Ryanair Strike implications re Cancellations NO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POSTS

devnull

Peter Flynt wrote: »

And who has O'Leary sacked for the current ongoing debacle?

Seems he has no problems calling for others to be sacked for gross incompetence but has real difficulties in applying this to himself and senior management at Ryanair.

As regards sacking a pilot for telling the truth. . . Well that wouldn't surprise me.

He made certain claims about the safety of Ryanair.

He was fired for gross misconduct and his appeal for unfair dismissal failed.

KCAccidental

The pilot in the radio interview probably has something lined up already and is throwing a goodbye grenade through the door.

pilly

I'd say MOL was delighted to hear about Monarch yesterday or maybe even knew it was coming down the line so he can pick up some pilots.

LXFlyer

pilly wrote: »

I'd say MOL was delighted to hear about Monarch yesterday or maybe even knew it was coming down the line so he can pick up some pilots.

Not necessarily - The Monarch fleet was mainly an Airbus fleet. Hence the pilots would be of far greater interest to the likes of Aer Lingus or EasyJet (who are recruiting them as we speak), as they would be "type rated" for their aircraft and wouldn't require expensive training on the Boeing 737.

Mebuntu

Ryanair has been rightly pilloried for its recent self-imposed woes affecting so many thousands of passengers but the anti-Ryanair bias by the Authorities is really staggering.

The UK CAA were determined to "get them" and this included publicly forcing them to set out on their website clearly and definitively what their passengers are entitled to - by 5pm. Fair enough but no other airline was asked to do so.

They also criticised Ryanair for operating a limitation on fares where passengers had to be booked on another airline. You could be talking about £200 versus £19.99. At least one other prominent UK airline still has an implied similar limit as of this evening so we can conclude that the CAA hasn't been in touch.

BA had one of their own fiascos in May and the CAA didn't see fit to lay down the law despite thousands of passengers being left stranded for days on end.

The same CAA allowed Monarch to continue to sell flights when they knew the game was up. They also remained silent as Monarch management blatantly denied that they were in trouble and even launched a sale.

It's as if every other airline is playing by the rules which we know they are not from the various websites that feature regular complaints. Clear evidence that the CAA are looking after their own.

The EU have now gone to town on Ryanair.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ryanair-comes-under-scathing-criticism-during-a-special-debate-at-the-european-parliament-36195226.html

The same EU has stood by year after year after year and allowed millions upon millions of airline passengers to be badly affected by strikes by French and other ATC's which even affects overflights. They couldn't care less and have not taken a single action to overcome these constant disruptions. Not even a "special debate".

Hypocrisy is the word I find most suitable.

devnull

Mebuntu wrote: »

They also criticised Ryanair for operating a limitation on fares where passengers had to be booked on another airline. You could be talking about £200 versus £19.99. At least one other prominent UK airline still has an implied similar limit as of this evening so we can conclude that the CAA hasn't been in touch.

They responded to that

Furthermore, as part of our ongoing work to protect consumers, earlier this month we wrote to over 30 airlines seeking confirmation that they too are complying with the re-routing elements of EC261 legislation.

Mebuntu

devnull wrote: »

They responded to that

OK, if they did as they say a month ago the airline in question has not acted but I'm sure they haven't been publicly given til 5pm to tomorrow to do it. I didn't check any others.

donkey balls

Know lads working in FR for years and they are still there possibly due to having their base at home,One of my mates along with two other lads were based in BCN then STN while getting their command.
After that they got sent to bases futher away from Ireland,Two of the lads left soon after their command and are at EK.
The thing that got me was FR would base UK & Euro crews here and Irish ones to Europe, I remember talking to an FO who was from the UK and based here,I asked him would he be on for a swop with my mate.
The answer I got was if only we were allowed too,As for the pilot on the radio either he has a new employer or will be looking for one shortly.
Companies always would find a way of getting rid of someone or else the person is watching over their back for the rest of their career at the company.
The UK road transport version of FR who arrived here a few years back has suffered the same faith,That they could not get drivers to stay due to crappy wage and hours etc the mgmt and high turnover of staff was brought on by the way they treated the staff.
They ended up losing a major contract to a rival and I was told recently that another contract they have their screaming for staff but no one is willing to work for them.

KCAccidental

HRMC are piling on

Ryanair pilots are being investigated by HM Revenue & Customs over complex employment structures imposed on them by the no-frills airline.

Several experienced pilots told the Guardian that they have faced tax investigations relating to the way in which they are employed by Ryanair. Europe’s busiest airline is already grappling with a PR disaster caused by errors in how pilots are rostered for work – leading to the cancellation of tens of thousands of flights through to March next year, which has disrupted the travel plans of 700,000 passengers.

Ryanair has also clashed with its pilots over their working conditions, with many complaining about the same contract arrangements that have piqued HMRC’s interest.


Ryanair pilots form unofficial union in battle with Michael O'Leary
Read more
The tax authority’s focus on individual pilots emerged two years after it launched an investigation into Ryanair’s use of agencies such as Brookfield Aviation to provide about half of its 4,200 pilots.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/03/ryanair-pilots-hmrc-investigation-airlines-uk

LeChienMefiant

I'm sure the pilots are wholly innocent and at all times believed personal their taxes were 100% in order.

Bob24

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

I'm sure the pilots are wholly innocent and at all times believed personal their taxes were 100% in order.

They are mostly junior pilots who were told just out of training that this was the way to do it if they wanted the job and were recommended an accountant which they had to trust as they were pilots and no international taxation specialists.

What were their other options besides refusing to take the job?

LeChienMefiant

Bob24 wrote: »

They are mostly junior pilots who were told just out of training that this was the way to do it if they wanted the job and were recommended an accountant which they had to trust as they were pilots and no international taxation specialists.

What were their other options besides refusing to take the job?

Do you believe they are misled by the accountants? Or that the accountants are incompetent?

IT workers are also commonly engaged as contractors. It's not that unusual.

Bob24

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

Do you believe they are misled by the accountants? Or that the accountants are incompetent?

How does it matter?

Again what other options did they have since this was the only choice given by Ryanair if they wanted to take the job?

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

IT workers are also commonly engaged as contractors. It's not that unusual.

Of course, being a contractor is perfectly fine. But comparisons between Ryanair staff and the typical IT contractor have already been made on this thread and it was explained why it is like apple and oranges.

LeChienMefiant

Bob24 wrote: »

How does it matter?

Again what other options did they have since this was the only choice given by Ryanair if they wanted to take the job?

Because they should understand their own personal tax obligations. They are personally responsible. Yes, the accountant may have been negligent or even possibly have breached a fiduciary duty. I've read many reports over the years of tax evaders blaming their accountant.

Bob24

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

Because they should understand their own personal tax obligations. They are personally responsible.

It's not just personal tax obligations, there is cross-border and corporate taxation law involved as pilots are apparently forced to set-up an company in another country than the one they are actually based in.

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

Yes, the accountant may have been negligent or even possibly have breached a fiduciary duty. I've read many reports over the years of tax evaders blaming their accountant.

There is clear recognition by tax authorities to one of the pilots that "he had not “engineered” the complex structure and was simply trying to gain employment". The article also says "those who apply to join Ryanair are told to set up an Irish limited company and are made directors of it, under the guidance of accountants recommended by the airline". i.e. this whole structure is engineered by Ryanair for a large number of pilots and not the making of an individual.

So it is hardly credible to say we are talking about individuals plotting tax evasion schemes for themselves.

I'll ask a third time: bar refusing the job altoghether or accepting the legal structure Ryanair was requesting, what other option did they have when they were being recruited and told this was the only way to get hired?

LeChienMefiant

Bob24 wrote: »

I'll ask a third time: bar refusing the job altoghether or accepting the legal structure Ryanair was requesting, what was their other choice when they were being recruited and told this was the only way to get hired?

Ask as many times as you like. Nobody is obliged to answer your questions on an internet forum.

Yes, they could have declined to contract if they had concerns. Ryanair was offering them an opportunity.

NH2013

Micheal O'Leary in front of an Oreachtas Committee today at 13:30 over the scandal and fall out. Should be publicly viewable on Oreacthas TV.

Mebuntu

NH2013 wrote: »

Micheal O'Leary in front of an Oreachtas Committee today at 13:30 over the scandal and fall out. Should be publicly viewable on Oreacthas TV.

MOL has already declined this invitation so he won't be there.

It starts at 1.30pm - live from Committe Room 2:
http://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr2-live/

IALPA will be there but Ryanair's lawyers have warned them all not to say anything that would prejudice their current defamation lawsuits against IALPA and some of its members.

devnull

Mebuntu wrote: »

MOL has already declined this invitation so he won't be there.

It starts at 1.30pm - live from Committe Room 2:
http://beta.oireachtas.ie/en/oireachtas-tv/cr2-live/

IALPA will be there but Ryanair's lawyers have warned them all not to say anything that would prejudice their current defamation lawsuits against IALPA and some of its members.

Paul Tweed is representing Ryanair apparently on this, now there is a formidable legal professional who I suspect will really go after the IALPA if they say anything in the slightest bit defamatory, I can't see them saying anything positive about Ryanair however.

devnull

LeChienMefiant wrote: »

Yes, they could have declined to contract if they had concerns. Ryanair was offering them an opportunity.

If people do not like the terms on offer, they are by no means forced to accept them and can seek employment elsewhere. This is how it works in the private sector. If you get offered a job and don't like the contract or terms you don't take it, there is not the sense of entitlement that happens in the public sector.

We employed one guy once who had been on the dole for extended periods in the past and had been for 9 months before taking him on, we knew it was a risk but a manager was very impressed with interview and a practical task we set him and he had some very specialist knowledge so we hired.

Within a few weeks he was moaning about terms and conditions and trying to organise a union in the company and trying to create a lot of fuss and a real defiance of authority of our management - we let him go pretty quickly (2 years ago) and he's not found a full time job since. His own fault. We gave him a chance and paid him a good wage and he couldn't stop moaning.

If it wasn't for Ryanair would these pilots find it so easy to get jobs? Sure the terms and conditions are not great, but Ryanair are giving an entry into the market for these pilots who otherwise may have found it hard to get into with the legacy carriers at entry level, that's what the commentators have been saying. Sure also some of them are using Ryanair as a stepping stone as well, but best to have a stepping stone to another airline than a gigantic hard to make leap. Without this stepping stone they wouldn't have the chance to work for the higher paying carriers.

Plus the other carriers like the Ryanair Business model in a way because it allows them a steady stream of line trained pilots with several years experience up their sleeves to poach rather than having to bother to train their own from scratch.

Bob24

devnull wrote: »

If people do not like the terms on offer, they are by no means forced to accept them and can seek employment elsewhere. This is how it works in the private sector. If you get offered a job and don't like the contract or terms you don't take it, there is not the sense of entitlement that happens in the public sector.

We employed one guy once who had been on the dole for extended periods in the past and had been for 9 months before taking him on, we knew it was a risk but a manager was very impressed with interview and a practical task we set him and he had some very specialist knowledge so we hired.

Within a few weeks he was moaning about terms and conditions and trying to organise a union in the company and trying to create a lot of fuss and a real defiance of authority of our management - we let him go pretty quickly (2 years ago) and he's not found a full time job since. His own fault. We gave him a chance and paid him a good wage and he couldn't stop moaning.

If it wasn't for Ryanair would these pilots find it so easy to get jobs? Sure the terms and conditions are not great, but Ryanair are giving an entry into the market for these pilots who otherwise may have found it hard to get into with the legacy carriers at entry level, that's what the commentators have been saying. Sure also some of them are using Ryanair as a stepping stone as well, but best to have a stepping stone to another airline than a gigantic hard to make leap. Without this stepping stone they wouldn't have the chance to work for the higher paying carriers.

We are talking about hiring conditions potentially forcing pilots to create a legal structure which puts them at odds with tax authorities in their country. This is not the comparable at all as the examples you mentioned.

devnull

Bob24 wrote: »

We are talking about hiring conditions potentially forcing pilots to create a legal structure which puts them at odds with tax authorities in their country. This is not the comparable at all as the examples you mentioned.

Did someone hold a gun to their head and force them to take the job?

Bob24

devnull wrote: »

Did someone hold a gun to their head and force them to take the job?

Of course not.

But are you saying that as long as you don't force someone to take a job at gunpoint, it is OK to tell them that in order to have that job they need to do something which is potentially illegal in the country where they will be based? (because if the story from the Guardian is confirmed this is basically what has been happening)

How is it comparable to the example you gave abut your company? I assume the guy you let go was never asked to do something potentially illegal?

devnull

Bob24 wrote: »

But are you saying that as long as you don't force someone to take a job at gunpoint, it is OK to tell them that in order to have that job they need to do something which is potentially illegal in the country where they will be based? (because if the story from the Guardian is confirmed this is basically what has been happening)

Ah yes, because as we know in the UK, it's all the foreign people causing all of the problems in society and none of the locals and it's all the foreign companies who are causing the issues in the country and none of the companies that are based in the UK and the UK is being held back by all these pesky influences from abroad that are bringing the country down. Or could there be something else in it?

Quick question, if these processes are potentially illegal why has it taken the UK authorities until now to realise this? Could it be to do with the country leaving the EU and the direction of leadership in the UK which has become increasingly protectionist, bowing down to the nationalistic agenda due to the hijacking of the Tory party by some far right eurosceptics?

How is it comparable to the example you gave abut your company? I assume the guy you let go was never asked to do something potentially illegal?

No, he moaned that the terms and conditions were not acceptable (despite the fact he signed the agreement!) and he knows people who are on better elsewhere and that we were underpaying him, this is the person who had been hopping from job to job for years and had not had a permanent role and we gave it to him and put our faith in him and he started moaning to all the staff and spreading bad feeling and bad morale.

I see on Facebook he's moaning about not having a job these days and nobody giving him a chance, totally his own fault, we gave him a chance and he spent the whole time moaning about being paid €45k which was exactly what everyone else was being paid at his grade.

LeChienMefiant

Bob24 wrote: »

(because if the story from the Guardian is confirmed this is basically what has been happening)

That's a big IF. I take the Guardian article with a pinch of salt.

Ryanair has engaged a contractor, they may have procurement policies with regard to jurisdiction of the legal entity they will deal with etc. It's up to the contractor to deal with anything on their side of that arrangement.

Irish Steve

The legislation that surrounds the whole employment area related to contractors is a minefield, and even more so when international boundaries are then added into the equation. There are faults on both sides in this situation.

I am sure that Ryanair have employed some very high power legal and accountancy advice in terms of their schemes, and the advice they will have been given is what they are basing their operations on, but that does not necessarily mean that everything they are doing is completely clear, and that is where the relevant national authorities become involved, and then take their case to the highest courts for a final binding judgement. As to the morality of the way that some of these schemes operate, that is another subject altogether.

In the same vein, I can assure you from personal experience that the Aviation unions are far from squeaky clean, some of the things they have done over the years are also not for this thread, but they too have a clear agenda that in some cases is less than comfortable to see in action.

For me, there needs to be a fundamental change at national and international level in relation to the way that "contractors" and the "self employed" are treated, both by the state and by employers. The brutal reality is that most Ryanair "contractors" are not really contractors, in that they have little or no control over the hours that they work, when they take holidays, and similar issues. They are only working for Ryanair, and with the hours that they fly, they cannot fly for any other potential employer, and were they to seek to do so, I suspect the response from Ryanair would be negative and hostile.

Whatever the strict legal definition of their employment, there can be no doubt that the reality of some of these schemes is now being looked at very closely, and the difference between the UK and Ireland in this respect is that the UK doesn't have the "cute hoor" mentality that pervades too much of Irish culture, and that has allowed the abuses that we are now seeing being played out.

Yes, I'm probably going slightly off thread here, in that this is more an employee relations issue, but it is at the core of the current problems that have lead to cancelled flights, in that significant numbers of people have decided that they no longer want to operate in these conditions, and have moved on to other companies.

The Ryanair "contractors" are in reality full time employees of Ryanair, and as such, they should be on the Ryanair payroll, with Ryanair paying the relevant PRSI contributions to the State so that those employees can then receive all the relevant benefits that those contributions enable. They should also then receive the paid relevant holiday entitlements, as well as all the other normal employee benefits.

We saw a similar scenario when the Celtic Tiger was roaring at the peak, supposed self employed builders that worked for company A on Monday, Company B on Tuesday, Company C on Wednesday, Company D on Thursday, and Company E on Friday. The result was that none of the companies were required to pay PRSI, or holiday pay, or Building trade pension contributions, and the self employed builder had to deal with his own tax, expenses and everything else. The problem was that all 5 companies were effectively subsidiaries of the one developer, and all it was really was a tax avoidance scheme for the developers.

There's a lot more that needs to be changed in relation to this whole employee /self employed scenario, but that's not really relevant to this thread, suffice to say that what originally appeared as a minor bump in the road could result in some very significant changes for Ryanair, and their staff at all levels, even more so given the very robust response that these issues have generated from the CAA, who seem to be taking a much more aggresive attitude about the issues than has been publicly evident from the Irish regulators.

donkey balls

With the likes of FR having EU based crew on Irish contracts rather than contracts at their home country is a bit odd imo.
When I started working for my aul crowd back in the 90s I was on a Irish contract and my mate working for them in STN a UK contract.
I have since worked for other MNC again with a global presence but my contract is Irish specific.

notharrypotter

very robust response that these issues have generated from the CAA, who seem to be taking a much more aggresive attitude about the issues than has been publicly evident from the Irish regulators.

How much in fees do Ryanair pay to IAA for having 300+ aircraft on the Irish register?

Mebuntu

Joint Committee Live today:

An interesting afternoon's viewing with an abrupt ending that saw IALPA's spokesman cut down in mid sentence and the session closed almost before he had started as he mounted an astonishing attack on the IAA who had already departed the scene after the earlier three hour session. For me, this man immediately creates the impression that he has a massive chip on his shoulder and the organisation should look to appoint someone else with a calmer and less vindictive attitude if their perceived grievances are to be listened to.

Earlier, the CAR and IAA gave initial comprehensive discourses before question time began. They went into quite an amount of details that anticipated some questions to come but, despite that, some of the TD's (most of whom gave the impression of not having a clue) asked the questions anyway which led to an awful lot of time lost in repitition. The length of time it took some TD's to actually ask their questions was unbelievable. As a result the Ryanair session went on for three hours after which a break was taken and the IAA/CAR departed.

Some of the salient points from earlier:

Change of year to Jan/Dec: Both Aer Lingus and Ryanair were the only two left using Apr-Mar. The actual deadline set was Jan 2018 but EI, being a small airline, were able to bring it on in 2017 while FR, bigger by far, was to be 2018. There were repeated attempts by one TD to claim that Apr-Mar not only gave Ryanair a commercial advantage but also affected certain aspects of safety (e.g., fatigue) but she was calmly shot down in flames in magnificent style. In her haste to put one over on Ryanair for this practice she forgot that Aer Lingus had been doing the same. From her overall questions, including references to "low fuel being carried on FR aircraft" I, rightly or wrongly, got the impression that she had been "primed" by outside sources without really understanding anything and was then "lost" as her various claims were refuted.

The IAA stated categorically that there are no safety issues with FR or any other Irish airline. They all fully comply with EASA regulations.

The IAA also said their organisation is highly respected worldwide for their competence and produced a letter from EASA to prove it.

The CAR had no hesitation in criticising Ryanair for what happened but, when accused of being weaker and less vigorous than the UK CAA, they said, basically, the CAA have their way and we have ours.

Also, bearing in mind the size of Ryanair, the % of complaints received from passengers was very low.

The aborted second session on Pilots is to be resurrected as soon as IALPA follows the correct procedures attaching to these committees.

devnull

I can imagine Paul Tweed will be drafting up a few letters after that.

Ryanair staff would want to think very carefully about the IALPA's possible agenda in being involved in Ryanair's affairs more before getting too involved with them.