Good topic, thanks for starting it. I am not in any way involved in Ryanair but I know some people there…some make it work because coincidentally there is a base where they live so they bear it.
On topic:
Yes I think we should support them. At the least we should be aware. Ryanair treats staff badly in many ways. (Zero hour contracts, fake „self employment“, bullying and disciplinary action as they see fit etc.).
Take at a look at Southwest in the states. One of the best employers out there and also one of the most profitable airlines. LUV is proof that respect and dignity towards employees brings profits. Ryanair just makes it appear the other way round in order to justify the way they treat their people.
The airline industry is changing quickly, and some working in it say it is rotten. There is a huge gap between some Eastern Euro LoCo Captain and e.g. a KLM Captain. Different universes…
Alot of people at the frontlines of the industry are waiting for the safety implications to take shape, sooner or later it will start to happen. Just too much pressure in the system.
Swedish media now writes about how most Swedish Ryanair pilots have joined the union and that Ryanair flat out refuses to negotiate with the union — which they have a legal obligation to do in Sweden.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
From that I would say that your allegation that they are beta testing pilots on the passengers account is a bit flippant
Maybe, but the fact remains. “Serious” airliners won’t hire people with less than 1500h. There has to be some reason for that, and the only one can be safety concern. If that reasoning is correct or not, who knows? It doesn’t really matter, the only thing that matters is that the “serious” airlines think it is. So when Rainair hires people with much less than 1500h, and they go off to the “serious” airlines whenever the opportunity occurs. Then I think it is safe to say that Rainair is nothing but a training ground for pilots. That training ground is financed by passengers.
I don’t see Rainair as the bad guy. The bad guys are the hypocritical “serious” airlines, who for some odd reason cannot keep up the safety record without hiring pilots with at least 1500h of experience. The fact that Rainair proves them wrong (if your statistics is correct, I have no idea), doesn’t seem to affect their choice.
It therefore seems to me that safety has nothing to do with it after all. It’s all about cost. The cost of getting a pilot up to speed, in all senses of the word (except safety), that 1500h, is something the “serious” airlines have no intentions of paying or get involved with – at all. Raynair has found a way to do it, and it is obvious it involves “bad” treatment of inexperienced personnel. But then again, Rainair offer them an opportunity that the “serious” airliners flat out refuses with no exceptions, as a matter of “company policy”. Still, the same companies gladly welcome the same pilots when they finally have those 1500h.
It’s not Rainair that is rotten, it’s the whole industry that is rotten to the core. Rainair is certainly not the badest guy here IMO.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I reckon a lot of the negative perception RYR have acquired come from their boss who seems never at a loss how to put off people.
Only if.
Few years ago the story of an Italian captain made it to the headlines (I think that it was on Panorama). I don’t remember all the details, however, he had to land somewhere in Italy but due to bad weather diverted somewhere along the line he screwed up and either approached the wrong airport or landed very badly. There was an investigation and among the findings was a very chilling fact. This pilot has lost his young son 2 or so weeks earlier but could not take time off for the fear that he will lose his job. To me such a story reflects on the company and its values.
Aviation has changed. Within the EU, with no flight longer than 2,5hrs, it is now essentially a flying tour bus experience.
The classic carriers do all they can to defend their legacy cost and staff infrastructure. But they’ll be dying as well.
As much as I like flying with Lufthansa, and their safety record, and the miles, and their lounges, and their leniance towards oversized cabin luggage, I also despise the fact that they now own 95% of the German market share and that the prices have gone up 30+% since airberlin went off the cliff.
O’Leary seems to be right, it looked very much like a stitch up job to keep the precious landing slots in Germany in the hands of LH
Ryanair is very profitable, and while they reportedly don’t treat their staff well, they offer what’s being asked for these days.
Sometimes, in the future, there will hopefully be something inbetween – a bit more expensive than Ryanair, but essentially fair to its staff and pilots; but VERY much less expensive than any of the classical air carriers.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Swedish media now writes about how most Swedish Ryanair pilots have joined the union and that Ryanair flat out refuses to negotiate with the union — which they have a legal obligation to do in Sweden.
As long as the Irish government believes that RyanAir complies with Irish law, they will continue to ignore Swedish law. However what disgusts me most is that their whole ‘self employed’ system is basically a sham. I don’t understand why the EU won’t step in and investigate all pilots. Any found to be flying (commercially) for one airline ONLY should be forced into employed status for that airline – no ifs, no buts. It’s just another means of ensuring the airline pays no benefits and compensation to their employees which would be otherwise justified – such as sickness pay, holiday pay etc. For this reason alone I refuse to fly with MoL.
Steve6443 wrote:
As long as the Irish government believes that RyanAir complies with Irish law, they will continue to ignore Swedish law
I don’t doubt that, but if they have crew based in Sweden (and they do, AFAIK) they are subject to Swedish labour laws as well.
I think it’s just a feature of society at large. Middle class jobs such as piloting, doctoring, lawyering are becoming less secure, less well remunerated and more competitive. I meet a lot of burned-out people from all walks of life.
Are unions the answer? For somebody in a fairly unique role which I believe Silvaire is, then I can see the rationale behind negotiating your own terms. If you have a body of people doing similar roles, it ought to be easier for employer and employee alike to negotiate with an union. If both parties are of a mind to be reasonable.
Ultimately I fear employees are never treated well unless they’re needed. I met a sewage worker the other day who, unusually, said his employer was great about sick leave. I guess he might not have been so easy to replace. The Victorians gave us the working classes. But what of the useless class?
kwlf wrote:
For somebody in a fairly unique role which I believe Silvaire is, then I can see the rationale behind negotiating your own terms
There is nothing unique about my job – I am an engineer who sells 30 years of experience to the market. The only thing unusual in my case is that I’ve chosen to stay in a single growing company for much of that time, put up with a lot of BS and nonsense as a result of the self promoting transient parasites who show up in that circumstance, but as a result have had access to a reasonable internal market in which to sell myself. Others like me left along the way, selling some feathers in their caps, some did markedly better than me and some failed completely. I kept my eye on the bottom line and my own personal risk equation.
All employees are “needed” otherwise they wouldn’t be employed. My ‘career goal’ is to be individually needed but hold power by virtue of being relatively disinterested… and increasingly less interested as time goes on, in the foreseeable future 
I said to some friends the other night that my economic life is basically devoted to becoming dependent on nobody, as soon as I can arrange it. I don’t want to be like others or team up with anybody, I just want to collect money from people who choose to give it to me, individually. So you’ll understand that the idea of making money by working as faceless ‘factor of production’ union member gives me the chills.
I think the issue with being an airline pilot is that you are commodity with few unique or hard to find skills, the job has become that of a machine operator, and I think that’s exactly how the market can and should treat you. The advantage is that you have a clean working environment, no rent to pay, not even a permanent office or desk, and no direct report employees to deal with. You fly with somebody different almost every flight, people you may not even know, and then you’re gone. Your responsibility can be handled by simply taking care of yourself for a few hours and letting others come along for the ride. And you get both sides of that coin, by your own choice.
kwlf wrote:
I met a sewage worker the other day who, unusually, said his employer was great about sick leave. I guess he might not have been so easy to replace
Two brothers at my base have nice Piper Comanches, not one Comanche but one each. They’re both plumbers working for themselves and it’s a good business in terms of income and security, for the reasons you describe. People call them individually and pay them individually. Maybe it’s better than being an airline pilot, depending on your priorities
I would differ: engineers gain a portfolio of experience with various projects over the course of a career. They’re not all interchangeable. If you have expertise in a niche role you may find yourself suddenly very employable – or not as the case may be.
As you point out, a pilot with 5000 hours and an A320 type rating is a commodity – but asking him to negotiate his own terms does not make him less faceless.
Most people are commodities on the workplace – more or less scarce. There’s nothing wrong with that. Most things we consume are commodities so most jobs will be involved with repetitive, streamlined production of goods and services. The difference when it comes to unskilled work is that a person is easily replaceable so long as there are unemployed people ready to take his place. And therefore not needed, so there is no incentive for the employer to treat him well.
