[Bucksnet]

Ryanair is now suing the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror as well as Channel 4: –

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/aug/16/ryanair-sues-daily-mail-daily-mirror

[MartynSinclair]

Perhaps one day, all jobs will be outsourced …

There is a very fine line between someone being a contractor and working for one firm.

The Inland Revenue consider contractors who earn revenue for only one source / contract open for investigation.

A pilot who gains his type rating for a major airline and is operating under the AOC of one airline and wears the uniform of one airline, is for all intense and purposes “employed” by that airline.

A recent test case (albeit in another profession) where the contractor was licensed by one firm and dismissed / had his contract terminated, was treated as an employee not a contractor, in the claim for unfair dismissal.

[Alkaseltzer]

Bucksnet.
Thanks for the info about even more people to be sued

I thought Ryanair was a penny pinching organisation,but now it seems they have found tons of money for all these defamation actions ?

[AnthonyDunn]

@ Bucksnet – 18/08/2013 14:40 GMT

Well why go to the trouble of specifically hiring (presumably he is a contractor too…!) a corporate lawyer specialising in defamation unless, in true Flyanscare fashion, you are to going to stretch him…?

[Edski777]

Like the court case in the Netherlands, mid-May against the Dutch broadcaster KRO, Ryanair will most likely request a ruling on the raw interview material to be handed over to them.
In that case Ryanair will have all the names and full interviews of all the pilots and others involved. They will no doubt use this to punish those interviewed.
The Dutch court ruled that the broadcaster had absolutely no obligation to hand over the raw material and turned Ryanair’s claim down. Journalists have the right to protect their sources. After that Ryanair suddenly agreed to an interview with O’Leary which was then put on the air unedited.

From what is being written about Channel 4, the Daily Mail and the Guardian being sued by Ryanair it looks like they try to scare everybody off. They should know that they stand very little chance, they have been offered to give their view within the rules and laws for journalism. It all looks very evenhanded. Plus it would be very doubtful that a TV station and 2 newspapers would break the law in the same way.
If I was working for them I wouldn’t loose sleep over this issue.
The same sort of ruling can be expected in the UK or Ireland as in the Netherlands.

The only rules broken are the rules Ryanair management is trying to dictate on all of us. The only one taking O’Leary serious seems to be the leprechaun himself.

[coolflyer]

With all the focus being on Ryanair, would anybody be able to shed some light on the British Airways fuel policy?

I would presume this is more liberal, especially as I believe the CAA recommend planes flying to London carry 20mins extra fuel (I believe I am correct in saying that!)

[Bucksnet]

Ryanair carry 30 minutes extra fuel, which I think is the minimum. BA is probably more.

[coolflyer]

@bucksnet

Sorry perhaps I wasn’t clear, I meant 20mins extra fuel in addition to the 30 minutes minimum.

[Bucksnet]

I’m not a pilot but I believe that the amount of fuel to carry the estimated weight of the aircraft over the estimated length of the flight, also taking into account weather conditions, is calculated and then they add on the extra flying time. If what you say is correct, it would mean the CAA recommend 50 minutes extra flying time on top of the block time.

This means that Ryanair flights to London are carrying the (EU?) legal minimum fuel, but not the CAA recommendation.

[Bucksnet]

Ryanair deleted ‘black box’ data after emergency landing in Sweden: –

http://www.metro.se/nyheter/ryanair-raderade-efter-nodlandning/Hdzmhq!@6qfZt1lrmctQX1XmeYD8Q/

A technician from Ryanair erased the black box before the Swedish authorities could reach it – I wonder why?

[AnthonyDunn]

@ Bucksnet – 18/08/2013 20:22 GMT

I think that the point is the CAA’s extra 20 minutes fuel allowance for London applies specifically to LHR terminating flights and not to those into other LON airports.

[Alkaseltzer]

Edski777.
Thanks for interesting details about the Dutch case.

I’m not sure whether here would be the UK or Ireland.In the UK,exchange of lists of documents would be after preliminary stages well advanced,much money spent & possible liability for opponents costs in play.If Ryanair turns out to be a foreign litigant with little or no assets here, the defendant could ask court to order Ryanair to deposit a large sum as security. I imagine if countries reversed, situation would be similar.[Somebody might be able to tell us.
So Ryanair has tons of money to throw away?

[Edski777]

Alkaseltzer,

I’m not sure either whether Ryanair will take to an Irish or a UK court. As the companies they are sueing are almost all based in the UK I think it is logical to start proceedings in the UK.

In either case law firms are the ones that really will benefit from this.

In the end it will not be about money, but about the right of Ryanair to have their view broadcast uncontended. Thereby claiming the last word in this discussion.

It will be most likely along the lines of “We are always bullied by the “evil press”. And the press types are funded by the big legacy carriers.
While everything we do is for the good and benefit of our customers. Flying them around Europe at low cost and according to the highest safety standards.

And just that last point is contended now by their own employees. And their criminal helpers: the media.
Let’s go kill the messengers, shall we?

Oh, and Ryanair has very deep pockets. It’s one of the most profitable carriers in Europe.

[MarcusUK]

Thanks for the continuing interest on this thread…

When you look at the overall charges taking a Ryanair flight from the booking, through to taking the flight with charges for taking duty free on board, and purchasing food and drink, I do not see they are low cost.
They are certainly completely avoiding of doing anything when things go wrong, which makes far less reliability.

I would rather pay more for an Airline without this poor reputation.
Perhaps it is time that people bare all this in mind, and on ethical grounds, Do Not support them, and take their bookings elsewhere?

There are other low cost Airlines and base fares equal or better from many other Airlines. I will not contribute to the business of any Company, that treats its staff in this way, let alone the continuous horror stories that come from their passengers!

[Bucksnet]

Me neither!

[Author]

Posts