Ryanair Strike implications re Cancellations NO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POSTS

markpb

vicwatson wrote: »

637,000.000 pilots needed in the next 20 years. O'Leary air's policy coming back to bite him in the ass.

You know when someone counts pilots to three decimal places, things are getting serious! **** just got real, yo!

Irish Steve

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Is this really the case though ? While O'Leary in his trademark style goes for tactless quips like 'glorified taxidrivers', fundamentally, is he not really correct ? ..........

Not really. There is no doubt that the routine operation of a modern jet is very much easier than it was 30 or 40 years ago, and before that even, the pilot did not actually know if they were going to be able to get to their destination in some cases, as the range of the early long haul aircraft was a lot less than it is now, and if the weather was bad, they were not going to be able to get there, and unlike a car, an aircraft can't just pull over on to the hard shoulder and wait for the weather to improve.

That's one of the reasons why long haul used to have a crew of 5, and now is down to a crew of 2, the workload back in that time needed a crew of 5, and they all had a significant job to do for the duration of the flight to try and ensure a successful arrival of the flight at the intended destination, and even short haul needed a larger crew than is now the case.

Now, while the workload at times is high, especially close to the airports, the modern automation has made the workload during the cruise a lot less, the pilots role then is very much that of a systems supervisor, rather than the prime operator, and the modern on board equipment is very much capable of predicting the estimated arrival time at the destination with an accuracy at times of single digits of minutes, even on a flight of 12 or 13 hours, and while diversions can and do still happen, the days of leaving Shannon and flying for 6 or 8 hours to then end up turning back to Shannon because there's not enough fuel to get to the destination are long gone, and the modern flight deck means that the crew know where they are with mind numbing accuracy throughout the flight.

But, and this is a very BIG but, and it's also at the core of the situation, where things are becoming very blurred and (to me) unacceptable, if some of that automation for some reason becomes a liability rather than a servant, that's the moment where all the "old" pilot skills are very much required, and unfortunately, a significant number of the modern pilots have not necessarily developed the skill set that gives them the ability to correctly analyse the problem and then successfully fly a seriously degraded or damaged aircraft.

That desperate scenario was played out a few years ago with the crash of the AF330 as a result of the lack of training and experience of the crew that were on the flight deck when things went bad.

The counter for the change in skill set has been the introduction and increasing dependence on rigid and increasingly complex "standard operating procedures", and while these are an aid, that is unfortunately all they are, the real answer is that the people responsible for getting the airframe from A to B reliably and regularly still need the skill set that allows them to be capable of safely flying a potentially degraded aircraft to a safe landing, and that skill set requires regular training to keep it current, and regular reviews of that ability, which is a significant cost in terms of simulator time and training resources.

The change in skills required have been latched on to by the bean counters (among others) and the result has been the race to the bottom that we've seen in the way pilots are trained, and remunerated, and the dilution of the skill set that is the norm for modern flying.

The other side of the coin is that the costs involved in getting to be a professional pilot are very high, and there is a very real risk of not being able to keep flying if there is any sort of medical issue that comes up, and a class 1 medical is a requirement very regularly, and failure can mean being grounded, and while there are some jobs in training that can be done without a valid medical, there's not many.

It used to be the case that the airlines paid the costs involved in training, but there was also a regular ready supply of ex military pilots that reduced the cost of training, but that source of experience is very much smaller than it used to be, and there is not the same respect within the airlines for military pilots that have spent most of their time flying single seat fast jets, as the commercial environment is very different, and requires a different mindset. That has resulted in a much higher cost to the airlines of getting the required number of pilots to operate their services, or, in some cases, their dependence on large numbers of people being sufficiently motivated to spend huge sums to achieve their dream.

Ryanair have led the race to the bottom, and for a long time, it has worked for them, albeit that there have been rumblings of discontent for a long time if you were listening in the right places. Now, with other parts of the world having massively increased their levels of activity, the balance between supply and demand for pilots has changed, and there is no longer a significant pool of unemployed pilots to fill the gaps, and while I have nothing to base this on, I suspect that some of the present problems at Ryanair are that they have lost a disproportionate number of line training captains, instructors, and senior captains, and possibly also ground training people, which has caused knock on problems with the orderly flow of people entering the system, and if you can't bring new people in at the bottom of the ladder, you can't move others up that same ladder, and there are all sorts of complex restrictions about how newly appointed first officers and newly appointed captains can operate together.

And before people jump on me from a great height, I am NOT saying that Ryanair are unprofessional, given the number of airframes they operate, and the number of sectors they fly on a regular basis, their safety record in terms of accidents is exemplary, and that doesn't happen without a very dedicated attention to detail by the people responsible for setting and maintaining the standards.

The media, especially in the UK, are going overboard on this, which is partly down to the bad reputation that Ryanair has developed over time by their attitude to so many issues, while there are some that would say there's no such thing as bad publicity, there comes a point where if you keep upsetting people, there will be an event where the reaction to the event is much stronger than it might otherwise have justified, and that would seem to be the case now, there have been many small and regular irritations, but this latest bump in the road seems to have been the tipping point for a hostile reaction, and the manner in which is was handled by Ryanair's management didn't help the situation any.

I'd like to hope that the result of this crisis will be an improvement in the conditions for the Ryanair operational crews, and a longer term move to a less confrontational attitude towards a group of people who are fundamental to the ongoing success of the airline.

At the same time, I'd like to hope that the attitude of the unions and other representative bodies will start to reflect the very significant changes that have happened to aviation, if they were to recognise that pilots are not the privileged elite that they once were it might help. Effectively, I guess what I'd like to see is for both sides to be more prepared to meet somewhere in the middle.

What is very certain is that while the media attention will fade soon, Ryanair have some very significant issues to resolve, and they are unlikely to be solved quickly. The reduction in flights when the winter schedule kicks in will help, but with the additional airframes that are due, there will be a repeat next summer unless the management at Ryanair take significant steps towards resolving their problems.

I'd also like to hope that people like the IAA have not been sitting on the sidelines and ignoring some of the comments that are being made, in the same way as speed limits on motorways are a limit not a target, the annual limit of 900 hours flying should also be a limit rather than a target, I'd like to see some changes to the rolling numbers to ensure that flight crew are not being pushed to the wrong side of fatigue by rosters that are too intense.

Mebuntu

I was enjoying this piece immensely until

Irish Steve wrote: »

Ryanair have led the race to the bottom

In reality, Ryanair have led the race to make air travel accessible to all - and they have done a fantastic job - unless, of course, you believe the ordinary decent hard worker represents "the bottom".

jimmycrackcorm

Mebuntu wrote:

They are obviously being egged on by outside influences who should keep their noses out of affairs that have nothing to do with them.

Is an attempt to turn Ryanair into the equivalent of Irish rail where the business is run for the benefit of the employees instead of the customers.

It's not as if pilots are on minimum wages and there is a projected worldwide shortage of pilots so they can simply go where the money is. Some are doing it already which is part of the problem but Ryanair can recruit more pilots. Unionization would only be a backward step.

duskyjoe

Brilliant reply by Irish Steve. Anyone looking in the window wondering what's going on, this is a must and balanced read.

Ps.....in the meantime another FR 737 is ons its way to DUB from Seattle......eta 15:30 it looks like.

plodder

I saw O'Leary's comment, and while I think he is basically correct, that's not going to help his situation. I'm no trade unionist, but he is actually making a strong case for pilots being unionised. Unions make the most sense in situations where everyone is doing basically the same job, and acting collectively is vastly more in their interests rather than being picked off and individual played off against individual. If he wants to avoid his pilots becoming unionised then he shouldn't really be inflaming the situation in that way.

Irish Steve

Mebuntu wrote: »

I was enjoying this piece immensely until



In reality, Ryanair have led the race to make air travel accessible to all - and they have done a fantastic job - unless, of course, you believe the ordinary decent hard worker represents "the bottom".

Indeed, I've no argument or issue with the massive change that has happened as a result of Ryanair (and others) being able to massively reduce the cost of travel, my concern is that some aspects of achieving that result has seen an erosion of some of the standards that were considered a fundamental part of flight safety, and because the reliability of modern aircraft is so much better than the older aircraft, there are fewer major problems that lead to accidents or worse.

The negative changes are not down to Ryanair alone, ALL the carriers that are involved in aviation have been a part of the changes, with the regulators also being a contributor as well.

I don't want to get into arguments about the validity or otherwise of not providing drinks to the flight deck at no cost, some of those sorts of cost cuts are debatable, given that the crew can't just get up and leave the flight deck to make a quick coffee or whatever, and in the overall scale of things, they are insignificant.

I'd be more concerned about the aviation equivalent of zero hours contracts that are being used to push some people down the road of "self employment", as that can seriously erode the real terms and conditions that the employee then ends up working under, and erode their long terms security of employment and job security. Some aspects of that are down to national governments and their treatment of the self employed, and in that respect Ireland does not have a good track record, the discrimination between "employed" and "self employed" where state benefits and other services are concerned is massive, but because politicians are not "self employed" for things like pensions or other state benefits, it's not on their radar as a social issue.

We're in danger of going off topic here, but these are definitely issues that are high on the agenda of Ryanair's flight crews, as there is no doubt that the Ryanair management have been very astute at using any route to legal cost reductions, even where such reductions are seen on a wider level as socially and morally questionable.

Wanderer78

Irish Steve wrote:

Indeed, I've no argument or issue with the massive change that has happened as a result of Ryanair (and others) being able to massively reduce the cost of travel, my concern is that some aspects of achieving that result has seen an erosion of some of the standards that were considered a fundamental part of flight safety, and because the reliability of modern aircraft is so much better than the older aircraft, there are fewer major problems that lead to accidents or worse.

You 've been able to explain my concerns in a more coherent way, which wouldn't be hard. I'm deeply concerned about this whole industries approach to safety and the overall security of employees, I'm amazed at how little accidents we 've had regards these matters. It shows the level of professionalism and concern employees have had to date, and I wish them the very best in this dispute, they deserve better

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

You 've been able to explain my concerns in a more coherent way, which wouldn't be hard. I'm deeply concerned about this whole industries approach to safety and the overall security of employees, I'm amazed at how little accidents we 've had regards these matters. It shows the level of professionalism and concern employees have had to date, and I wish them the very best in this dispute, they deserve better

Yep.

At the most basic level, and as a passenger, I'd like my pilot to be wide awake and on good terms with his or her employer every time they take the controls. If I have to pay an extra tenner every time I fly that's fine by me.

The free market fundamentalists would do well to acknowledge that this isn't deliveroo and there's more than a cold pad thai at stake.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

The free market fundamentalists would do well to acknowledge that this isn't deliveroo and there's more than a cold pad thai at stake.

I personally think the free for-all market ideology is slowly collapsing and it won't be pretty for us all when it ultimately does, but I guess that's a conversation for another thread

grogi

Wanderer78 wrote: »

I personally think the free for-all market ideology is slowly collapsing and it won't be pretty for us all when it ultimately does, but I guess that's a conversation for another thread

It starts to in some areas. It really isn't sustainable, we have witnessed that in the past...

There is some middle ground between a bloodsucking capitalism and communism where the advantages of prosperity are distributed between all contributors, not only capital holders.

plodder

Personally, I'm into free markets, but what I don't like is companies flouting employment law. I honestly can't understand how Ryanair has gotten away with treating its employees as contractors. Certainly, in other sectors, tax authorities in many countries have clamped down pretty hard on it (including here).

Wanderer78

plodder wrote: »

Personally, I'm into free markets, but what I don't like is companies flouting employment law. I honestly can't understand how Ryanair has gotten away with treating its employees as contractors. Certainly, in other sectors, tax authorities in many countries have clamped down pretty hard on it (including here).

unfortunately it is a major flaw of this ideology, even though it provides us with many great things, its 'baggage', in this case, 'increasing worker insecurity' and 'light touch regulation' etc are now becoming major issues. its time for us to address these

Henry Ford III

I know a few people who are contractors by choice. Works both ways.

jimmycrackcorm

Wanderer78 wrote:

You 've been able to explain my concerns in a more coherent way, which wouldn't be hard. I'm deeply concerned about this whole industries approach to safety and the overall security of employees, I'm amazed at how little accidents we 've had regards these matters. It shows the level of professionalism and concern employees have had to date, and I wish them the very best in this dispute, they deserve better

We have few aircraft accidents because of the level and strict operation of flight regulations. Ryanairs employment policies operate under these same regulations so no bearing on safety.

Deleted User wrote:

At the most basic level, and as a passenger, I'd like my pilot to be wide awake and on good terms with his or her employer every time they take the controls. If I have to pay an extra tenner every time I fly that's fine by me.

You can choose to pay more to fly with another airline of it makes you feel safer.

plodder wrote:

Personally, I'm into free markets, but what I don't like is companies flouting employment law. I honestly can't understand how Ryanair has gotten away with treating its employees as contractors. Certainly, in other sectors, tax authorities in many countries have clamped down pretty hard on it (including here).

They're employed by an agency who supplies pilots. If you follow your argument into other areas then we shouldn't have agency nursing for hospitals either.

trellheim

Ryanair's business model depends on them employing pilot contractors.

All the above said - didn't EI have problems, for example, getting 330 captains this year ?

Just pointing out how close to the bone airlines run to make the shareholder numbers.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I know a few people who are contractors by choice. Works both ways.

Highlighted the relevant part... Some do contract work, because the insecure nature of it pays way better money.

Forcing a B2B relationship with effectively employees is benefiting only one party - the service receiver.

Wanderer78

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

We have few aircraft accidents because of the level and strict operation of flight regulations. Ryanairs employment policies operate under these same regulations so no bearing on safety.

thankfully regulations are still in tacked or this would be a whole different story, but this ideology advocates for their reduction even eradication whenever possible. its one of its major faults, amongst others that have been discussed. i do believe safety breaches do and will occur because of these issues. ive actually worked in the aerospace industry for a while(manufacturing), ive witnessed some questionable decisions on safety grounds, this is purely for 'profit maximisation', which we are being lead to believe is good for all. this is untrue, as this ideology only truly benefits the minority, particularly financially, at the lose to the majority.

CelticRambler

plodder wrote: »

Personally, I'm into free markets, but what I don't like is companies flouting employment law. I honestly can't understand how Ryanair has gotten away with treating its employees as contractors. Certainly, in other sectors, tax authorities in many countries have clamped down pretty hard on it (including here).

I'm a contractor, not for an airline but in a different "life-and-death" situation, and the safety of those lives I have in my hands is entirely dependent on my professionalism, not some anonymous regulator who hasn't the faintest idea where I am or what I'm doing.

This year, I've had the opportunity to work alongside colleagues who are "proper" employees with proper contracts. Most of them are working at the limit of safety, for themselves and their duties, and many have said they're going to consider changing to a "contractor" status having heard how much more relaxing it is to have an in-demand skill and the freedom to decide when to work and when to rest.

Henry Ford III

trellheim wrote: »

Ryanair's business model depends on them employing pilot contractors....

I think that's quite a stretch tbh. What advantages (other than PRSI) does having pilot contractors give?

Ryanair is a pretty amazing success story and their cash mountain wasn't earned solely through a social insurance dodge.

Wanderer78

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think that's quite a stretch tbh. What advantages (other than PRSI) does having pilot contractors give?

Ryanair is a pretty amazing success story and their cash mountain wasn't earned solely through a social insurance dodge.

does the majority in society benefit for this 'cash mountain'?

Henry Ford III

grogi wrote: »

Highlighted the relevant part... Some do contract work, because the insecure nature of it pays way better money.

Forcing a B2B relationship with effectively employees is benefiting only one party - the service receiver.

Forcing? Nah. The pilots are offered the flying hours, and decide to accept that offer. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I think that's quite a stretch tbh. What advantages (other than PRSI) does having pilot contractors give?

Ryanair is a pretty amazing success story and their cash mountain wasn't earned solely through a social insurance dodge.

Lack of employee contract allows them to apply a "don't want to fly from Barcelona this week? - you're fired" type of pressure.

Henry Ford III

Wanderer78 wrote: »

does the majority in society benefit for this 'cash mountain'?

Ryanair is a PLC. Owned by shareholders. Worth remembering.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Forcing? Nah. The pilots are offered the flying hours, and decide to accept that offer. Nobody is being forced to do anything.

Yes, they are. Indirectly, but they are. On one hand they have families, mortgages and bills, and on the other hand alternative from accepting exploiter offer or not paying those bills.

It is a modern age slavery really. Employee rights were introduced for a reason.

Henry Ford III

grogi wrote: »

Lack of employee contract allows them to apply a "don't want to fly from Barcelona this week? - you're fired" type of pressure.

Wouldn't that apply regardless of status?

Henry Ford III

grogi wrote: »

Yes, they are. Indirectly, but they are. On one hand they have families, mortgages and bills, and on the other hand alternative from accepting exploiter offer or not paying those bills.

It is a modern age slavery really. Employee rights were introduced for a reason.

They can work for another airline if they wish.

Slavery my bum.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Wouldn't that apply regardless of status?

No, it wouldn't.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

They can work for another airline if they wish.

When an opportunity arises, many of them did.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Slavery my bum.

I wish you never ended up in this situation.

plodder

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

They're employed by an agency who supplies pilots. If you follow your argument into other areas then we shouldn't have agency nursing for hospitals either.

Absolutely not. The majority of nurses are employees and agency staff are employed on demand to fill stop gaps, which is how it should be done. That agency wheeze is an absurd contrivance.

I've no doubt that being a contractor suits some people, and maybe that's where unionisation with its one size fits all formulas breaks down, but afaik, it does seem to be an issue here. It would be interesting to hear inside stories from actual Ryanair contractors.