[Edski777]

So, was this a hoax? Can or should we expect any follow up? From the UK, Spanish or Irish authorities? From FR?

Or is this thread the only thing we will ever hear about it?

[Bucksnet]

So Ryanair broke the law, as the 30 men were drunk before takeoff?

[SimonS1]

I haven’t seen the reports but I’m smelling a rat here.

30 passengers were “blatantly intoxicated”, the police were called, and the flight was still allowed to depart?

[AnthonyDunn]

The police allowed them on board. In which case, whilst there may have been a “suspicion” that the “odd” tipple might already have been consumed prior to boarding, this was clearly deemed insufficient for any of them to have been viewed as drunk and therefore unfit to travel.

In which case, if (and that’s a big “if”) there were 30 drunken males en route and upon arrival, they must have been necking their duty paids at one hell of rate. This would represent a colossal failure on the part of the cabin crew to exercise control over the passengers if so many were intent on getting bladdered in mid-air.

This is starting to smell like a red-top/gutter press Silly Season story to me. Rather like the occasion I ran into an ex-university friend who was then “writing” (I use the term in its loosest sense) for the Currant Bun. She had just had a story published about lonely British males attempting to score whilst on the Costa del Sol. When it came to analysing the story, one third was true, one-third had been heavily embellished and one-third was pure fiction – “to aid the narrative flow”.

But I will still be amused to see the contortions O’BlarneyAir go through next week to justify their fuelling practices.

[IanFromHKG]

It takes a while for alcohol to get into the system. You can drink half a dozen pints and not be drunk, if you drink them quickly enough. An hour or two later, though, and you are going to be pretty intoxicated.

Some of the laws quote above specifically refer to UK-registered aircraft (and I assume Ryanair’s are Irish-registered) and others not. I suspect the former wouldn’t apply here (although there may well be equivalent provisions under Irish (or other relevant) legislation

[FormerlyDoS]

“So Ryanair broke the law, as the 30 men were drunk before takeoff?”

No, the police were called and took no action, which suggests there was no offence.

If there was an offence of boarding an aircraft whislt drunk, the 30 men committed it, not the airline.

[FormerlyDoS]

AnthonyDunn – 07/08/2013 00:41 GMT

Before you make any more statements against Ryanair and their fueling practices, you should read this

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/travel/Your_Travel/Travel_News/article1187917.ece

[Edski777]

A similar story about this practice of taking on board the minimum amount of fuel has aired a few months ago on Dutch television.
Journalists uncovered an incident report on the very same flights that diverted after weather conditions closed Madrid and had to declare an emergency.
FR tried to stop the broadcast of the news item, but a Dutch court turned them down.
At first RyanAir wouldn’t officially respond. Later O’Leary gave an interview and denied all. According to him all was within legal limits and/or beyond their control. Most of all: FR has a perfect safety record.

For the reaction of O’Leary:

http://brandpunt.kro.nl/seizoenen/2013/afleveringen/20-01-2013/fragmenten/confrontatie_met_ryanair

It’s a Dutch program, but all remarks by O’Leary are in English with Dutch subtitles.

Expect the same circus in the UK about this topic.
Judge for yourself.
In the end it came out that the

[pointyendpreferred]

alexpo1, you are quite right. The captain has the final decision and carries the responsibility. In Australia the Air Navigation Orders (ANO) are clear: “an intoxicated person shall not enter an aircraft”.
The first line of defence should be the ground staff who should be monitoring pax behaviour and can deny them boarding if it is inappropriate. The cabin crew at the door of the aircraft are the last line of defence. The cabin manager at the door should be monitoring pax as they board. If there is a problem he/she should consult with the captain and take the required action. I was a cabin manager for 13 years. If I noticed a pax was intoxicated I would speak to the captain. I would say: ” Captain, I have a passenger/s here who smell strongly of alcohol or whose behaviour seems to indicate to me that they may be intoxicated. As you know the ANOs state: ‘an intoxicated person shall not enter an aircraft’, as far as I am concerned if we stick to the ANOs we can’t go wrong. What would you like me to do?”
The captain would either tell me to ask the ground staff to offload the pax or say:” You are in the best position to make the decision. I’ll stand by whatever you advise.”

I understand how difficult it is for airline staff when they have an employer who puts pressure on them to adhere to schedules. I was in the lucky position of working for an airline that always made it clear to staff that safety was paramount and came before schedules.
I have friends who still work for the same airline and they will never be criticised for making a reasonable decision on that basis.

[dutchyankee]

@ Edski777 – 07/08/2013 05:27 GMT

I just watched the clip. I for one have never flown Ryanair, and hope never to have a need to. I find O`Leary an arrogant awful man, but I have to say, in that interview, he owned the reporter. For sure, in that debate, if you can call it one, O`leary 1, KRO 0. I would love to see the whole report! Interesting viewing!

[SimonS1]

Sounds like the comments in the OP about people being “blatantly intoxicated” may have been a bit sensationalist.

I really can’t see that the plane would have departed with 30 drunks on board, especially after a police visit.

[Edski777]

Unfortunately most of the information about Ryanair and its business practices in other segments is in Dutch. If this is no problem for you, which I believe to be true (based on your nickname), it gives some interesting background information.

Use Google and search for “Brandpunt Ryanair” and you get a lot more information.

It all started with the claim that pilots working for Ryanair are flying when they are medically unfit. 4 pilots gave anonymous statements also giving information about short term contracts, low salaries, no benefits, no hotels paid on stopovers, no right to be a member of a trade Union, being banned to undesireable postings when complaining about the afore mentioned, an internal competition on least fuel consumption, additional rules on minimum fuel on board, etc.
A whole list of items aimed at reducing the cost for Ryanair, but not necessarily enhancing the safety.

The main line of defence by Ryanair: nothing has ever gone wrong so what are you complaining about? A near mis is still a miss.

Ryanair is not pleased about being put in the spotlights about this. Resulting in a lawsuit against the tv station and the journalists (which they lost) and subsequently the press conference and the interview by Mr O’Leary.

No doubt Ryanair is an extremly succesfull company and has, together with Easyjet, turned the European travel market upside down.
The question is how much further you can go squeezing everybody out before you are crossing the line and certain dangers start to emerge, either in the cockpit or in the passenger cabin.

http://brandpunt.kro.nl/seizoenen/2013/afleveringen/06-01-2013/fragmenten/vliegen_tegen_elke_prijs

[dutchyankee]

@ Edski777 – 07/08/2013 08:36 GMT

Thanks for the link, (Dutch is my first language) it has been very interesting, and does not look great. I can understand why FR did not want this report out there.

[Bullfrog]

Ryanair likes all publicity, so their CEO must love this !

The Captain may have failed in his duty to offload these disruptive from the outset.

But being Ryanair, there was no way that this carrier was going to have the expense of diverting to offload these passengers. This would cost considerable money and time.

One interpretation could be “profit before safety”.

[AnthonyDunn]

@ FormerlyDoS – 07/08/2013 05:06 GMT

Thank you for your concern.

In neither of my earlier postings (@06/08/2013 14:11 GMT and @07/08/2013 00:41 GMT) did I actually make ANY statement about what FR’s fuelling policy is because I do not know. They could be extremely restricted or extremely cautious but as I am neither FR flight deck crew nor a “turn around manager” for FR, I am not in any position to say. However, presumably Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme DOES have a view or they would not be taking up an hour of prime-time to shed some light on the issue. We will all see whether or not their story stacks up.

My point actually is that if FR is not controlling the message, then it goes into auto-denial mode and that, based upon previous experience, this entire exercise is likely to be both ritualistic and something of a charade. And it will be entertaining witnessing this process play out.

Do you recall the FR undercover exposé(*) by C4‘s “Dispatches” of several years ago? This programme looked at the flying hours of FR cabin and flight deck crew, turnaround times, aircraft cleaning and maintenance standards. Then there was the issue of cabin crew training and testing standards with a detour around who pays for said cabin crew training and uniforms [clue: it wasn’t FR…]. The thrust of that programme was “FR pushing its crews right up to the permissible hours limits on a routine basis and that many crews were seriously fatigued”. FR declined to take part in the programme – as per the experience of BBC TV’s “Panorama” when O’Blarney stated to camera that neither he nor his airline would take part in their programme unless they were extended full editorial control over what was finally broadcast! It then resolutely denied the thrust of the “Dispatches” allegations and stated (if my memory serves me) that it operates fully in accordance with the requirements of the CAA and other European aviation authorities.

Something makes me think that C4 will again not be terribly nice to FR, who, having refused to take part in the programme, will issue a ritual and categorical denial of the programme’s allegations. It will then follow this up by stating that it operates fully in accordance with CAA and other regulatory authorities’ requirements and that there is nothing else to say on the matter.

You can think of a reasonable forfeit if I am wrong.

NB (*) It’s all on YouTube.

[Author]

Posts