminished, I'm out of the industry now, I'm my own boss so I can say what the hell I like, quite regarding the legalities of what I have posted here is not a subject I care to be drawn on, I'm just saying how it was some 10 years ago, please respect my honesty.
Nice one Phileas... respect indeed.... insightful input and most interesting
In charge of Ryanair's HR had been an individual, a man, with the initials DD, as if quite suddenly he was leaving Ryanair and he was looking to be placed with either Brookfield or my then employer, whatever discussions then took place were above my level and DD was subsequently placed with Brookfield.
Ryanair's agency rates were pretty much p1ss poor, as I recall EUR5 per hour for a Captain, EUR3 per hour for an F/O so if either worked to the maximum of 900 hours per annum one was revenuing just EUR375/EUR225 per pilot per month, circa 25% the revenue of pilots placed with other operators, the only way a company was going to make any money from Ryanair was by a significant number of placements or, indeed, becoming a "letterbox provider".
By my then employer's interpretation of the law the pilots could be deemed to be self employed if they operated from no fixed base, i.e. they operated from one base one week and another base the next and Ryanair abused this to the hilt, of course each self employed pilot was legally responsible for paying their own taxes and social security in their nominated home domicile, whether they opted to do so or not was none of our legal concern.
Once DD became placed with Brookfield their pilot placements with Ryanair went through the roof whilst ours remained constant if not diminished, I'm out of the industry now, I'm my own boss so I can say what the hell I like, quite regarding the legalities of what I have posted here is not a subject I care to be drawn on, I'm just saying how it was some 10 years ago, please respect my honesty.
Nice one Phileas... respect indeed.... insightful input and most interesting
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many winter/summers do you need to work out that you always need them then?
I did 7 years in FR as a "Contractor"
I did 7 years in FR as a "Contractor"
I was summarising the industry as a whole and not some Dublin based cowboy outfit
The IT market goes from season to season, just reckon on the Sharm El Sheikh problem as just one example, need to dump personnel PDQ, well contractors may get paid more than employed staff but such is life!
111boy,
Thanks