[PR] Cullen concern over Ryanair landings

Victor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0221/ryanair.html

Cullen concern over Ryanair landings
Wednesday, 21 February 2007 16:56

The Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, has confirmed that he asked the British Ministry of Transport for details of dangerous landing approaches made by Ryanair.

This relates to the issue of Ryanair pilots landing planes too fast at some English airports.

Launching an €86m grants scheme for regional Irish airports, the minister said he was also anxious to know if the same had happened in Ireland.

The minister said aircraft and passenger security is central to good practice in the aviation sector and he hoped a recent incident involving a Ryanair flight from Stansted to Cork was the exception rather than the rule.

He said he would only call for a formal investigation by the Irish Aviation Authority when he has all of the facts.

He said the IAA carried out 'regular audits of all airlines, including Ryanair'. Mr Cullen said that it was his understanding that to date, the IAA has been satisfied with the procedures that have been in place.

He added that he was anxious to find out if it was possible that what happened at British airports had happened in Ireland.

The British Air Line Pilots Association has claimed that the reported incidents are due to Ryanair's low-cost culture and fast turnaround times, but Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary blames 'jet jockeys' for attempting irregular manoeuvres.

He added that pilots would be demoted if they failed to follow safety procedures.

Last month, the Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit issued a report on a 'serious incident' involving a Ryanair plane attempting to land at Cork Airport in June last year.

FlutterinBantam

I would be very surprised if Mr O'leary does not take steps to ensure that any hint of these practices is put away for keeps.

There is no doubt that when the fleet consisted of the smaller 737-200s they seemed to adopt a much more "urgent" approach to landing and taxying ,not dangerous mind you, just seemed more urgent than the "sedate" approach speeds and taxying of other carriers.

Thats just from observation-no technical basis whatsoever.

Gurgle

He said the IAA carried out 'regular audits of all airlines, including Ryanair'. Mr Cullen said that it was his understanding that to date, the IAA has been satisfied with the procedures that have been in place.

That should be good enough, why go ask the British Ministry what they think?

The British Air Line Pilots Association has claimed that the reported incidents are due to Ryanair's low-cost culture and fast turnaround times, but Ryanair Chief Executive Michael O'Leary blames 'jet jockeys' for attempting irregular manoeuvres.

He added that pilots would be demoted if they failed to follow safety procedures.

Too bloody right.

Pilots are very highly trained and well paid employees. It is entirely their responsibility to get the plane down perfectly safely, every time, even if it interferes with the 20 minute turn-around target. Any pilot who prioritises on-time landings over passenger safety should be sacked & his license revoked, not demoted.

kmick

This is the same Martin Cullen who screwed up on E-voting. Its like as that minister from the UK said '...being savaged by a sheep'. I'd say Michael O'Leary is quaking in his boots.

If that idiot Cullen got up off his skinny bony buttcheeks and did something about road deaths he might be remembered for something more than being the most incompetent minister of the 1990's/2000's; and that is saying lot considering the field of halfwits who currently occupy the dail.

PhoenixRising

Gurgle wrote:

That should be good enough, why go ask the British Ministry what they think?

In an ideal world that would be the case. Unfortunately, the fact is that the IAA are Ryanair's poodle. The IAA have explicitly failed to take any action against Ryanair despite mountains of AAIU incident reports and confidential reporting by pilots and pilot unions over safety concerns. They are utterly useless, and should the unthinkable happen, will be just as culpable as Ryanair for letting it happen. Never mind an audit of Ryanair, we need an audit of the IAA...

Bards

kmick wrote:

This is the same Martin Cullen who screwed up on E-voting. Its like as that minister from the UK said '...being savaged by a sheep'. I'd say Michael O'Leary is quaking in his boots.

If that idiot Cullen got up off his skinny bony buttcheeks and did something about road deaths he might be remembered for something more than being the most incompetent minister of the 1990's/2000's; and that is saying lot considering the field of halfwits who currently occupy the dail.

need I mention extra penalty point offences.. random breath checks... that in my book says he is doing something...

people giving out that it is no longer safe to drink and drive becuase you might get caught... some people are never happy...they want to be able to drink and drive but never get caught and then blame the Govt for road deaths

Michael Martin is worse than cullen... need I mention Dempsey...

Metrobest

kmick wrote:

This is the same Martin Cullen who screwed up on E-voting. Its like as that minister from the UK said '...being savaged by a sheep'. I'd say Michael O'Leary is quaking in his boots.

If that idiot Cullen got up off his skinny bony buttcheeks and did something about road deaths he might be remembered for something more than being the most incompetent minister of the 1990's/2000's; and that is saying lot considering the field of halfwits who currently occupy the dail.

Witness how the constant drip feed of negative stories about Martin Cullen produces ignorance and how he cops the blame for things that are not his fault.

Burnt your toast this morning? Blame Martin Cullen.

For your information, road deaths in Ireland are at their lowest level in decades, and this despite traffic volumes multiplying. That's quite an achievement, so if we're going to blame Cullen for things that aren't his fault, let's give him credit for successes on his watch.

Electronic voting in Ireland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The Irish government had made plans to introduce nationwide electronic voting for the local and European Parliament elections in 2004. The proposed change was under the supervision of the current Minister for the Environment & Local Government, Martin Cullen, however the scheme was committed to under the previous minister, Noel Dempsey. The proposed system lacked any Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail, and after a campaign by Irish Citizens for Trustworthy EVoting (ICTE) and opposition parties in Dáil Éireann, the government set up the Commission on Electronic Voting (CEV), to examine the proposed system.

The Commission's report stated that it was unable to verify the accuracy and secrecy of the proposed system. Due to the report the government was forced to postpone the introduction of the electronic voting system. Since the system was not used, many members of the public feel that it was a waste of money.

The government has spent €52 million on electronic voting machines and spends €800,000 per annum to store the machines. They do not work reliably[1] and can be interfered with to affect the outcome of an election and the software proposed is inadequate for the task[2]. The prime issue is the lack of verifiability by the absence of an audit mechanism or paper trail. Bertie Ahern defended the flawed system and has said in the Dáil, that elections after 2007 should be done without stupid old pencils.

The voting machines bought by the Government from Dutch firm Nedap are in storage as the cabinet ponders what to do after the Commission on Electronic Voting said it could not recommend the system. Approximately €0.5m is expected to be spent improving the software. Ahern has defended the system despite public scepticism and opposition from within his own party[1] on the basis that having spent the money, it would cause loss of national pride if the system were scrapped.

In October 2006, a group of Dutch hackers, including Rop Gonggrijp, showed how similar machines to the ones purchased in Ireland could be easily modified.[2] [3] This is contentious as in the Netherlands, 10% of voting machines are to be abandoned in the November 2006 Dutch elections and the Dutch Government is is to reintroduce paper ballots in those locations and to review the system in the other 90% of cases after the elections in November 2006.[4]

Note that the scheme was the brainchild of Noel Dempsey, but Dempsey emerged scott free from the whole thing.

The machines deemed unsafe were used in the 2002 elections in Ireland in three constituencies and produced a result nobody doubted.

E-Voting operates successfully in many of the world's most advanced countries and nobody doubts the validity of their election results, yet in Ireland a shrill and parochial motley crew of media commentators, point-scorin' politicians and "concerned citizens" joined forces to kill off E-Voting. And then they had the nerve to shift the blame onto Martin Cullen.

Zoney

Metrobest wrote:

E-Voting operates successfully in many of the world's most advanced countries and nobody doubts the validity of their election results, yet in Ireland a shrill and parochial motley crew of media commentators, point-scorin' politicians and "concerned citizens" joined forces to kill off E-Voting. And then they had the nerve to shift the blame onto Martin Cullen.

Yes, but also anyone who knew anything much about computer systems. As for other countries, it is well known that several systems used in other countries are as full of holes as Swiss cheese. Managing security in computer systems is a heck of a more complicated job than having secure paper ballot boxes and counting. Not to mention that you need to treat the physical systems with the same security (as ballot boxes) and even more as well (indeed without countermeasures, you can for example detect the RF output from these machines and detect remotely who someone is voting for).

I can assure you as a computer expert, e-voting is not something that our politicians are competent enough to implement. Also, those they might consult would be salespeople selling systems, not competent impartial experts. I just about trust the politicians with managing traditional elections (although haven't they managed to run out of booths somehow!)

Apologies for going OT - but part of the problem with the govt. getting away with nonsense is people not being well enough informed. We are very fortunate indeed that we escaped the Irish version of e-voting by the skin of our teeth. Nobody should be doubting this, and we are not out of danger yet. It is one of the current threats to democracy in Ireland.

secret_squirrel

Metrobest wrote:

E-Voting operates successfully in many of the world's most advanced countries and nobody doubts the validity of their election results, yet in Ireland a shrill and parochial motley crew of media commentators, point-scorin' politicians and "concerned citizens" joined forces to kill off E-Voting. And then they had the nerve to shift the blame onto Martin Cullen.

Really? Name the countries. 2 of the heaviest users of E-voting are the US and the Netherlands, and both Nedap (N) and Diebold (US) machines have been proved both to be easily hackable, bug ridden, and unable to match the selected candidate to the actual candidate.

The only good e-voting story I have heard of is from Australia who use an open source, easily verifiable system. The fact is whilst E-voting software remains unaudited and uncheckable, the potential for corruption or even bugs outweights any potential usefulness the systems may have.

gurgle wrote:

Pilots are very highly trained and well paid employees. It is entirely their responsibility to get the plane down perfectly safely, every time, even if it interferes with the 20 minute turn-around target. Any pilot who prioritises on-time landings over passenger safety should be sacked & his license revoked, not demoted.

Rubbish!
Pilots are just doing a job the same as the rest of us.

And what about the people who put pressure on the pilots?

Metrobest

secret_squirrel wrote:

Really? Name the countries. 2 of the heaviest users of E-voting are the US and the Netherlands, and both Nedap (N) and Diebold (US) machines have been proved both to be easily hackable, bug ridden, and unable to match the selected candidate to the actual candidate.

The only good e-voting story I have heard of is from Australia who use an open source, easily verifiable system. The fact is whilst E-voting software remains unaudited and uncheckable, the potential for corruption or even bugs outweights any potential usefulness the systems may have.?

Hmmm.. let's see.. taken from wikipedia..http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_voting#Belgium

Electronic voting examples

[edit] Australia
In October of 2001 electronic voting was used for the first time in an Australian parliamentary election. In that election, 16,559 voters (8.3% of all votes counted) cast their votes electronically at polling stations in four places. [10] The Victorian State Government introduced electronic voting on a trial basis for the 2006 State election. [11]


[edit] Belgium
Electronic voting in Belgium started in 1991. It is widely used in Belgium for general and municipal elections and has been since 1999.


[edit] Brazil
Electronic voting in Brazil was introduced in 1996, when the first tests were carried in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Since 2000, all Brazilian elections have been fully electronic. By the 2000 and 2002 elections more than 400 thousand electronic voting machines were used nationwide in Brazil and the results were tallied electronically within minutes after the polls closed.[10] Joao Abud Jr. who was with the original Brazilian company and has served as president of Diebold Procom Industria Electronica since April 2003, has been promoted to vice president of the company's Latin American Division.


[edit] Canada
Electronic voting in Canada has been used since at least the 1990s at the municipal level in many cities, and there are increasing efforts in a few areas to introduce it at a provincial level.

In the Canadian Province of Ontario, from November 5 to November 10 2003, 12 municipalities from the Prescott Russell and Stormont Dundas & Glengarry Counties held the first full municipal and school board electronic elections in North America using either the Internet or the phone but no paper ballots.[10]

Peterborough, Ontario will use Internet voting in 2006 in addition to the paper ballots.[12]


[edit] Estonia
Electronic voting in Estonia began in October 2005 local elections when Estonia became the first country to have legally binding general elections using the Internet as one means of casting the vote and was declared a success by the Estonian election officials.

In the 2007 elections of the Riigikogu (the parliament of Estonia) electronic voting is done during the time of the advance polls: February 26th to February 28th.[13]


[edit] EU CyberVote Project
In September 2000, the European Commission launched the CyberVote project with the aim of demonstrating "fully verifiable on-line elections guaranteeing absolute privacy of the votes and using fixed and mobile Internet terminals".[10]

Trials were performed in Sweden, France, and Germany.[14]


[edit] France
Elections in France utilized remote Internet voting for the first time in 2003 when French citizens living in the United States elected their representatives to the Assembly of the French Citizens Abroad. Over 60% of voters chose to vote using the Internet rather than paper. The Forum des droits sur l'Internet (Internet rights forum), published a recommendation on the future of electronic voting in France, stating that French citizens abroad should be able to use Internet voting for Assembly of the French Citizens Abroad elections.[15]


[edit] Germany
In Germany the only accredited voting machines for national elections are the ESD1 and ESD2 from the dutch company Nedap. About 2000 of them have been used in the 2005 Bundestag elections covering approximately 2 million voters.[16] These machines differ only in certain details due to different voting systems from the ES3B hacked by a dutch citizen group and the CCC on 5. October 2006.[17][18] Because of this, additional security measures have been applied in the municipality elections on 22. October 2006 in Cottbus, like reading the software from the EPROM to compare it with the original and sealing the machines afterwards.[19] The city Cottbus later decided not to buy Nedap voting computers.[20]

At the moment there are several lawsuits in court against the use of electronic voting machines in Germany.[21][22] One of these reached the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in February 2007.[23] The plaintiffs are missing the transparency if the voting computers store the votes as intended by the voter and the possibility of a recount because the certified Nedap machines are DRE systems without a paper trail.

In the 2008 state elections of Hamburg an optical scan voting system based on digital paper will be used.[24][25]


[edit] India
Electronic voting in India was first introduced in 1989 and used on experimental basis. In 2003, all state elections and by-elections were held using EVMs.[10]


[edit] Ireland
Ireland bought voting computers from the dutch company Nedap for about 50 million euro. The machines were used on a 'pilot' basis in some constituencies in two elections in 2002. Due to campaigning by ICTE, Joe McCarthy, and the work of the Commission on Electronic Voting, the machines have not been used since, and their future is uncertain. [26]

See also Electronic voting in Ireland


[edit] Italy
Italy experimented in the 2006 elections with electronic voting machines from Nedap in Cremona Municipality. 4 machines were used by 3000 electors. The pilot had good results and Cremona Municipality asked for a change in the law in order to use Nedap machines. During the same elections (April 2006) the Ministry of New Technologies in cooperation with two big american companies organized a pilot only concerning e-counting. The experiment involved four regions and it cost 34 million of euro. Negative comments from the general public about the uselessness and the high costs of the pilot drove the italian government to suspend any experiments concerning e-counting for the upcoming years. [27]


[edit] Netherlands
Since the late nineties, voting machines are used extensively during elections. Most areas in the Netherlands use electronic voting in polling places. The most widely used voting machines are produced by the company Nedap.[28] In the parliamentary elections of 2006, 21,000 persons will be using the RIES Internet voting system to cast their vote.

On 5. October 2006 the group "Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet" ("We do not trust voting machines") demonstrated on dutch television how the Nedap ES3B machines could be manipulated in 5 minutes. The exchange of the software would not be recognisable by voters or election officials. [29] [30]

Apparently there was a case of an election official misinforming voters of when their vote is recorded and later recording it himself during municipality elections in Landerd, Netherlands in 2006. A candidate was also an election official and got the unusual amount of 181 votes in the polling place where he was working. In the other three polling places together he got 11 votes. [31] Only circumstantial evidence could be found because the voting machine was a direct-recording electronic voting machine, in a poll by a local newspaper the results were totally different. The case is still under prosecution.[32]

Van Eck phreaking might also compromise the secrecy of the votes in an election using electronic voting. This made the dutch government ban the use of computer voting machines manufactured by SDU in the 2006 national elections, fearing that secret ballots may not be kept secret. [33]

See also: Dutch general election, 2006: Voting machine controversy

[edit] Norway
The Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development of Norway carried out pilots in three municipalities at local elections in 2003 on voting machines in the polling stations using touch screens.[10]


[edit] Romania
Romania first implemented electronic voting systems in 2003[34], on a limited basis, to extend voting capabilities to soldiers and others serving in Iraq, and other theaters of war. Despite the publicly stated goal of fighting corruption, the equipment was procured and deployed in less than 30 days[35] after the government edict passed.


[edit] Switzerland
Several cantons (Geneva, Neuchâtel and Zürich) have developed Internet voting test projects to allow citizens to vote via the Internet [3] or by SMS.


[edit] United Kingdom

[edit] England
Voting pilots have taken place in May 2006, June 2004, May 2003, May 2002, and May 2000.


[edit] Scotland
Scanners supplied by DRS Data Services Limited of Milton Keynes, in partnership with Electoral Reform Services, the trading arm of the Electoral Reform Society, will be used to electronically count paper ballots in the Scottish Parliament general election and Scottish council elections in 2007.[36][37]

The simple fact of the matter is that electronic voting is no more or less safe then paper voting - both systems could be tampered with if the correct procedures were not in place.

The biggest mystery is the Green Party's attitude to all this - think of all the trees that E-Voting would save from destruction!

Calina

I'm sorry. I realise I'm very busy lately and quite tired but can someone drag this thread back on topic which I thought was uhem....something to do with landings of aircraft and not electronic voting or a Martin Cullen witch-hunt? Electronic voting belongs in politics.

*****

I have absolutely no doubt that Ryanair's paperwork will be perfectly in order as it relates to questionable landings and approaches and in practice, very often, that is what regulatory authorities look at. That being said, if you have a couple of incidents of questionable landings - which it appears that there might be, then occasionally, it might be worth looking at the culture within a company as well.

Ryanair is a big airline. It spans a lot of Europe. To be honest, I think it would be no harm to have a European-level aviation authority which might be better placed to spot trends on a Europe level. I'd imagine that the number of Ryanair landings in Ireland is a miniscule subsection of the total number of Ryanair landings.

Gurgle

secret_squirrel wrote:

Rubbish!
Pilots are just doing a job the same as the rest of us.

And what about the people who put pressure on the pilots?

Their job is to take off, fly and land aeroplanes safely and intact every time.

Their targets may include 20 minute turn-arounds. Even if their christmas bonus depends on this, it doesn't override their job description.

jackofalltrades

Pilots are very highly trained and well paid employees

I don't know about the well paid bit, certainly not compared to the level of debt they would have.

Their targets may include 20 minute turn-arounds. Even if their christmas bonus depends on this, it doesn't override their job description.

I doubt you'd last long at Ryanair espically in terms of ever getting promoted if you didn't make, or at least get near to their tight turn around times.

MOL and his management team need to stop bullying the pilots and try a more realistic turn-around time instead.

Gurgle

jackofalltrades wrote:

I don't know about the well paid bit, certainly not compared to the level of debt they would have.

You've lost me.
Why are pilots further in debt than the rest of us, despite their higher salaries?

jackofalltrades wrote:

MOL and his management team need to stop bullying the pilots and try a more realistic turn-around time instead.

Maybe he should circulate a memo stating that anyone failing to follow safety procedures will be demoted.

That should clarify the point.

Calina

Gurgle wrote:

You've lost me.
Why are pilots further in debt than the rest of us, despite their higher salaries?

I suspect it depends on who paid the cost of their flight training which is not always the airline.

antoinolachtnai

I believe the issue here was that pilots were trying to minimise fuel use in order to meet a target.

However, Ryanair management were very upset with this approach to fuel economy, not only because of safety concerns, but because the hard landings that resulted were likely to cause undue wear on the planes, thereby increasing future maintenance and depreciation costs by far more than the value of the fuel saved.

This controversy happened quite a while ago. I suspect it's all over now bar the shouting, which we're seeing quite a lot of at the moment.

I could be wrong about this, but it comes from a decent enough source.

jackofalltrades

You've lost me.
Why are pilots further in debt than the rest of us, despite their higher salaries?

Because 99.9% of pilots fund their own flight training, the only thing that an Airline is likely to pay for these days is a type rating(where you get trained on a specific type of aircraft). Most pilots these days are spending about €60,000+ plus on training, add another €20,000-30,000 if they have to pay for a type rating, which you have to at Ryanair.

As I was saying about the higher salary there's probably quite a few pilots out there instructing at the moment who would disagree with you on that comment.

penexpers

jackofalltrades wrote:

Because 99.9% of pilots fund their own flight training, the only thing that an Airline is likely to pay for these days is a type rating(where you get trained on a specific type of aircraft). Most pilots these days are spending about €60,000+ plus on training, add another €20,000-30,000 if they have to pay for a type rating, which you have to at Ryanair.

You have to pay for it at Ryanair if you leave within five years of the completion of your training. A perfectly fair condition I think.

Gurgle

jackofalltrades wrote:

Because 99.9% of pilots fund their own flight training, the only thing that an Airline is likely to pay for these days is a type rating(where you get trained on a specific type of aircraft). Most pilots these days are spending about €60,000+ plus on training, add another €20,000-30,000 if they have to pay for a type rating, which you have to at Ryanair.

OK, we know a pilots license is an expensive investment, €80k or so.

Now give me salary bands, and we'll see what the payback time is like on this investment.

And do they get docked pay if they don't meet the 20 minute turn-around target?

(Although its a bit of a tangent off the fact that flying the plane safety is their job)

seamus

Gurgle wrote:

And do they get docked pay if they don't meet the 20 minute turn-around target?

Not really, but the pay at Ryanair is considered to be quite substandard, to the point that most of their staff are fighting to cling onto bonusses in order to boost their weekly take-home. They get a bonus for getting the flight in on time. No bonus otherwise.

If you're ever on a Ryanair flight that lands early, the cabin crew are almost having orgasms while they announce that fact.

The last Ryanair flight I took was last August, and I can confirm that they landed much more quickly and "violently" (for want of a better word) than any other carrier I've ever flown with.

Calina

Gurgle wrote:

OK, we know a pilots license is an expensive investment, €80k or so.

Now give me salary bands, and we'll see what the payback time is like on this investment.

And do they get docked pay if they don't meet the 20 minute turn-around target?

(Although its a bit of a tangent off the fact that flying the plane safety is their job)

AFAIK many Ryanair pilots are paid on a flight by flight basis. I'm not sure you could call that a salary per se, more a piece rate. Beyond that, there are probably productivity bonuses but I don't know whether or how Ryanair might implement that.

ednwireland

Calina wrote:

Ryanair is a big airline. It spans a lot of Europe. To be honest, I think it would be no harm to have a European-level aviation authority which might be better placed to spot trends on a Europe level. I'd imagine that the number of Ryanair landings in Ireland is a miniscule subsection of the total number of Ryanair landings.

what a bit like this ?
http://www.jaa.nl/index.html

as far as i know all regs go through them also all aircraft certification as far as i know the iaa implement jaa reglations if ryanscare land harder its down to them they'll probably lower the lifetime of the aircraft (actually theyve probably warrantied the aircraft at boeing to account for this)

jackofalltrades

(Although its a bit of a tangent off the fact that flying the plane safety is their job)

No one is saying that safety is not part of their job, pilots are only human after all, and can make bad decisions when put under a lot of pressure. What I'm saying is that pilots shouldn't be put under economic pressure to the point where it starts impairing their ability to fly safely.

You have to pay for it at Ryanair if you leave within five years of the completion of your training. A perfectly fair condition I think.

According to this site you have to pay for your type rating.
http://www.cae.com/aviationtraining/RyanairSelfSponsored-Intro.shtml

Thargy

Ryanair pilots DO NOT get 'bonuses' for keeping to schedule. If they don't keep to the schedule they (1) are sent threatening 'memos' by their employer warning them they are being watched (2) get demoted, or (3) get shifted to a foreign base as punishment, and (4) eventually get fired.

Ryanair (in case you haven't noticed) does not give money away.
Bonuses!?
Excuse me while I have a laugh.

This attitude places pilots at Ryanair in a classic 'Double Bind'. On the one hand they are responsible for safety, and on the other they are required to maintain a frantic schedule - or face the sack.

The result is rushed approaches which push the aircraft and crew to the limits of their ability. Often it goes wrong.
We don't usually hear about the ones that go quietly wrong, and where the crew make the proper decision to break off a dangerous approach (thereby accepting the wrath that will fall on them for being late). That happens all the time.
However, some pilots are either too inexperienced or too fearful, or needy of a job to make the right call, and these are the near disasters which end up in the newspapers.

Next time you fly Ryanair, pray your pilots aren't in the latter category. They've been very lucky thus far. Luck will eventually run out.

Gurgle

Thargy wrote:

Ryanair pilots DO NOT get 'bonuses' for keeping to schedule. If they don't keep to the schedule they (1) are sent threatening 'memos' by their employer warning them they are being watched (2) get demoted, or (3) get shifted to a foreign base as punishment, and (4) eventually get fired.

Have you a source for this or are you making it up?

Number 1 is easily ignored.

Numbers 2, 3 or 4 would have Mr O'Leary in court within minutes. We do have employment laws.

The reason I brought bonuses into it is because its the only legal way for an employer to get more than the basic job out of their staff.

Thargy wrote:

They've been very lucky thus far. Luck will eventually run out.

Bollox.

They've been very 'lucky' so far because the vast majority of pilots put safety ahead of everything else, just as they are trained and paid to do.

Calina

Gurgle,

See here: http://www.rte.ie/business/2007/0201/ryanair.html

Ryanair had argued that the legislation was never intended to apply to what it called 'high-pay multi-nationals',

IN which case: what legislation protects employees who don't have union recognition from their employer?

Personally I'd be of the opinion that collectively, a lot of pilots in Ryanair are not, perhaps, the happiest campers. It certainly doesn't sound like everything in the garden is rosy given that they have been in and out of court for a number of years looking for collective representation, for example.

PhoenixRising

Gurgle wrote:

Have you a source for this or are you making it up?

Number 1 is easily ignored.

Numbers 2, 3 or 4 would have Mr O'Leary in court within minutes. We do have employment laws.

In another recent case of Ryanair pilots .v. Ryanair just before Christmas, a High Court judge said in his final judgment that Ryanair management had lied under oath and that 'Ryanair management bears all the hallmarks of oppression'. This coming from one of the highest Judges and highest courts in the land.

Ryanair send threatening memos to staff, pilots included, all the time. I've seen some of them myself. It's their way of keeping people in check. Ryanair see bullying and intimidation of staff as a legitimate Human Resources tool.

Michael O'Leary and Ryanair make almost monthly appearances in Irish and UK Courts, many of which go unreported. If not in the High Court, they can usually be found in the Labour Court. I believe Michael O'Leary has his own car parking space outside the High Court now.

Watch out for Ryanair pilots .v. Ryanair episode 2, which is due to be heard in the Labour Court soon.

Thargy wrote:

They've been very lucky thus far. Luck will eventually run out.

I have to agree. Anybody looking at the recent string of near misses in the last 12-18 months can see that there is something fundamentally wrong in Ryanair. Why are other well run airlines with a good safety culture not having so many serious incidents? Nothing will change until the unthinkable happens. Ryanair's regulator, the IAA, has been found wanting, and flat out refuse to investigate Ryanair or admit there is even a problem.

There is no doubt that the pressure, fear and intimidation that Ryanair pilots are subjected to by management is having an effect on their decision making, and ultimately flight safety.

Thargy

Gurgle wrote:

Have you a source for this or are you making it up?

Maybe you're making things up, but I don't need to!

Number 1 is easily ignored.

That has to be one of the most flippant remarks I've ever read on a BB.
So let me get this straight. You're suggesting that if your employer sends you a Memo telling you that you are somehow unsatisfactory in your performance it is 'easily ignored'. Correct?
Are you aware that if the 'unsatisfactory behaviour' continues (i.e. you 'ignore them') that the next Memo you get will be a 'Final Warning' and you can then be sacked?
Perhaps you'd simply 'ignore' being sacked too, and continue showing up for work anyhow!

I don't know where you work mate, but I know where you live - Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Numbers 2, 3 or 4 would have Mr O'Leary in court within minutes. We do have employment laws.

As has already been pointed out, O'Leary LIVES in the courts. Mostly sueing or being sued by his own employees. When you have several billion to back you up you can spend LOTS of time in Court, and usually the pesky little b'stard of an employee will just give up and fade away when his money is all blown.

The reason I brought bonuses into it is because its the only legal way for an employer to get more than the basic job out of their staff.

LEGAL. But not ONLY. And NEVER at Ruinair.

Bollox.

You too.

They've been very 'lucky' so far because the vast majority of pilots put safety ahead of everything else, just as they are trained and paid to do.

I think you've slept through most of this debate.

Gurgle

Thargy wrote:

Maybe you're making things up, but I don't need to!

You claimed:

Thargy wrote:

Ryanair pilots DO NOT get 'bonuses' for keeping to schedule. If they don't keep to the schedule they (1) are sent threatening 'memos' by their employer warning them they are being watched (2) get demoted, or (3) get shifted to a foreign base as punishment, and (4) eventually get fired.

Again, where did you learn this?
Are you a Ryanair pilot?

Thargy wrote:

You're suggesting that if your employer sends you a Memo telling you that you are somehow unsatisfactory in your performance it is 'easily ignored'. Correct?

If you are unsatisfactory in your performance because you fly the plane safely and don't take chances to meet targets, then yes.

Thargy wrote:

Are you aware that if the 'unsatisfactory behaviour' continues (i.e. you 'ignore them') that the next Memo you get will be a 'Final Warning' and you can then be sacked?

No, you can't.
Employment law requires a very good and undisputable reason to sack someone.

Thargy wrote:

I don't know where you work mate, but I know where you live - Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Not that you've brought up my employment history, heres a little analogy.
I worked as a test engineer for ICs. My job was to make sure that nothing left the test room that wasn't perfect, the chips went into various parts of a car, airbags, engine controllers etc. so it could be bad if they failed in service.
My targets (and bonus) were based on yield; If too many chips failed then I didn't meet my targets.
I could easily have improved the yield on any chip type by making the test program softer. This often had to be done to improve the yield by compensating for imprecisions in the test system. I could have softened the program further and allowed weak chips to pass.
Ultimately, this could cause a 100 car pile-up on the autobahn. Picture an air-bag popping up in the driver's face at 120mph at rush hour.
Sometimes targets were met, sometimes they weren't.

Thargy wrote:

As has already been pointed out, O'Leary LIVES in the courts. Mostly sueing or being sued by his own employees.

Again, it has been 'pointed out' but not supported with any evidence.

Thargy wrote:

Gurgle wrote:

Bollox

You too.

Not you, this bit:

Thargy wrote:

They've been very lucky thus far. Luck will eventually run out.

Do you have any basis or reason to make such a claim?
I've flown with Ryanair plenty of times, and the landings have been no bumpier than with anyone else.

Thargy wrote:

I think you've slept through most of this debate.

Me?

The start of this debate was Michael O'Leary's statement that any pilot not following proper safety procedures would be demoted, you took us off on a wild fantasy about pilots being sacked for not meeting turn-around targets.

I think he's being too soft on them; Any pilot not following proper safety procedures should be sacked on the spot. That, to me, is a very good and undisputable reason to sack someone.

FlutterinBantam

Gurgle wrote:

The start of this debate was Michael O'Leary's statement that any pilot not following proper safety procedures would be demoted, you took us off on a wild fantasy about pilots being sacked for not meeting turn-around targets.

I think he's being too soft on them; Any pilot not following proper safety procedures should be sacked on the spot. That, to me, is a very good and undisputable reason to sack someone.

Agree with you there,that was a reasoned and well thought out argument,unlike most of the other ranting.

Thargy

Gurgle wrote:

You claimed:

Again, where did you learn this?
Are you a Ryanair pilot?

Not on your nelly. I wouldn't work for them if I was starving.
But I've personally seen the memos sent out to his pilots.

Employment law requires a very good and undisputable reason to sack someone.

You obviously don't get it.
I'll try again.....

When you have no respect for your employees, when you have billions in the bank, when you intimidate your workforce to control them - Labour laws mean NOTHING. The courts mean NOTHING. Civil Rights mean NOTHING.
All it takes is money and time.
You've obviously never set foot inside a court. Are you one of those people who believes 'right always triumphs' and courts always produce Justice? Dream on.

Not that you've brought up my employment history, heres a little analogy.
I worked as a test engineer for ICs. My job was to make sure that nothing left the test room that wasn't perfect, the chips went into various parts of a car, airbags, engine controllers etc. so it could be bad if they failed in service.
My targets (and bonus) were based on yield; If too many chips failed then I didn't meet my targets.
I could easily have improved the yield on any chip type by making the test program softer. This often had to be done to improve the yield by compensating for imprecisions in the test system. I could have softened the program further and allowed weak chips to pass.
Ultimately, this could cause a 100 car pile-up on the autobahn. Picture an air-bag popping up in the driver's face at 120mph at rush hour.
Sometimes targets were met, sometimes they weren't.

And when they weren't, your employer accepted that, right?
So - did you work for Ryanair? Obviously not.

I'm not surprised you just can't get your head around the concept of an employer being stupid and vicious enough to bully or sack you for not meeting your target because it would endanger safety - it is quite hard to comprehend, but thats O'Leary for you.

Again, it has been 'pointed out' but not supported with any evidence.

Ahhh....yes....evidence. Must have evidence to show I'm not making it all up.
Have you been living under a rock perchance?

Evidence:
Ryanair sues Pilots
Ryanair sues Irish Airline Pilots Association
Ryanair v Disabled Passengers
Ryanair v Cabin Crew
Ryanair v Passengers
Ryanair sues The British Government
Ryanair sues The French Government
Ryanair sues The Irish Government Aviation Regulator
Ryanair sued by Swedish Prime Minister
Ryanair sues Website campaigner
Ryanair v The World and it's Mother

Enough for you???

Do you have any basis or reason to make such a claim?
I've flown with Ryanair plenty of times, and the landings have been no bumpier than with anyone else.

This is not about 'bumpy landings'. Thats just Cullens chance to grab a headline.
Its about despicable behaviour by a bullying employer which will eventually result in an avoidable and unnecessary serious accident.

I think he's being too soft on them; Any pilot not following proper safety procedures should be sacked on the spot.

Ever heard of a 'double bind'?
Look it up - here.
Basically, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some people need a job so badly they'll compromise everything to keep it.

Its a nice little spin by O'Leary. He has a foot on the pilots necks, and all the while looking the public in the eye and saying 'but we put safety first'. Thus he gets the max out of his fearful staff, and if disaster strikes he can point to the dead pilot and say 'It's all HIS FAULT. We put safety first'.
Plausible deniability.
Nice.

Gurgle

Ryanair sues Pilots...

The pilots' claim that the airline has used financial incentives and penalties to encourage employees to waive their rights.

Plenty of companies don't allow unions (and with good reason imo). Hardly a damning indictment.

Ryanair sues Irish Airline Pilots Association

The Irish low-cost airline Ryanair has launched court proceedings against the Irish Airline Pilots' Union (IALPA) in response to what it called "an organized campaign of harassment and intimidation" of pilots by the union.

That almost sounds like Ryanair protecting its staff from harassment.

Ryanair v Disabled Passengers

The Court of Appeal has partially overturned a disability discrimination ruling against Ryanair. The no-frills airline was discriminating, the judges agreed, but so was Stansted Airport, and both airline and airport must share the consequent liability.

No comment neccessary there.

Ryanair v Cabin Crew

Vanessa Redmond was fired in July last year after a passenger complained she had blocked off rows of seats and fallen asleep while reading a novel on a Dublin to Durham flight.

Oooh the bastards, sacking the poor girl just because she went to sleep on duty, mid-flight, while she was responsible for the safety and well-being of hundreds of people.

Ryanair v Passengers

Jane O'Keeffe, a mother of two from Dublin, had sued Ryanair because she claimed they had reneged on a commitment made to her in 1988 of free flights for life.

Yes, she was a truly valuable passenger.

Ryanair sues The British Government

He accused the Department for Transport - which banned hand luggage as part of security precautions, causing chaos at Britain's airports - of creating a "shambles" which "handed victory to the extremists".

He had a point.

Ryanair sues The French Government

Ryanair claims that the French are breaking European laws on free movement of labor and services to discourage foreign airlines from setting up in France

And another one there.

Ryanair sues The Irish Government Aviation Regulator

The introduction of slot co-ordination will limit competition and drive up prices. Dublin Airport is a two runway airport which caters for just 20M passengers p.a. and there is ample room for growth. With just one runway, London Gatwick presently caters for twice as many - 40M passengers p.a.

I object to the Irish love of beauracracy too.

Ryanair sued by Swedish Prime Minister

That country's Prime Minister Goran Persson and erstwhile Foreign Minister Laila Freivalds have sued the bolshy airline for using their faces in a newspaper advertisement without permission

lol

Ryanair sues Website campaigner

There is a good chance that you will get very cheaply to where you want to go with no problems. But a proportion of passengers can find themselves in a situation where they are left helpless and/or have to pay a lot of money. Ryanair is often solely in control of the factors that can create such a situation.

Some begrudger sets up a website making libelous accusations and didn't expect to get sued?

Ryanair v The World and it's Mother
Same as the previous one.

Enough for you???

Google - News - type 'Ryanair', copy and paste the links without even reading the stories. You sure prooved something.

Thargy

I asserted that "O'Leary LIVES in the courts. Mostly sueing or being sued by his own employees", to which you responded "....it has been 'pointed out' but not supported with any evidence".

I posted 11 examples of court cases Ryanair has been involved in - a small but representative sample.
I thereby refuted your assertion that Ryanairs litigiousness is 'not supported with any evidence'. QED

I didn't bother reading your last posting.
Your personal opinions on the cases are of no particular interest in a debate on Ryanairs abysmal safety culture.

Victor

Thargy, can you tone things down a little.

Gurgle wrote:

Ryanair sues Irish Airline Pilots Association

That almost sounds like Ryanair protecting its staff from harassment.

The judge said the complete opposite - Ryanair was harrassing its staff and the IALPA.

Thargy

What'd I say? What'd I say?

Gurgle

Victor wrote:

The judge said the complete opposite - Ryanair was harrassing its staff and the IALPA.

I can't read all of that story at KeepMedia. The abstract linked said that the IALPA were harassing Ryanair pilots for not being in their union.

Can you link to it elsewhere?

Thargy wrote:

I asserted that "O'Leary LIVES in the courts. Mostly sueing or being sued by his own employees"...I posted 11 examples of court cases Ryanair has been involved in

Of which one case was about Ryanair Vs Staff, the circumstances of which are strongly on Ryanair's side.

Thargy wrote:

I didn't bother reading your last posting.

Oh come on, you didn't even bother reading your own links, I hardly thought you were reading my posts.

Thargy wrote:

Your personal opinions on the cases are of no particular interest in a debate on Ryanairs abysmal safety culture.

Yes truly abysmal: Threating to demote pilots who take chances with safety, sacking stewardesses who go to sleep on the job, flying the newest fleet in Europe, 22 years flying a couple of hundred million customers and no accidents.

But thats just my personal opinion.

steve-o

Gurgle wrote:

Threating to demote pilots who take chances with safety, sacking stewardesses who go to sleep on the job

There have been several serious incidents where crew have exercised poor judgement. Maybe the company should be trying to understand why. Some people believe that there are geniune problems at Ryanair and that erratic rostering is an issue. Tired crew make bad decisions. Just because they've never had a serious accident doesn't mean that warning signs should be ignored.

PhoenixRising

Gurgle wrote:

I can't read all of that story at KeepMedia. The abstract linked said that the IALPA were harassing Ryanair pilots for not being in their union.

That was Ryanair's assertion and the reason they took IALPA to court.

The judge ruled in favour of IALPA and found the exact opposite to be the case. He accused senior Ryanair management of lying to the court under oath, said that Ryanair management was oppressive and tyrannical, and that the only evidence of bullying was from Ryanair itself. IALPA were awarded all costs. Ryanair left court with their tail between their legs. All this is contained in Judge Smyth's written judgement which you'll find with a quick search.

Gurgle, you need to take your head out of the sand. Nothing worse than trying to argue with someone who obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

Thargy

Gurgle, you need to take your head out of the sand.

Hehehe....there's one on every bulletin board.
Even his Avatar screams TROLL!!!!!

He pontificates to us on his personal views about Ryanairs court battles, but he neglects to mention the small but crucial matter of what the Judge and Jury thought of them.....i.e. that they were universally without merit and doomed to failure.

Ryanair sues Pilots (and lost)
Ryanair sues Irish Airline Pilots Association (and lost)
Ryanair v Disabled Passengers (and lost)
Ryanair v Cabin Crew (and lost)
Ryanair v Passengers (and lost)
Ryanair sues The British Government (and faded away)
Ryanair sues The French Government (no result)
Ryanair sues The Irish Government Aviation Regulator (bets still being taken)
Ryanair sued by Swedish Prime Minister (no result yet)
Ryanair sues Website campaigner (and lost)
Ryanair v The World and it's Mother (still losing)

But hey....to Gurgle, these are mere details....he KNOWS they SHOULD'VE won.

Get your head out of the sand indeed.

OTK

You forgot this case:
Ryanair vs its millionth passenger
http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0228/ryanair.html
and its verdict
http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0619/ryanair.html

This really tells you every you need to know about Ryanair. O'Leary clearly ignored counsel to take this unwinnable case to court. It didn't take the judgement of Solomon to figure out that Ryanair were as far in the wrong as anyone could be. After the verdict, the €67,500 payout and the international press for the company portraying them as unfair, greedy, idiotic bullies, management declared they were very happy with the result.

O'Leary got something right with his airline model, so now he has decided his judgement is infallible.

Chris_533976

Pulling this thread from history. I realised I had a video on my computer of a Ryanair flight I was on doing a very heavy rough and fast landing at Farranfore airport. If people want it, I'll upload.

Edit: Actually its a really cool vid as well as the sun was in the right place and I could track the shadow of the plane on the ground for a bit