All
← Back to Squawk list
Ryanair sues pilot who made allegations about safety on TV
Ryanair has initiated High Court defamation proceedings against a pilot who appeared in a documentary which made allegations about its safety practices. The airline on Aug. 22 began the action against Captain John Goss in the High Court in Dublin, lawyer Paul Tweed of Johnson solicitors said in a statement, reported irishtimes.com. The move follows the broadcast last week of a Channel 4 Dispatches programme which claimed Ryanair pilots were being put under pressure to fly with minimum fuel… (airguideonline.com) More...
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
With their pristine safety record and the pilot's questionable motivations to mischaracterize the airline's safety record, will likely result in a hefty judgment against the pilot and the TV station. Ironically the statements may have the opposite of the intended effect, and highlight RyanAir safety record, which ironically is much better than some mainline European airlines (which have had numerous fatal crashes over the years).
Maybe...but then on the other hand if his pilot group backs him up this may well swing the other way. The rules in Irish courts are much different than the USA, but still should allow for thorough discovery and probably a counter-suit for the firing. Loser pays will be in effect in either case unlike American courts where everyone gets to take a free cheap shot.
If the bulk of the defense is that a handful of planes have had to declare an emergency, and land with a 25 minute or so fuel reserve (short of the 30 minute limit for declaring a fuel emergency per company policy and the minimum required fuel reserve) that won't seem so bad, nor particularly unsafe.
On the other hand comparing RyanAir's fatality-free 29-year safety record against other European mainline carriers numerous crashed with fatalities will leave RyanAir smelling like roses.
While having uncertainty in terms of job security may not make for the best employment situation from an employee perspective; it may keep pilots on their toes, more alert, less complacent, and make for better safety results from a passenger and crew fatality perspective.
There may not be a connection between unionization and safety. Or worse, there may be an inverse relationship, in which unionization and job security, may lead to worse safety results (at least in developed Europe.)
On the other hand comparing RyanAir's fatality-free 29-year safety record against other European mainline carriers numerous crashed with fatalities will leave RyanAir smelling like roses.
While having uncertainty in terms of job security may not make for the best employment situation from an employee perspective; it may keep pilots on their toes, more alert, less complacent, and make for better safety results from a passenger and crew fatality perspective.
There may not be a connection between unionization and safety. Or worse, there may be an inverse relationship, in which unionization and job security, may lead to worse safety results (at least in developed Europe.)
25, 30 and even 45 minutes of fuel remaining is too little. I don't agree with the defector pilots methods, but I do believe that RyanAir is very lucky to have the record it does. It won't last.
After 29 years, it's got to be more than luck. Even if they eventually have an incident someday, then they'll just be like other major European airlines that also have had incident(s).
I understand passengers wanting a different service level and/or crew wanting job security.
But maybe, they've figured out one way to get great safety results. Not having job security may have the paradoxical effect of creating more attentive pilots and greater safety. I understand there's an argument that happy employees with job security will result in better safety. It may be right, but it may be wrong.
RyanAir's record suggests that premise is not as unquestionable as one might've otherwise believed.
I understand passengers wanting a different service level and/or crew wanting job security.
But maybe, they've figured out one way to get great safety results. Not having job security may have the paradoxical effect of creating more attentive pilots and greater safety. I understand there's an argument that happy employees with job security will result in better safety. It may be right, but it may be wrong.
RyanAir's record suggests that premise is not as unquestionable as one might've otherwise believed.
I agree with you in a way. Something like tenure for professors and teachers is completely bullshit. Being threatened as a PIC to take less fuel, or look the other way on an MEL item is not going to increase safety, though. I'm just glad I'm free enough to have the choice not to work for them.
> "Being threatened as a PIC to take less fuel, or look the other way on an MEL item is not going to increase safety, though."
That's certainly true.
Except if the pilot already has the fuel to taxi, to fly to destination airport, plus any alternates, plus any wx extra that would be prudent to carry given the conditions that day at the airports in question, plus the extra 30 minutes reserve. If fuel emergencies are few and far between, landing with nearly 30 minutes of fuel each time, only after missed approaches with bad weather and diverting to an alternate airport with lots of ATC traffic, that is understand able.
Also, except if the MELs are not safety related. That is, MEL would not prevent the airplane to safely arrive with passengers at intended destination or be able to safely land at an alternate airport.
If there are any real safety issues, they'll all come to light in an eventual trial to defend against the suit.
So it may not be advisable for the company to bring suit if has dirty laundry safety-wise that it would prefer not to air publicly.
That's certainly true.
Except if the pilot already has the fuel to taxi, to fly to destination airport, plus any alternates, plus any wx extra that would be prudent to carry given the conditions that day at the airports in question, plus the extra 30 minutes reserve. If fuel emergencies are few and far between, landing with nearly 30 minutes of fuel each time, only after missed approaches with bad weather and diverting to an alternate airport with lots of ATC traffic, that is understand able.
Also, except if the MELs are not safety related. That is, MEL would not prevent the airplane to safely arrive with passengers at intended destination or be able to safely land at an alternate airport.
If there are any real safety issues, they'll all come to light in an eventual trial to defend against the suit.
So it may not be advisable for the company to bring suit if has dirty laundry safety-wise that it would prefer not to air publicly.
