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

Shamrock231

Yeh, looks like he was retireing at the end of the year. Still though, I'd feel bad for him being fired because he felt the need to publicly voice his safety concerns. You can bet it wasn't because he was on a brookfield contract, or anything like that, apparently he was the longest serving pilot there.

Roblestone

John Goss, the captain that spoke out while not hiding his identity has been sacked. An absolute disgrace and what message does it send to others? When Whistle blowers are being sacked it is a sad day.

Shamrock231

Ryanair: "We have an open culture where all pilots are encouraged to report their concerns to the relevant authorities without fear of repercussion. Wait what? You reported a safety concern??? Get out of here, you're fired, and we'll see you in court!"

Nonoperational

Why didn't he report it using the proper channels?

Has anyone, ever, come even close to demonstrating any wrongdoing with respect to Ryanair's fuel policy? Bloody witch hunt is getting tiresome.

Shamrock231

He did use the regular channels, but nothing changed, hence he went to the media.

dubdaymo

Shamrock231 wrote: »

He did use the regular channels, but nothing changed, hence he went to the media.

I realise that you have no love for FR but have you even considered the possibility that nothing changed because nothing needed to be?

Making statements against an employer as serious as these plus an added assertion that Ryanair pilots have no faith in the regulatory authorities is pretty heavy stuff and you'd need some good factual evidence to back it up. I didn't see any. If there is I would like to see it as I do fly FR among other airlines.

Moreover, I think you might be less than pleased if a group of pilots from other airlines including FR set up the Aer Lingus Pilots' Group. I suspect you'd be fuming.

Shamrock231

I don't have no love for them, I admire lots of things about them, in fact the only thing I don't like about them is the way they treat their staff, most other things I think they're great at.

I think taking a balanced look at the situation, when someone feels tired, and thinks about calling in fatigued, the thought process going through their mind shouldn't be whether if they miss a day if they'll be able to pay the mortgage, or put petrol in the car etc, but whether they feel fit or not to fly. I think there's an added layer of pressure put on them due to the way they're employed, but it's not illegal, so the regulator can't do anything.

I think they're fuel policy is fine wrt writing an explanation if they take more than 100kg over the plan, but I don't think comparing pilots to each other on league tables is safe as it creates an added lay of pressure. When deciding whether to take more fuel or to chance it, the factors that should cross their mind shouldn't include a position on a league table. But a league table is not illegal so the regulator can't do anything.

That'd be why I'd have concerns about it, clearly these issues have been raised over the years but they still remain the same, all this time later.

basill

Don't be fooled by what was edited and shown for public consumption on telly by C4. I am sure it was designed to be sensationalist and make a point to the masses who are largely uneducated in aviation matters and require spoonfeeding.

For someone like Captain Goss to appear on tv and not hide their identity would indicate either:-

- they are very foolish given the litigious nature of their employer
- they have evidence to back up their assertions

You can be the judge as to which category Captain Goss falls under but remember he has been here before with FR.

Red Nissan

strettyend wrote: »

just wondering will Ryanair now be known as " the low fuel airline?

Low Fuel Airlines.

We may or we may not get you there, that's the thrill of flying LowFuelAir.

Tropheus

Red Nissan wrote: »

Low Fuel Airlines.

We may or we may not get you there, that's the thrill of flying LowFuelAir.

However, their record speaks for itself that they've always got people there and the regulators back them up.

This story makes very little sense.

STB

Tropheus wrote: »

However, their record speaks for itself that they've always got people there and the regulators back them up.

This story makes very little sense.

That may be so.

The question still remains that given there were 3 incidents of Ryan Air flights demanding immediate landing clearance via Mayday within 30 minutes, how and why their flight recordings were not preserved given it is in RyanAir's own handbook that they are preserved when Maydays are called in ?

One might be of the view that the IAA would also be reminded that RyanAir are an Irish Company that provide x number of jobs in the country and that any form of public chastising would not be in the interests of the said Company's business interests and more importantly the jobs that are associated with it. It could be said that the CIAIAC might not have that political pressure and would be focussed solely on safety concerns. Is there safety concerns that we need to know about flying in general that are hidden from the general public anyway ? It is a means of travel were the least said that affects public fear is best, right ?

Regarding Captain Goss, at face value I say fair play to the man for standing his ground. If he was so close to retirement he would strike me as a man of principle. Taking such a decision must have been not without stress. Surely being fired has monetary/pension consequences, nevermind the public attention ?

I am quite surprised that Captain Goss has been "sacked" as is being widely reported in the media given that there seem to have been promised offerings of legally binding undertakings that [any "RyanAir pilots] would suffer no recrimination nor adverse consequences as a result of appearing on the programme, given that RyanAir were so sure that the claims being put forward were false and that no actual RyanAir pilots existed ? Perhaps I picked that up wrong or that this offer must have been taken up prior to agreeing to go on the programme. Either way it does not look well to me that they have fired a man short of his retirement given same and that the pilot would open themselves to legal proceedings having answered pointed questions.

LeftBase

STB wrote: »

I am quite surprised that Captain Goss has been "sacked" as is being widely reported in the media given that there seem to have been a promised offerings of legally binding undertakings that [any "RyanAir pilots] would suffer no recrimination nor adverse consequences as a result of appearing on the programme, given that RyanAir were sure that the claims being put forward were false. Perhaps I picked that up wrong or that this offer must have been taken up prior to agreeing to go on the programme. Either way it does not look well to me that they have fired a man short of his retirement given same.

Goss and Ryanair were always at odds. His appearance was a final 2 fingers up to them before he retired.

CIAIAC are puppets of the Spanish Govt who are sickened by the fact Ryanair dominate their market now, having seen Iberia and Spanair off. They have never taken the time to have a look at the conduct of Spanish ATC and how they contributed to the fuel emergencies(remember the FR flights were not the only ones). The conduct of Spanish ATC should also be under the spot light given the way they treat non-native traffic.

STB

LeftBase wrote: »

Goss and Ryanair were always at odds. His appearance was a final 2 fingers up to them before he retired.

CIAIAC are puppets of the Spanish Govt who are sickened by the fact Ryanair dominate their market now, having seen Iberia and Spanair off. They have never taken the time to have a look at the conduct of Spanish ATC and how they contributed to the fuel emergencies(remember the FR flights were not the only ones). The conduct of Spanish ATC should also be under the spot light given the way they treat non-native traffic.

Goss did come across quite relaxed with the questions.

I hear what your saying about past crossings, but it does seem a quite extreme way of giving the 2 fingers to a company you have served so much time with.

Was the Spanish Aviation Authority's investigation into the Spanish ATC's handling of diversions and the subsequent gridlock at Valencia ever published ?

One final question for the pilots. From reading between the lines are Mayday calls a mechanism used by non Spanish Airlines to stop the supposed preferential landing treatment given to Local/National carriers ? Is this used worldwide in other jurisdictions ? It would seem a quite haphazard way of any country ATC's to operate.

urajoke

This is the general problem right here with aviation, 99% of people have little or no idea of how it actually works. Aviation is very very complex, ask most lay people how much fuel should you carry and they will equate it to their car i.e fill it up till it can't take no more even for a trip to the shop down the road.

ALL airlines want to reduce the amount of fuel used as it costs a lot of money it also cost a lot of money to fly that fuel around and it's wasted money as far as they are concerned if that fuel is carried and not burned.

Internationally the minimum fuelling laws are set and they have been described here. In 99.99% of cases it's more than enough. Yes sometime the unpredicted does happen and you run up against unplanned events. A case in point is a very recent Virgin OZ incident in OZ where one of their 738's landed on fumes after an unplanned diversion to an airfield with unexpected poor weather www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx they landed below minimums with no fuel for a go around. Have a read.

Would people have bitched this much if it had of been 3 Aer Lingus or BA aircraft caught somewhat short of fuel. Another reminder only one of the three ended below the legal minimum and that's after flying from central Spain to the Med coast and getting extra miles enroute.

Considering the Spanish authorities were after Ryanairs blood at the time and demanded to fully investigate their operation which the IAA allowed them do which they didn't have to, the Spanish found NOTHING wrong whatsoever with Ryanairs fuel policy. This is someone who had a massive grudge against Ryanair and after being shown everything they could find nothing wrong. That for me says a lot.

I'll say it again I don't agree with the fuel league and the reasoning behind it. But the media witch hunt against Ryanair is becoming laughable. Whatever about their poor customer service they know it would be suicidal to not be 100% compliant with every safety requirement. In fact I will wager they are better than most 'legacy' carriers.

notharrypotter

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/IAA+report+recommends+Ryanair+should+review+fuel+policy/id/19410615-5218-505a-eec8-890822540969

So Ryanair have a perfect fuel policy?

Growler!!!

notharrypotter wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/News/IAA+report+recommends+Ryanair+should+review+fuel+policy/id/19410615-5218-505a-eec8-890822540969

So Ryanair have a perfect fuel policy?

Who said they had a perfect fuel policy? They have the same fuel policy as every other airline operating under the EASA umbrella.

Did you actually read the article you linked to our just see the headline!

Growler!!!

https://www.iaa.ie/news.jsp?i=419&gc=99&p=106&n=124&date_from=1998-01-01&date_to=2100-01-01

Above is factual link to the IAA statement released in response to the program.

Especially interesting is the following:

11.Ryanair had all mitigations in place at Valencia and the fact that all three aircraft safely landed after significant additional diversion and flight time shows that the system worked in full. The EASA regulations governing fuel are strict and provides a significant safety buffer on all flights. In addition to this, as outlined above, Captains may take on additional fuel and often do so if they anticipate additional holding etc.

12.The IAA and Spanish investigation found that all three Ryanair aircraft carried additional fuel to that required on the flight plan and were correct to divert away from Madrid, declare a Mayday and land. It is worth pointing out that an A340 aircraft from another airline landing on the same day, operating in the same conditions, had an engine failure due to fuel starvation. Evidence on Ryanair flights shows that taking on additional fuel over and above the flight requirements/diversionary requirements, etc., is a common choice by Captains.

MoeJay

urajoke, let's not descend into a witch hunt then, because many of the points you raise are valid and I can see where you are coming from. I think it's a good idea to talk about culture.

A CEO of an operator makes a statement in international media saying that if pilots do one thing outside of company time, unrelated to the operation of company aircraft, they are liable for dismissal. The chief pilot of the operator does not issue any statement to the contrary - not even one to say "our CEO was merely drumming up PR for the airline and the content of his statement was frivolous". Therefore he agrees with the original statement. Is there something wrong with the policy, or does it reflect a culture within that organisation?

The skies have no doubt become a lot more aggressive in the last number of years. The intense commercial competition that airlines experience on the ground has bled into the operational end of things. Hence we get multiple, repeated requests for direct routings, we get flight plans filed at one flight level to avoid ATC restrictions only to seek to fly a completely different flight profile once airborne, we get fuel policies. We get repeated reminders about the singular importance of on time performance. We end up with pilots flying around at speeds which in the real world don't work. Aer Lingus many moons ago introduced a 266kt descent speed on the 737 (for fuel efficiency), quite simply it didn't work in many of the airports they operated into and hence it got dropped.

What's wrong with any of those things? The question to ask, I believe, is at what stage in the airline industry must the commercial imperative be set aside and the safe operational imperative take over?

For example, a pilot works on a contract whereby he only gets paid when he's in the air. He knows he has to work like hell in the summer because it is a great deal quieter in the winter. Should that pilot be put in a position whereby the basis of his working arrangement with his employer impinges on his operational decision making?

Dead easy you might say, but if the wage level is such that the pilot makes stark personal choices in relation to it (e.g. must work hard this month so I can pay mortgages, loans, kids, food etc in the winter) does the line become blurred?

If his employer publishes a "league table" in relation to any of the commercial aspects of the operation which ranks pilots and is displayed publicly to their peers, of what benefit is it to an individual pilot, presuming they themselves operate to all legal and company policies?

If a pilot is under a "tight" fuel regime, a "tight" on time performance policy and sees an opportunity to save time enroute (perhaps having departed late) and save some on the fuel uplift for the next sector and then has an EGPWS event whilst attempting to do so, what's the real cause of the event?

Captains shouldn't feel unnecessarily under pressure but if the position is being driven down by employers and public alike, aren't they only human? Is that a policy, or is it culture?

tigershould

Shamrock231 wrote: »

He did use the regular channels, but nothing changed, hence he went to the media.

.
Isn't he supposed to report via ryanairs internal safety reporting or via the IAA 'confidential' reporting channel by law?

Maybe i misuderstodd but the IAA say "A pilot MUST report certain safety events by European law."

It appears he didnt report any safety issues during his time at Ryanair and when asked he wrote to them and said he had no concerns with Ryanair's safety. He then goes on tv and says hte opposite.

notharrypotter

2012 report
http://www.ryanair.com/doc/news/2012/iaa_report_valencia_EN.pdf


Bottom of page 5.

Recommendations is a polite war that the regulator uses to tell someone to do something while allowing the other party to save face.

We saw where a blinkered "Green Jersey" attitude got us in the banking crisis.

Bodan

I found the fuel league tables and the employment contract of Ryanairs pilots the most worrying part of the investigation. Why are Ryanair afraid of unions so much? They constantly go on about how great their work conditions are.

tricky D

STB wrote: »

One might be of the view that the IAA would also be reminded that RyanAir are an Irish Company that provide x number of jobs in the country and that any form of public chastising would not be in the interests of the said Company's business interests and more importantly the jobs that are associated with it. It could be said that the CIAIAC might not have that political pressure and would be focussed solely on safety concerns. Is there safety concerns that we need to know about flying in general that are hidden from the general public anyway ? It is a means of travel were the least said that affects public fear is best, right ?

The exact opposite is a much more accurate view. The IAA is far more concerned about safety than jobs, after all poor safety threatens jobs. The notion that the spanish authorities smell of roses in this is frankly absurd. There is huge resentment over the consequences of low cost operators slashing the spanish operators' market share and pure spin about them bringing in the 'wrong kinds' of tourists. Their ATC are notorious for favouring spanish airlines which was evident on the day in question, giving ATC instructions in spanish to spanish operators which is simply dangerous considering the language of commercial ATC is english and sending the non-spanish on long vectors. This is where the focus of 'least said' should be, after all nothing was said about the spanish aspects of the incidents and every thing was about RY.

Lastly, the notion that RY are brazen with fuel is also plain untrue. They, like every other operator, are regulated in this matter with the appropriate safety factors. All operators try to economise their fuel costs as it is around a third of the operating costs. The impression that there is a problem particular to RY in this is just tosh. As my mother said the other day after having watched the documentary, 'what a load of rubbish, you should have heard the rows over fuel back 50 years ago when I was a dispatcher for TWA in Shannon.'

Hatchet job from start to finish.

View Profile

If the IAA are so conscious of safety then why ignore the concerns of 1,000 professional airline pilots?

AlekSmart

View Profile wrote: »

If the IAA are so conscious of safety then why ignore the concerns of 1,000 professional airline pilots?

I'm not certain that the IAA are ignoring anything in this respect,as their reporting channels remain open to any such concerned Pilots.

Having held Channel 4's Despatches in generally high regard,I was really disappointed and concerned at this programme.

It simply did'nt have enough factual basis to accuse RY of anything that reeked of Corporate Irresponsibility.

For example,even as it was airing,I was asking the question about the LAN-Chile aircraft referrred to,en-passant almost,in the programme,yet this particular flight was the ONLY one in which ACTUAL,and potentially fatal,damage was incurred to the A/C.

At the very least,Despatches should have had a LAN-Chile representative,or one of it's Pilots,on the programme to explain their Fuelling policy ?

Ryanair is quite obviously a stand-apart entity,not alone in avation,but in it's singular, and at times dubious,approach to almost every commercial issue.

I disagree with much of its ethos in these things,but Despatches failed to convince me that Ryanairs Fuel Policy presents me,as a customer,with any cause for increased concern.

Delta Kilo

To add more sauce to this topic, final report released about an Aer Lingus fuel incident in Barcelona. Blame apportioned to how ATC were handling traffic.

The tower’s initial decision to maintain the configuration made it impossible for the aircraft to land at its destination airport.

The supervisor’s decision was prompted by the poorly written text of the applicable procedure and could have been influenced by the ACC controllers’ failure to adhere to the memorandum of understanding, the increased workload, communications and work hours.

The prolonged wait, probably exacerbated by the expectations raised in the crews by approach control that the runway would be changed, resulted in decreased fuel margins which, along with the improper handling of the information regarding the alternate airport, made it impossible to deviate to another airport, forcing the crew to make an urgency declaration that would eventually enable them to land at the destination airport.

http://avherald.com/h?article=44df086f/0000&opt=4096

whitebriar

Hatchet job is right.
Had a choice between,BA,EI or Fr in choosing a flight last week.

Fr were 100 euro cheaper,so I chose them,hand luggage only.
End of.
The agitators are just jealous.
The route to success is to continue to allow pax to do what I did.
O'Leary thankfully is too clever for them.

L1011

whitebriar wrote: »

Had a choice between,BA,EI or Fr in choosing a flight last week.

Which route do all three of them fly on, then?

christy c

MYOB wrote: »

Which route do all three of them fly on, then?

He's obviously talking about London, he didn't say the same airport, just that he had a choice

Shamrock231

So EI and BA are able to charge at least €100 more than FR for a seat on one of their planes? That says something, I wonder if FR are struggling on the route, there was mentioned that there was too much capacity on the DUB-LON market a month or two back, maybe FR is feeling the blunt of this?

MuffinsDa

christy c wrote: »

He's obviously talking about London, he didn't say the same airport, just that he had a choice

Had a choice between having dinner in Shanahan's on the Green or McDonald's on Grafton Street last night.

McDonald's was 100 cheaper, so I chose them, burgers only.
End of.

The agitators are just jealous.
The route to success is to continue to allow diners to do what I did.
Don Thompson thankfully is too clever for them.

christy c

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Had a choice between having dinner in Shanahan's on the Green or McDonald's on Grafton Street last night.

McDonald's was 100 cheaper, so I chose them, burgers only.
End of.

The agitators are just jealous.
The route to success is to continue to allow diners to do what I did.
Don Thompson thankfully is too clever for them.

Good for you.

Lets turn this in to the usual pro/anti Ryanair debate.

Technoprisoner

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Had a choice between having dinner in Shanahan's on the Green or McDonald's on Grafton Street last night.

McDonald's was 100 cheaper, so I chose them, burgers only.
End of.

The agitators are just jealous.
The route to success is to continue to allow diners to do what I did.
Don Thompson thankfully is too clever for them.

he still got to where he wanted for 100 euro cheaper

Shamrock231

Here's a post of mine from another thread, sums up EI vs. FR in my mind.

Some people value different things, be it flying to a more central airport, cheaper checkin bags, the personal item in addition to your hand luggage, and they're willing to pay for that.

It's like a car, a ten year old well maintained, VW Polo, does the exact same job as a brand new Audi/VW Passat/BMW etc, but they cost more, some people like having a newer car and the little extra things that might go with it (AC, Heated seats, cup holder?), some just want to get from A-B as cheaply as possible, and don't mind as they only spend 30 minutes driving every day and would rather spend the money they save on a new TV or something.

Different people have different preferences, and will pay for them. Doesn't make them a fool. The fact EI can on some routes charge a premium over FR shows that people are willing to pay that little extra for the small differences, the fact FR has such large pax numbers show that many would rather spend the money at their destinations or elsewhere and don't mind the seat not pitching or constant sales PAs seeing as they'll have some extra left in their pockets.

Their money, they can spend it as they like.

MuffinsDa

Technoprisoner wrote: »

he still got to where he wanted for 100 euro cheaper

Yep I still got to eat what I "wanted" to cheaper.

Anyway, regardless of culinary preferences, the question MYOB posted is still valid:

"Which route do all three of them fly on, then?"

"London" is not a valid answer.

Technoprisoner

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Yep I still got to eat what I "wanted" to cheaper.

Anyway, regardless of culinary preferences, the question MYOB posted is still valid:

"Which route do all three of them fly on, then?"

"London" is not a valid answer.

still pointless argument...if you can fly to stansted for 100 euro cheaper, the train ticket for the rest of the journey wont cost you 100 euro...when you fly to heathrow or luton how do you get to your final destination ?

MuffinsDa

Technoprisoner wrote: »

still pointless argument...if you can fly to stansted for 100 euro cheaper, the train ticket for the rest of the journey wont cost you 100 euro...when you fly to heathrow or luton how do you get to your final destination ?

Not if my time (or my employers time) is worth more than 100 euros. Or the comfort of my children.

FWIW, the last 7 times I've flown to London I've used LCY (aside from when transitting via LHR). Well worth the extra to me (although at times it wasn't even more expensive). But when I was single and had plenty of time I flew FR to Stansted, and that suited me to. Horses for courses, is what I'm trying to say.

Again: "LONDON" is not a valid answer to that question, let's not muddy the water here with irrelevant questions.

christy c

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Yep I still got to eat what I "wanted" to cheaper.

Anyway, regardless of culinary preferences, the question MYOB posted is still valid:

"Which route do all three of them fly on, then?"

"London" is not a valid answer.

I don't think it is valid, they are offering a different product which satisfys the same need. Flying to Stanstead and train to central London is "the same" as a flight to heathrow and then the tube. One may not be as fancy as the other but it'll do the trick.

Much like you and the restaurant, if you just want your hunger to go away and don't care about anything else, McD's is "the same" as the restauraunt

MuffinsDa

christy c wrote: »

I don't think it is valid, they are offering a different product which satisfys the same need. Flying to Stanstead and train to central London is "the same" as a flight to heathrow and then the tube.

No it doesn't satisfy the same need, as evident from the decisions of millions of people that benefit from the choice. Read Shamrock's post a few posts above and my post above.

christy c wrote: »

Flying to Stanstead and train to central London is "the same" as a flight to heathrow and then the tube.

It might be "the same" for you, it's certainly not the same for me nowadays (it used to be). Each to their own.

donkey balls

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Yep I still got to eat what I "wanted" to cheaper.

Anyway, regardless of culinary preferences, the question MYOB posted is still valid:

"Which route do all three of them fly on, then?"

"London" is not a valid answer.

BA EI and FR from memory fly out of LGW to DUB, as for flight prices I'm looking to book somewhere sunny for September/October the difference in price between EI & FR is only €4/5 per pax,Also I prefer to walk to the plane and not be lining up on the 100s waiting for the FR ramp people to let the people run to the plane.

L1011

BA have not done DUB-LGW for a very long time.

MuffinsDa

donkey balls wrote: »

Also I prefer to walk to the plane and not be lining up on the 100s waiting for the FR ramp people to let the people run to the plane.

So do I. But some people don't mind that, and that's fine too. It's all about choice! But the problem is that people get confused between having the choice (i.e. promoting and encouraging competition) and supporting O'Leary's efforts at dominating the market (which is the exact opposite of what they are essentially advocating).

donkey balls

Well I don't know of any other route that the three airlines operate/compete on in to Dublin.

christy c

MuffinsDa wrote: »

No it doesn't satisfy the same need, as evident from the decisions of millions of people that benefit from the choice. Read Shamrock's post a few posts above and my post above.



It might be "the same" for you, it's certainly not the same for me nowadays (it used to be). Each to their own.

That's why I put "the same" in inverted commas i.e. not the same but close.

I think the guy that saved €100 saved it because he had choice, not because FR and EI are offering the same product. That's why I think MYOB's question wasn't valid in this case, but it is valid in other arguments.

Shamrock231

There's no route they all directly compete on in the world, the London Market is a Market they all directly compete to serve.

MuffinsDa

christy c wrote: »

That's why I put "the same" in inverted commas i.e. not the same but close.

Depends on your definition of close......

christy c

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Depends on your definition of close......

140km!!!

We'll leave it at that or else we'll be here all night

goingnowhere

MYOB wrote: »

BA have not done DUB-LGW for a very long time.

But all EI flights DUB-LGW and DUB-LHR are code shared with BA and thus bookable through BA and the fares are likely to be different

MuffinsDa

goingnowhere wrote: »

But all EI flights DUB-LGW and DUB-LHR are code shared with BA and thus bookable through BA and the fares are likely to be different

Nope, you can't.
So... still a lie!

Technoprisoner

MuffinsDa wrote: »

Not if my time (or my employers time) is worth more than 100 euros. Or the comfort of my children.

FWIW, the last 7 times I've flown to London I've used LCY (aside from when transitting via LHR). Well worth the extra to me (although at times it wasn't even more expensive). But when I was single and had plenty of time I flew FR to Stansted, and that suited me to. Horses for courses, is what I'm trying to say.

Again: "LONDON" is not a valid answer to that question, let's not muddy the water here with irrelevant questions.

do you conduct your work in lcy?

whitebriar

Ei do codeshare with Ba at lgw but only on connecting itineraries eg dub-lgw-mco