Thanks, Dan. Excellent post.

If south coast can't see that there is undue pressure being applied to discourage pilots from taking additional fuel then he is either being deliberately obtuse or has another agenda. The point is that although pilots are similarly qualified, there is a broad range of experience and attitude. Some pilots would take the above memo with a pinch of salt and carry justifiable extra fuel when needed. However, other pilots would be swayed by such a communication from an unforgiving management and would allow their fuel decision to be influenced by the perceived negative consequences (letter from base captain, denial of base transfer, no allocation of hours on a paid by the hour contract etc etc).

One might argue that such a pilot is at fault for lacking the fortitude to make a decision based solely on safety or you might argue that the company is at fault for putting fuel costs before safety. It is hard to argue that safety margins have not been compromised.

Whilst I don't necessarily agree with the tone of the 'memo' I see nothing in there that is unreasonable regarding extra fuel. It appears that Ryanair's fuel policy is the same as all three airlines that I've flown for.

If Ryanair are happy for you to carry minimum fuel then do so. If Ryanair are happy to deal with and pay for a multitude of diversions because of that then so be it.

Make sure you divert early, just to be on the safe side.

Thanks for a copy of the memo. From my perspective, the documentary, Captain Goss and the Ryanair pilots who have spoken out are well justified in their concerns- what a gutter standard this fuel policy represents.

Does anyone know the name of the author? I see he didn't put his name to it!

It actually is quite simple. I position quite a lot but I NEVER accept travelling with ruinair.
Guess why?

Hi All,
I worked for Ryanair a few years ago before decamping to sunnier climes and the major reason was that I could see the writing on the wall then!
There has been a culture at Ryanair for many years of eroding the Commanders authority, with he or she quite clearly being required to have the burden of responsibility.
The SOP's are a good example! Yes extremely thorough, but unnecessarily onerous when compared to standard boeing. The companies attitude was that theirs were better, that is fine but is it wise to bin years of research that companies like boeing have done to provide a safe baseline for the operation of their aircraft.
The cynic in me would suggest that as Ryanair as an airline DO EXPECT A HULL LOSS AT SOME TIME procedures and systems should be in place to try and shift the burden of responsibility to a crew. What better way as saying they didnt adhere religiously to our SOP's and therefore while unfortunate, not our blame to shoulder.
Ryanair is a really unpleasant place to work, the quite unnecessary stress put on crews as a means of control, harking back to victorian mill owner values.
Hopefully within a few months the authorities will be minded to take a really close look at this airline before something dire befalls customer and crew alike:=

I read the memo and see a company that chooses to operate to the absolute minimum as laid out by EASA.

What I have not seen, are facts or evidence of someone being disciplined for carrying extra fuel while offering a reasonable reason for that decision.

All companies try to encourage PICs from taking unnecessary fuel and increasing costs without any real need to.

You could say the way they ask their crew to comply with this is done in an aggressive way, but I think whether it is dressed up in a 'nice and gentle' format or is as blunt as Ryanair, the message is the same, "avoid unnecessary costs".

But show me the paragraph in that memo that says you will be disciplined or your career affected if you take extra fuel.

I have no agenda in defending Ryanair, I don't like the way they operate, but I try to have an opinion based on facts and I am not convinced the airline is unsafe, as that is the claim against them.

I agree, they treat their crew and passengers in an unpleasant way, but is it unsafe or illegal, I think not.

It's like the pax who complain about having to pay €60 or whatever it is if they show at the airport without having checked in on line, it's the same people who book with Ryanair on the basis they want a no frills, cheap flight, but then when do not comply with the legal methods which allow Ryanair to be able to offer cheap tickets, they feel aggrieved.

Reality check please, it's not that Ryanair has embarked upon this management style or operation method recently, all those who have joined knew how they operate and that they will be expected to work to the minimum limits of what is laid out in EU-Ops, if they weren't happy to work to those minimum limits, I question their decision to work for an operator who chooses to operate that way, which is not unsafe or illegal.

Surely the first question one asks them self before joining an operator is, "Are they safe and legal", before the T&Cs are considered, or did that question slip through the net of all Ryanair's employees?

I have every sympathy for the crew, we all like an extra margin of safety, and I think in essence that's what this debate is really about, margins of safety.

Commercial pressure and safety are a see-saw and each company chooses where that see-saw sits with those two factors at each end, too much one way and you are unsafe and will have an accident, too much the other and you will never fly and go bust.

I believe Ryanair are at the limit of that analogy in favour of commercial factors, so while there is no fat for manoeuvre with that scenario, I genuinely do not believe it to be unsafe or illegal.

Finally, JPJP, you seemed pretty quick to belittle my opinion, while I am happy to listen to yours and I respect it, I get the impression you don't like one contrary to your own as you showed little to no respect for mine.

I see that memo is unsigned and undated. While it makes some valid points it is not written in the spirit of safety, no blame culture, and is very negative in its tone.

It includes numerous reasons why extra fuel shouldn't be carried, and not a single example of when carrying extra was a good decision.

There is a dark grey area between savings and safety.

I think Saddest Aviator has ended any argument...

My company discourage carrying too much fuel, as do most I would imagine. But there are NO repercussions or bullying/pressure if you do so... Again, I'm sure most companies are similar.

"I'm paid to feel comfortable" I was told by a skipper many years ago... Is that the case everywhere??

BN2A You are right on the button.

Nicely said BN2A

My employer also asks us to be considerate when uploading fuel, but we are under no pressure to carry minimum fuel, we are asked to offer a reason as to why we take something other than originally planned, which I think is fair because they need to be able to collect data and in order for the analysis and statistics to be accurate, mitigation needs to be be given.

My question remains, what are the actual repercussions backed up with facts for people who carry more fuel than planned at Ryanair when a legitimate reason is given?

Can anyone offer expamples of such disciplining or is it just the perceived fear of what could happen that we are considering to be undue pressure?

Somewhat more important is the knowledge how to calculate extra fuel required. In many airlines there seemed to be weak education. I always asked the F/O first what fuel they wanted. Looking at the weather there was the comment that perhaps we needed a little extra and a figure or 300 or 500 or 700kgs was plucked out of the air. No calculation or realisation of what that would allow you to do. There was eye opening when I put some numbers down in a list which included 15 mins hold, 2 approaches, (might be circling) 5 mins to organise a diversion from a non-radar airfield and then divert to an alternate with an NPA and arrive feeling comfortable on fuel. The extra fuel this calculated was quite a bit more than 'a little extra'. The next question from the F/O was "are we allowed to do that?" Heaven help us.
There was also the intercontinental charter airline flying Europe to a Caribbean island with no radar and procedural NPA, who insisted that we carry FPL fuel because the contingency fuel was about 45mins and that was enough extra. I tried to point out that we were flying west, usually a head wind jet up to 150kts which we would try to avoid, but...... with an Atlantic CRZ of 7 hours into this headwind and perhaps optimum -2000'. The contingency would disappear. The Alternate was another similar island. The return crew was at destination and on minimum FTL's to make the return trip. The a/c had to land at destination even if it meant holding for 1 hour to allow the crew make the return flight within FTL's. etc. etc. We never left with less than comfortable sensible fuel. It would depend on the jet, strength & position relative to track, and destination weather. Sometimes it was minimum fuel, often not, but the lack of understanding & courage from the F/O was disturbing. It is very easy to brow-beat brain wash & clone pilots. Is that safe? Another issue in the maze of safety discussions.

Our company policy is to ask us to carry the correct fuel.

Can't ask much more than that. We do still annotate the plug for the reason why. I have no issue with this. I carry plog on most occasions. I have also loaded 2 tons extra. I base my decisions on all factors on the day. Taxy, ATC, weather at departure/en-route/destination, NOTAMS etc etc

I realise this may not be common place, but in my company captains are captains.

South coast,

I respect your right to have an opinion. I do not respect your opinion. There's a difference. Apologies if I've offended you.

Regarding the Memo-

Reading the fuel memo only confirms to me what is going on. I have never seen anything like it. It's 'pushing' in its clearest form. It's also pushing some very low numbers. I can see why they are stated as a minimum by the regulators. It appears that they're seen as a goal by some.

The 'Fuel Memo' uses a 1136KG Final Reserve fuel number. It's absolutely ridiculous to promote that number as a normal part of daily operations. It's an emergency. The Low Fuel lights on our 73NG illuminate at 900KG (2000 lb) for each side. At 1136KG, the Low Fuel lights have been on for some time. It requires about 600 KG to do one trip around the circuit in a 737-700. By that reserve number, you may not make a second one.

Thankfully, I've never seen the ethos that drove that 'Fuel Memo' in a workplace.

JAR Ops 1.255 ii (e) specifically allows for the Commander to upload any extra fuel in addition to the standard required components that he/she deems necessary for the safe completion of the flight.

So at Ryanair, one must play them at their own game.

The question to the anonymous author of the memo must be "Are you seeking to prevent me from taking action which I believe necessary for the safe conduct of my flight?"

We live in an age of profligate litigation, precisely because companies like Ryanair chose to uphold, not the spirit of the law, but the letter.

Bankers/Google/Amazon have tried to use this type of defence recently but the tide of public opinion suggests people are tiring of it, rightly so, IMO.

Utterly contemptible in such a safety critical industry.

I realy don't get it JP why would you fly without sufficient fuel?

Just curious, but how was CA Goss recognized through the distorted voices and dark room interview?

I don't Andy. But some will - People make poor decisions when they are financially pressured, sick, fatigued, or brow beaten. We've know this for years. If we ignore it then we have made no progress.

I've been lucky enough to work for a company that doesn't question my fuel decisions. Some aren't, and we should support those that aren't backed by a solid multi layered safety system. That memo speaks for itself.

He wasn't one of the anonymous pilots, he spoke overtly. I suspect he knew his dismissal would be assured by doing so, so I assume he had planned to retire or has another job to go to.

In any case, well done to him for having the courage to highlight the dangers of RYR's fuel policy. He has my utmost respect and should have the respect of all line pilots.

Dan, I agree the memo seeks to (positively) deter crew from taking extra fuel, but you know as well as I do that the company would always defend that memo as not an instruction to compromise safety with regards to fuel.

However, can you offer actual evidence or facts that if someone exercises their right as the PIC to deviate from the memo and take extra fuel because they believe safety will be compromised has been negatively disciplined for doing so.

Is it the perceived fear of what will happen to them that deters people or have examples been made?

I think we need to know what happens to those who deviate from the memo.

So Ducky can go on the box with boring regularity to berate anyone and everything, including his own staff and his own company, but Capt Goss is not allowed to speak about HIS experience? Huge double standards here and I hope he takes this disgraceful excuse for an airline to the cleaners.

Dan & others of similar ilk, spot on, South Coast & Andypandy geez... :ugh:

I just want to read the facts Leg, and till now it's all been fairly light on facts and hard evidence, more sensationalism and personal opinion.

Unfortunately, that's not how I like to come to a conclusion.

I have no agenda one way or the other on Ryanair, I am not employed by them nor do I intend to be, but claiming an airline is unsafe is a massive statement and needs massive facts to back it up, that's my only reason for actually wanting to hear the facts.

If that deserves a 'geeez' well I hope you are never called on jury service.

South Coast,

Its a bit like claiming that no-one exceeds 70 on the motorway because thats the limit. Try driving at 70 on the motorway and see what comes past you.

In addition, because 99% of people exceeding it are never charged for so doing, the reality must be, that nobody is exceeding the limit.

Nevertheless, this is arguably the logic de jour.

:ugh:

The lack of, what you want to call "hard evidence" (this is always going to be the case unless more pilots of the ilk of Goss are willing to stand up and make the internal procedures of Ryanair common knowledge, with all the attendant consequences) doesn't mean that the testimonies of countless Ryanair pilots represents some enormous conspiracy does it?

I'd be the first to agree that adding a couple of hundred kilos of juice for the sake of it, isn't the mark of a professional, but that memo is an abomination.

:yuk:

Thanks Dan Winterland, agree 100%... Every pilot flying the line today owes CA Goss a huge debt of gratitude.

Are we talking about the same program?
Whilst I saw that channel 4 were going on about a unique fuel policy ..which it by and large isn't ....BEA had a similar mentality of writing the reasons on the nav log on the Trident and league tables which led to office visits without tea and biscuits in the 1970s.
The difference then was that we had a union and a lot of ex bomber boys who would tell upstairs to stick it. (I read many facisious remarks but the most popular was Captain's discretion, followed by weather then for the wife and kids).
What Goss excellently stated was that pilots had concerns about safety and they felt that these were not being correctly addressed especially by the authorities - hardly a reason to sue him for libel.
Having dealt with several authorities including the IAA I am in 100% agreement with Goss.
A friend of mine said of him from his Air Corps days "a very black and white officer".
Rare breed indeed!

My favourite remark on the voyage report when explaining extra fuel, B.I.T.F.C.:ok:

I flew with an independently minded captain in the days when in a charter airline the captain was commander, decision maker of everything, bottle washer et al. We were doing a charter for a legacy carrier who had dispatchers who decided the fuel. On a short sector from home base, with fog at destination, the captain ordered round trip fuel, much to the annoyance of the dispatcher, who questioned the decision, much to annoyance of the captain. A written explanation was required. The captain wrote "ME." The dispatcher then asked what Mike Echo was code for. The captain stuffed 4 rigs under his nose. The fog delays and holding caused many to be out of schedule and long delays for re-fuelling. We had enough fuel and left on time from destination. Lesson learnt. There's more to fuel than just a few € at the end of your nose. The rest of the day stayed on schedule and no costs for delays, cancellations, missed connections etc. etc. We are a customer service industry. Let's keep it that way. Too many managers forget that and think we are only a bonus/profit generating industry. The attitude is that if it is cheap enough there will always be enough suckers.
Market/competition forces will always be at work. it may take longer than sooner, but quality will always survive.

No, it's purely anecdotal - and deliberately so. RYR are quite clever and would not give a disgruntled former employee the opportunity to go to the press with evidence of safety breaches. There are other ways of keeping the troops in line. For example, someone who regularly takes extra fuel and has to repeatedly has to explain why may find themselves demoted or sacked on another seemingly minor matter, like not going into discretion. RYR seem to prefer to generate a climate of fear and mistrust which they can manipulate. There is more than enough evidence that this goes on, but little of it hard evidence. The fuel memo is a good example. There is no mention of the penalties for taking more fuel than the management think is necessary, but the threat is quite clearly there. if you work in that environment and hear stories of someone on another base who got the sack for doing so, then you will fall in line. It's an environment of fear. And although this environment is again purely anecdotal, based on anonymous pilots who are too afraid to identify themselves on the Dispatches and the Dutch TV programme, this itself speaks volumes. The relentless suppression and attempts to vilify those who seek unionisation with RYR is a good example of their success in controlling the workforce.

Many of us will know ex RYR pilots. I was flying with one recently who was telling me of some of the 'management' techniques of RYR. They're astounding. I also have a mate in RYR who doesn't want to talk about work when we meet for a beer. But when he does, he appears to rapidly acquire Tourettes syndrome. He leaves me with no doubt as to his personal feelings regarding his employer.

That's it exactly. It doesn't matter if the negative consequence is written in black and white (as south coast would like to see) or if it is just perceived, the result is the same - pilots making imprudent decisions due to external pressure. In the case of Ryanair, I can confirm first-hand that such pressure exists and that the fear culture is deliberately fostered. That is not an environment where many will be prepared to stick their head above the parapet whether to defend their terms or report safety issues.

Believe me, if you haven't worked there you just have no idea. My tourette's has improved markedly since I left. I recall one particular memo from one of the management clowns which had me in a spectacular rage for days. The only way I could deal with it was by resigning.

Adolf, it's not that I was trying to be difficult I was trying to be impartial and form an opinion on hard facts as opposed to just anecdotal accounts.

However, that seems extremely difficult on this matter, so I take your word for it.

What a nasty man Al Capone was back in his day.... Evading paying tax, what a disgrace, and what an offence to go down in history for!!

Can't believe people thought he was responsible for murder, extortion, gang crime, robbery, etc etc etc etc.... After all there was no hard evidence!!!!

:hmm:

BN2A

Organised crime boss versus an AOC holding airline operation regulated by an independent authority, yep, I see the similarities.

I am amazed that you think it wrong to want to have factual evidence before imposing such a slur on an organisation's name, that remains my opinion but I do also understand the complexities of the case and that hard evidence may well be hard to gather, which i do agree doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen.

What if we turned this situation around 180 degrees and an advert were placed in a national newspaper and claimed Capt X, Y or Z were unsafe at operating a plane, that also disregarded regulations and bullied their colleagues into doing things which were unsafe but was unable to offer hard facts to back up the allegations, do you think those accusations would be justifiable without hard facts in a court of law when Capt X, Y and Z sue for defamation.

In fact, if I was one of the captains with such allegations against me, I would very much want the accuser to be ale to offer hard facts against me to back up such damaging accusations.

The law works on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, if we don't have the law we have chaos.

The law works on evidence beyond reasonable doubt
 

South Coast, your posts are a model of restraint and reasonableness, but I'd point out that only criminal law works that way. Otherwise it's Balance of Probability.

Whilst what Ryanair is doing seems to be legal - no doubt their lawyers have crawled all over their employment policies - they are taking a hell of a risk

If there is an accident (God forbid) and the tabloids go for them then claiming "it's all legal" will not stop a firestorm of biased, incorrect and malicious reporting that will do them some permanent damage

We've seen other companies and individuals get the tabloid treatment and they will get the same stick

Seems to me, if not already stated, that like in many other airlines around the world, we are our own worst enemies - in that we keep our employers out of the sh.t by being highly professional as we go about our day's work. And don't the bosses know that!! They rely on that to keep the wheels from falling off. And what do we get for that??????

Ryanair have to be cheap and cheap means ultra low cost base, everything is done with that goal in mind, whilst i thought the tone of the memo was a bit churlish the content was fair and made some valid points, the fact is a lot of aircraft Commanders carry far more fuel than they need* with some its just laziness, many an F/o will know only to well the P1's who turn up at last minute report not having read the Wx or NOTAM's and say whats min block? A 6300kg ok stick 7000kgs on

* need is a funny thing I always take what i believe i will need, no more no less and this is after a discussion with F/0, sometimes this is a lot more than what they had in mind, early Spring CB's +500m +sn ABZ & EDI are classic examples of how people get caught out, what is the point of putting an extra 500kg on a 737 if your going to hold for 40 minutes whilst the sweep the runway?, you either put an hours holding fuel or you might as well go with min fuel and divert early, of course if its a prob 30 it might not happen if its a prob 40 it could very likely happen but might not, i would be very interested to hear what FR management would say if you took min fuel and diverted with that forecast, it might be better to ring ops and say what would you like me to do fuel wise? if they say "your the skipper, your call" then just record the call? they are recorded anyway i gather......

The one line i do take issue with is the childish comment of landing with 1136 KG so land with 1137 your ok but with 1135 its an MOR or ought to be.......

Ladies & Gentleman (pause for fan fare) you'll be delighted to know that we have arrived at xxx with enough fuel to fly for another 30-45 minute, before the engines would have stopped & the rules allow us to do that..........

I personally don't doubt their safety, its the culture that offends me professionally

I have scanned through the thread and read the memo. I thought it was quite reasonable (the memo)
This issue is not just pertinent to RyanAir and 2013 I have seen this discussed everywhere.
Pilots like extra fuel for a number of reasons often abstract reasons generally explained as a safety issue. Companies want to cut costs and apply the rules to try and control pilots propensity to fuel extravagance. No shock horror please you know what I am talking about. I recognised a few of those examples (in different companies) makes me smile with people talking about being professional and we have colleagues with homemade fuel policies.
There is probably a middle ground and I personally don't see taking extra fuel from plog required with sound reasons as a problem, I also never had a problem with required fuel if there was no reason to take extra.
I don't work for RyanAir, my current outfit doesn't blink an eye if the tanks are full as long as payload is not compromised so I can pontificate in comfort.
Just my view as an outsider looking in, I am not suggesting that people fly around with less fuel than that which is required to get the job done safely and it's a sad day if that is the perception RyanAir is giving it's work force.
Good luck to the chap out of a job, sounds like he needs some support from the workforce or is that another problem we pilots have.

Whilst what Ryanair is doing seems to be legal - no doubt their lawyers have crawled all over their employment policies - they are taking a hell of a risk

The thing about some law is the interpretation. That is why 2 lawyers debate
in front of a judge or jury and try to convince them they have the correct argument. They both believe they are right and are there to test it. RYR's employment practices have not been through that test, and we have read on here, from many contributors, that many believe they are employees while other are not too sure. There have been very few, if any, categoric declarations that an individual believes he is fairly a self-employed pilot with all the freedoms and obligations that implies. I would therefore hold judgement on the quality of RYR's legal bods until it is tested in the proper place. Remember how many legal cases they have lost; and assuming their lawyers told them they had a good change to win. I suspect they have a negative goal difference.

LNIDA, you have summed up in a single sentence what I have been trying to say in many posts now, my thanks.

Parat won over Ryanair Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal has a ruling concluded that the former Ryan employee, Alessandra Cocca, can sue the company for the Norwegian court. Court of Appeal ruling is in line with current EU law, as opposed to what Moss Court previously found.


Parat has brought the case on behalf of Alessandra Cocca with intervention from LO and LO's legal department. Christen Horn Johannessen has represented Cocca in the case.
- Verdict is in line with what we have claimed and are in line with current EU law. In our assessment of the legislation could not court reach a different result. Norwegian law must prevail in Norway, says Horn Johannessen Parat. Deputy Parat, Vegard Einan, Ryanair hopes will appeal to the Supreme Court. - Ryanair went hard after ruling in court and I look forward to whatever they want to do. Verdict in the Court of Appeal confirms our assertion that Ryanair systematically and at the coarsest have violated Norwegian law for many years. This ruling protects Norwegian workers' rights against large corporations who think they freely can choose which laws to follow, says Einan. Einan says ruling will have consequences for all other airlines based in Norway. - Regardless of country of registration of the aircraft will employees base in Norway have full rights under Norwegian law says Einan. Court of Appeal's decision on Norwegian jurisdiction may be appealed to the Supreme Court. Questions about the choice of law is not yet considered by the court and will later come up Moss Court. - In this ruling the Court of Appeal, it will be virtually impossible for the court to reach a different result than that Norwegian law shall be applied when the case comes up for Court ruling to the Court of Appeal is formulated, says Horn Johannessen.


Parat - Parat vant over Ryanair i lagmannsretten

Good riddance MOL.

Is this the flood gates about to open across the EU? I thought something similar had been concluded many years ago ref. cabin crew sacking in Belgium. RYR claimed they were not full-timers under EI law and thus could be dismissed according to EI law, but the judge ruled that they had been employed for >6 months at a Belgium base and thus Belgium law was in force and after 6 months they were considered full-timers and protected.