Channel 4 Dispatches Investigation on Ryanair August 12th at 20:00

Musicman2000

Just a heads up Channel fours dispatches are investigating Ryanair on next Mondays show at 20:00. Something to do with flying on low fuel

keith16

Probably sensationalist nonsense.

Roblestone

Is it a repeat? I think that might already be on YouTube. They went undercover and did the cabin crew training a while ago.

donkey balls

This low fuel is a load of crap happen to know people working for both EI and FR and they both land with the same amount of fuel.

Peregrine

Like Keith said, it'll be the usual sensationalist crap you'd read on the Daily Mail in video.

LeftBase

Almost all short haul carriers in Europe will land with alternate, holding fuel and reserves + 5% of Trip fuel everything going to plan. In a case where you have to hold and then divert when you can hold no longer you will be landing pretty light, but legal...that's how everyone does it more or less. The thing for Captains to remember is that they must make a clear decision early to avoid getting caught out like the Valencia aircraft did.

ek9er

Guys, this should be quite good. I'm hoping the journalist learned from his mistakes with mol a few years ago. Our ryanair pilot group has also been involved and has released internal ballot results regarding safety issues and a rather threatening memo from the chief pilot. If you have a minute to spare check out the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/ryanairpilotgroup2013 or the website https://www.ryanairpilotgroup.com. The facebook page was shut down but is now back with more members, the bigger the better to spread to word

aramush

Any airline that has a quality safety record (and long may it last), good on time records that can get me from one part of Europe to another for 20euro deserves praise. Play by their rules and you have a fantastic resource at your disposal

scudzilla

aramush wrote: »

Any airline that has a quality safety record (and long may it last), good on time records that can get me from one part of Europe to another for 20euro deserves praise. Play by their rules and you have a fantastic resource at your disposal

In all fairness there's very few routes, if any, that you can travel on for 20quid now

Popoutman

aramush wrote: »

good on time records

From what I have seen on routes that are similar to other carriers, Ryanair tend to pad their schedule by 5-15 minutes, such that normal flights that are not particularly early come in under the scheduled time.

Another was of putting it - the expected travel time for a route might be 2h45 after takeoff. Ryanair will show a scheduled flight arrival time of 2h55 after takeoff.

Clever marketing but not exactly being truthful with the scheduling.

FWVT

Your 2hr45 flight-time is not set in stone. On any given day this could be anywhere from 2:20 to 3:10, depending on winds. Then there's the taxiing issue. A flight taking off from Dublin with easterly winds could require a extra 10 mins of taxi time to get to the holding point of R10, compared to R28.

All airlines pad their schedule to allow for all eventualities. The time stated when you're booking is NEVER the flight time. What I do have a problem with is Ryanair's fanfare on landing, claiming they've arrived on time when in fact they haven't yet arrived at all until they arrive at the gate and engage the parking brake. They know this but still try to pull the wool over the eyes of the passengers (but not of this one).

basill

IATA have strict rules on scheduling amongst a host of other things. In an IATA member airline its not really padding. Its to cover prevailing winds and anticipated delays. Its logical to have a westbound atlantic flight with a longer block to block than an eastbound given the usual tailwind on the way home to Ireland.

Not being a member of IATA enables an airline to get creative. Hence a cancelled flight due to tech issues can miraculously appear as a new flight number departing at the same time. Or a half empty flight can be "merged" into another with a new flight number. An airline using these techniques could then demonstrate a 100% on time performance when the reality is quite different.

Also if you mess up and don't take into account a major sporting event in your pricing then you get to cancel the flights, refund the passengers and "create" new flights at or around the same departure times but increase the fares significantly.

All completely legal and above board if you are not a member of an oversight organisation that audits these sorts of things.

novarock

Here is the trailer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvCxWzQVn-U

Cessna_Pilot

Wouldn't waste my time watching this. Biased English media and anti Ryanair propaganda ****e.

donkey balls

novarock wrote: »

Here is the trailer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvCxWzQVn-U

In all my time working both at DUB & STN airport I never seen a FR pilot wear a a hat or did they wear one for the program to disguise them selves,Must give my mate a call later and ask him is he wearing a hat these days. :eek:

Shamrock231

They don't wear hats as part of their uniform. It's just to hide their identity.

FWVT

It looks like they've dailymail-ised that program to try to make something big out of something small.

Never look to the media for factual accuracy as it is their business to try to manipulate the facts to sell their product. That narrator was chosen as she was the best they had at lowering her voice to that ominous monotone.

Tom Dunne

What a load of nonsense.

Vague and uninformative, nothing more than video tabloid journalism to fill a half-hour slot.

tigershould

Was that it?

What a waste of half hour of my life.

Jack Kyle

Pretty worrying.

O'Leary appears to have nothing but contempt for pilots. He seems to see them as glorified bus drivers.

Razor44

Tom Dunne wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

Vague and uninformative, nothing more than video tabloid journalism to fill a half-hour slot.

id agree. The show did its self a total disservice on what frankly, should be a well represented program about safety concerns. We all know the pilots are treated badly and as for poor cabin crew.....the show didnt do anyone of those any justice or the serious internal issue in FR.

devnull

Letters published here
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-releases-channel-4-dispatches-letters

Tenger

The war of words commences-- (my emphasis in bold)

http://entertainment.ie/tv/news/Ryanair-goes-to-war-with-Dispatches-over-defamatory-documentary/205499.htm

The airline released a full statement on its official website, detailing its position on the documentary, and reassuring customers that the Irish Aviation Authority was perfectly happy with its safety record. They argued that the programme makers had refused Ryanair's offer of "legally binding guarantees to the individuals involved of no sanction if they made these claims on the record, solely so that Ryanair could publish details of their individual flight records, fuel records, sickness records and safety reports which would disprove their false claims".

The company went on to state that Dispatches ignored evidence provided by Ryanair and the IAA, "which disproved these fuel and safety claims, Dispatches have failed to address or report this evidence, preferring instead to publish these false claims in an unfair, unbalanced and inaccurate programme."

They also claimed that Dispatches had refused Ryanair’s offer of an unedited interview with CEO Michael O’Leary, during which he would be willing to address any claims raised by Dispatches and "rubbish the false claims made by these anonymous contributors". They say Dispatches would only interview the airline boss if they could edit his answers, and Ryanair were having none of that.

The last straw seems to have been an apparent refusal to read out the original draft of a Ryanair statement rejecting the claims. "Channel 4 Dispatches have refused to report this short statement in its unedited form", Ryanair's website states.

Razor44

I realize im using the journal here as a source but in the interest of public knowledge

http://www.thejournal.ie/dispatches-channel-4-ryanair-1034150-Aug2013/

Shamrock231

Ryanair's offer of "legally binding guarantees to the individuals involved of no sanction if they made these claims on the record, solely so that Ryanair could publish details of their individual flight records, fuel records, sickness records and safety reports which would disprove their false claims".

That's the bit I'm curious about, they mightn't fire them, but I've had friends who work in shops and the like where they're only paid by the hour, they won't fire you, but they'll reduce your hours so much and make them as hectic as possible that they may as well have.

They can spend more on bus fare having to report to their jobs for 1.5 hours on Monday morning and then later in the day for 1 hour on Monday evening, they were given 2.5 hours when for every Monday before they complained they had gotten 8 hours for the previous 11 weeks.

Not fired, but may as well have been. I'm curious as to whether the same could apply to pilots in Ryanair who are only paid by the hour and even if they're not fired, if hours are reduced or made go to another base, then they may as well have been.

Tropheus

Recorded this to watch later. Based on the above I'll delete and take back 30 mins of my life.

GTE

Tropheus wrote: »

Recorded this to watch later. Based on the above I'll delete and take back 30 mins of my life.

I found it fine, very hard for me to take any negative posts about the program seriously when pilots are being interviewed.

Watch it and make your own opinion by ignoring any iffy aspects of the production.

Shamrock231

A post on another site sums up my opinions pretty well:

It's not whether you're breaking the regulations or not, regulations are only designed for the best case. Like on a motorway you can go at 120kmph, but in fog and snow going 120kmph will get you killed. It doesn't mean you're breaking the regulation, but it's important that pressure isn't being put on you to drive up to and at the legal limit.
Neither does it mean that 120kmph is too fast, 80%+ of the time, 120kmph is perfectly fine, if not too restrictive, but go 120kmph in fog and snow, while you're not breaking the law, you're asking for an accident.

You've got to take MOL's words with a pinch of salt, not breaking the law, and being safe are not the same things, you've just got to look into this.

I don't think I could put this better myself.

TheChizler

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Not fired, but may as well have been. I'm curious as to whether the same could apply to pilots in Ryanair who are only paid by the hour and even if they're not fired, if hours are reduced or made go to another base, then they may as well have been.

Constructive dismissal isn't looked upon too well in employment hearings.

BTE72

Ask yourself Could there be truth in it?

Of course ...

Fuel league tables ? He states are in the interest of safety. My Ar$e!
Nothing more than a double edged sword
1. Staff performance scheme
2. major goal of saving fuel.

I have Listened to O'Leary previously in interviews on the Media.. Easily irritated,Self Righteous, pompous, arrogant.

He is flying be the seat of his pants and is surrounded by yes men.. Nobody has the balls to stand up to him in and out of Ryan air

tigershould

Tropheus wrote: »

Recorded this to watch later. Based on the above I'll delete and take back 30 mins of my life.

Yeh, make up your own mind. Maybe I was hoping for something more juicy. I spose they did have an ex Ryanair pilot on.

Altho, the legal proceedings could get juicy - will Ryanair be able to get the identities of the pilots involved?

bbsrs

Jack Kyle wrote: »

Pretty worrying.

O'Leary appears to have nothing but contempt for pilots. He seems to see them as glorified bus drivers.

If you have €100k , average intelligence and are in good health you can be a licenced commercial pilot within 12 months . O Leary knows there are lots of unemployed new pilots out there waiting for a seat and happy to pay for their own type training so to him they are easily replaceable he has no need to beg them to work for him.

Tenger

TheChizler wrote: »

Constructive dismissal isn't looked upon too well in employment hearings.

Many of the FR pilots are self employed contractors.....works "dries up" so no need to continue the contract. No need for employment hearings.
Plenty more ATPL/CPL holders willing to work for FR to get the experience and the hours.

Xpro

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-releases-channel-4-dispatches-letters

edit: double post sorry

flazio

Forgive me if I'm being naive but, surely the pilots from the Valencia storm night would have seen poor weather forecast and should have fuelled accordingly?
There was no mention of any disciplinary action from Ryanair should a pilot be constantly at the low end of the fuel saving table so surely if the pilots were in danger of dismissal,the program would have said so?
Not one of Ryanair's biggest fans if I'm honest but it does seem that the pilots came out of this looking worse than the airline.

Shamrock231

flazio wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm being naive but, surely the pilots from the Valencia storm night would have seen poor weather forecast and should have fuelled accordingly?

Isn't that exactly the point though, that they didn't fuel accordingly?

flazio

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Isn't that exactly the point though, that they didn't fuel accordingly?

They were trying to make out that Ryanair policy was to blame but apart from that league table which to me doesn't seem to have any bite, there wasn't any hard evidence that this is down to FR.

Shamrock231

flazio wrote: »

They were trying to make out that Ryanair policy was to blame but apart from that league table which to me doesn't seem to have any bite, there wasn't any hard evidence that this is down to FR.

I think this is kinda like that metaphor I quoted earlier. Personally I think the fuel policy is fine, load as much fuel as you need, add more than 100kg and we'd like you to tell us why. Perfectly fine in my eyes, sensible enough.

The problem in my eyes lies in where you send out letters to the 20% with the lowest score in the league. If you are fine with them loading extra fuel, then leave it there, don't make a public display of how they took more. Back them up, if they take extra fuel, so be it, trust them to make that descision.

Razor44

Shamrock231 wrote: »

I think this is kinda like that metaphor I quoted earlier. Personally I think the fuel policy is fine, load as much fuel as you need, add more than 100kg and we'd like you to tell us why. Perfectly fine in my eyes, sensible enough.

The problem in my eyes lies in where you send out letters to the 20% with the lowest score in the league. If you are fine with them loading extra fuel, then leave it there, don't make a public display of how they took more. Back them up, if they take extra fuel, so be it, trust them to make that descision.

would what you're saying there not be indicative of the pressure the pilots feel they are under? how bad or not the show was, the fact that some pilots felt that it was the way to go to air their grievances shows how bad things are internally. Its a shame that it was shocking journalism.

STB

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Isn't that exactly the point though, that they didn't fuel accordingly?

The point being made is that passengers safety is being put below the profits of the airline.

They internally publish a list of who is using the most fuel (some sort of shame list ?). A report must be completed for anything requested above the 300kg extra on top of flight plan requirements. Where did I pick up that Ryanair could save €5m by sticking to the min requirements ? Water off a ducks back for the more senior members of Ryanair's flight crew to challenge on a daily basis. I am sure the 27 year old captain and his 22 year old co-pilot would be more keen to play ball with their employer if on zero hour contracts like the majority of its contracted staff, if that is true.

3 diverted Ryan Air flights into Valencia within 30 minutes requesting emergency landings due to low fuel is nothing sort of shocking!

Didn't we also have an Ryan Air incident 2 years ago where 2 pilots turned their radio off and flew a commercial airplane into military controlled airspace at Alicante without permission. Luckily the plane and its 174 passengers wasn't shot down.

I don't buy the conspiracy theory of green eyed monster ie protection of the badly performing Spanish airlines by the CIAIAC through highlighting another airlines' inadequacies. The CIAIAC must have a pain in their hole with such occurrences. Nobody wants planes dropping on their city.

As regards the claims of cockpit recordings being mysteriously deleted, well.

And the old anti union/non recognition/general disregard/veiled threats to its employees/PR driven arrogance has long made me think twice about flying with Ryanair.

EI-DOR

Looks like Ryanair is sueing channel 4 now. On Journal.ie!

Shamrock231

If they do they'll be brave to have everything out in the open in court.

christy c

EI-DOR wrote: »

Looks like Ryanair is sueing channel 4 now. On Journal.ie!

If you read the statement on the Ryanair website it says that it has "instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Channel 4"

basill

Didn't they do the same years ago when one of the UK tv companies had undercover cabin crew working in FR. Didn't hear if it actually made it to court. Same approach taken this time around though releasing all of the correspondence.

the beerhunter

Shamrock231 wrote: »

Isn't that exactly the point though, that they didn't fuel accordingly?

to be fair: they fueled for madrid, held, diverted to valencia, then found a new problem. discuss.

bmm

Shame on Michael O'Leary! He hides behind his own arrogance! The pilots need to stand-up to O'Leary . Don't be afraid of a bully ! Bullying is a dangerous thing in an Airline as you are dealing with people lives.:mad:

BrakePad

the beerhunter wrote: »

to be fair: they fueled for madrid, held, diverted to valencia, then found a new problem. discuss.

They fueled for Madrid, flew there, held there, diverted and used alternate fuel and then were down to reserves...that is how most airlines will fuel. One of the 3 was carrying extra fuel though as I remember reading the commander got up to date forecasts of the TS in the area.

Shamrock231

the beerhunter wrote: »

to be fair: they fueled for madrid, held, diverted to valencia, then found a new problem. discuss.

But that's it, they saw that there was a good chance that there'd be thunderstorms, they understood this meant there was a very real chance of diverting, they knew that if they were diverting, others likely were too.

I think the line in the program about what happens if other airlines started cutting back on extra fuel, where you now have a case of 10-12 airlines, the first 3 land, number 4 and 5 get to crash. It goes back to the speed limit on the motorway, you can plan to take fuel for the trip, 5% contingency and diversion fuel. You're legal. But if everyone does that, then all of a sudden you've got a massive problem. That's why if there's fog, high winds, CBs, heavy traffic etc, you take extra fuel. In the case of the 3 Ryanair Maydays, IIRC, 2 took on the extra 300kg (about 5 minutes, next to nothing) and the other took on 500kgs, about 13-14mins, still not that much.

They were all perfectly legal, but that's not the question, the question is, when they were leaving their departure airports and had the fuel ordered, at any point did their position on the fuel league cross their mind. If it didn't, then that's fine, bad luck, but if the fuel league crossed their mind when deciding how much fuel they wanted, then that's not acceptable IMO.

Shamrock231

IIRC Fuel is palnned as follows:

Taxi Fuel.
Trip Fuel including full departure and arrival procedures.
5% contingency.
30 Min final reserve.

Most the time there is an alternate also planned for.

Anything on top of that is considered "extra" fuel. Open to correction here.

That 5% can be used for anything from longer taxi than expected, to lower cruise altitude than planned for, to having to hold at the destination. But a 5% reserve on a 2 hour flight is only 6 minutes or about 1 round of the hold, not a lot.

BrakePad

Shamrock231 wrote: »

IIRC Fuel is palnned as follows:

Taxi Fuel.
Trip Fuel including full departure and arrival procedures.
5% contingency.
30 Min final reserve.

Most the time there is an alternate also planned for.

Anything on top of that is considered "extra" fuel. Open to correction here.

That 5% can be used for anything from longer taxi than expected, to lower cruise altitude than planned for, to having to hold at the destination. But a 5% reserve on a 2 hour flight is only 6 minutes or about 1 round of the hold, not a lot.

Taxi Fuel
Trip Fuel
Holding fuel(depends on airline...I think Ryanair is 30 mins)
Alternate fuel
Final Reserve
Contingency fuel

Contingency is 5% of trip fuel.

The problem is as a commercial pilot taking more fuel = more weight = more fuel needed

You regularly hear pilots ask ATC how long the delay for the hold will be...if the answer is longer than the holding fuel they have on board they divert so as to avoid a situation where they will run low. The issue with the 3 Ryanairs was Spanish ATCs mishandling of the whole affair meaning pilots got wrong info and were not informed of what was going on.

Shamrock231

Correct me if I'm wrong BrakePad, you'd know, but I was under the impression that "Holding Fuel" and "Extra Fuel" were the same thing, and not legally required, only the 5% contingency? Some airports like LHR though require holding fuel (20 mins comes to mind), but other than that it's just nice to have, but not needed?