Ryanair Dispatches programme

[seb47]

I'll be interested to hear Michael O Learey's response to last night's Channel 4 programme about the downside of Ryanair. Also how many people interviewed will lose jobs! We haven't had any cause to complain to date, except for entirely unavoidable circumstances. Also, I'm sure there are similar issues with Easy Jet or any other cut price airline - and what would we do without them?  

[Deimos]

I found it an interesting program but felt that not all of

the points they were making were completely valid.

For example, when you travel on a “cut-price” airline you

know in advance that you will not be getting food, drinks, etc.  On any airline (higher priced ones as well)

delays are possible.  Thus it makes

sense to plan for those delays and take what you might need (including with

delays) with you – particularly if you have children.  If you cannot do this then maybe the “cut-priced” end of the

market is not appropriate to your circumstances.

Things like cabin staff having to pay for their own training

is a private issue between cabin staff (or rather potential cabin staff) and

their (potential) employer.  If they are

not happy with paying for their own training then maybe they should seek employment

elsewhere.  My point being that it is a “up-front”

thing – they know what basis it is done on before they start and they have a

free choice as to start or go elsewhere.

However, many of the points raised did appear valid (e.g. safety/security,

etc.).  Might have been more dramatic if

it were a half hour program focussing on the safety/security aspects.

Ian

[Weedon]

I only saw the ads for the programme and couldn't be bothered to watch as I guessed it would just be a re-run of all the other "from hell" and "worst of" programmes of which, in my view, there are all too many. 

The slogan "if you are so clever why aren't you rich" springs to mind!

weedon

[Teamedup]

I watched it, it was interesting.

I have never travelled with Ryan Air. Some things did not surprise me. The safety issues did. I do believe that the several passport checks I go through with other airlines before boarding are a good thing. I would have liked to see staff having proper checks on them too.And it would have been nice to know that onboard security systems were working properly.

 

But how do they make their money? that is the one thing I really did not understand.

[Owens88]

>However, many of the points raised did appear valid (e.g. safety/security, etc.).  Might have been more dramatic if it were a half hour program focussing on the safety/security aspects

I agree.  The other issues were padding.

I would also suggest that there is a difference between people making mistakes, or even a few lone rogues, and a widespread attitude that the rules don't matter if they get in the way. The latter is a top-level management responsibility; they create the culture. The programme does not 'prove' anything one way or the other - but reactions from Ryanair management and the unions will be illuminating.

[BJSLIV]

The attitude to regulations and checks is very familiar. The "efficiency" thrust brought about by privatisation and deregulation encourages corners to be cut. I have seen this myself in a totally different privatised industry where incoming managers bring in a new culture which rewards those who challenge or ignore what are seen as outdated working practices.

It is in the nature of transport regulation to impose a belt and braces approach to security, and usually you only need one or the other. But sometimes.......

The recent railway accident enquiries have revealed a catalogue of corner cutting, all in the name of progress and efficiency; Undertrained staff,lack of knowledge of working procedures etc etc

When the inevitable eventually happens to one of the budget carriers, it will be those passengers who happen to be travelling on that particular day who will pay the price. Then there will be lots of moaning, and complaining and people asking why hadn't something been done about it before the accident.

It is will be a difficult cost benefit analysis to decide whether the (slightly?) increased risk has outweighed the savings that each of us who has travelled with Easyair have made in the meantime.

The programme has been a reminder that somebody will eventually pay for the corner cutting, and it won't be the well rewarded managers or shareholders

[Renaud]

It worries me that I want to defend RyanAir, who I do not love myself - they would send children up chimneys if they had them (and make them pay for the training). I Flybe if I can. However without low cost carriers I, and I suspect most of this forum, would be up the creek.

I agree with Teamedup and Owen88 that the safety/security issues were genuinely worth investigating, RyanAir must learn from the programme before something does go seriously wrong. But if that was all dispatches had after four months undercover then it was pretty thin. I found the self righteous tone of the programme put me off.

If the production company sent a couple of undercover elves into Santa's workshop for four months I bet they could get a few grumpy workers to moan about health and saftey issues and a reindeer or two to moan about the ammount they have to do in one night.

Indeed if someone sent an undercover type into the production company for that long they might find the odd producer sniffing odd stuff in the rest room and the lady who does the board lunches not washing her hands properly risking samonella ...

 

[Baz]

I am not surprised by a somewhat cynical attitude to the dispatches programme on Ryanair. It really has to be expected with so many people on the forum having a vested interest in the continued success of both the company and their low cost fares. Well, low cost airlines are here to stay and when one disappears another will appear and that is good for everyone as it opens up air travel to so many new destinations. I do not think that Ryanair is any worse than it competitors but its PR stinks and it often treats its fare paying passengers like cattle. I flew with the company on a number of occasions when they started and it was like breath of fresh air but today it is a different kettle of fish.

 

As far as its PR and attitude to passengers, if they can get away with this then the company becomes more profitable as that is why they are in business. But, when it comes down to safety and security no shortcuts are acceptable and must not be tolerated. The programme highlighted these points on a number of different occasions and these have to be investigated by the proper authorities. I suspect that the CAA will have their investigators looking at some of these issues raised and the BAA will be looking at the security lapses. There cannot be any compromise when it comes to either safety or security and no matter how much editing of the programme the truth still prevails.

 

I hope from everyone’s point of view that both good and common sense results from the disclosures so that  we can all travel on any mode of transport in the future with reasonable peace of mind.

 

Baz

[Ron Avery]

Ryanair's response

Ryanair confirmed that this evening's Dispatches programme on Channel 4 failed to produce any new evidence of any safety or security breaches in Ryanair despite 5 months of undercover filming. This follows today's "manufactured" advert by Channel 4 of a cabin crew sleeping on an aircraft which was not a Ryanair aircraft.

The 20 allegations which were forwarded to Ryanair in writing on the 12th January have been comprehensively disproven by the factual evidence provided by Ryanair (all of which has been published on Ryanair's website at www.ryanair.com).

Both the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK and the Irish Aviation Authority in Ireland have also confirmed that there was "no substance in any of the allegations made in the letter from the production company".

It is interesting that the Dispatches programme after 5 months of filming, covering over 100,000 flights, could only produce a couple of isolated examples of minor breaches by Ryanair cabin crew of Ryanair's own policies and procedures.  Each of these will be investigated (as is normal in all such cases) and reported to both the IAA and the CAA."

I think that confirms Baz why most of us had a cynical attitude to the programme in the first place.

[Alan Zoff]

Seems to me that the programme makers were trying to make a provocative programme while Ryanair's response (as ever, to any criticism levelled at them) has been to deny and to tough it out.

We get the service we are prepared to pay for (everyone's moaning today about the closure of small shops but the complainers are shopping at Tesco like everyone else). If we want ultra-cheap flights, there are going to be sacrifices and passengers cannot expect the same comforts as first-class travellers when things (often unavoidably) go wrong. 

But the programme was right to focus on safety issues. I found them worrying and was not reassured by Ryanair's denials. Whether you are more at risk flying with Ryanair than any other low-cost carrier, though, is another matter and not something that was answered by the programme-makers.  The programme would have carried more weight if it had been less sensational in its approach and made genuine comparisons with similar factors (e.g. safety checks, pilot fatigue and cleanliness) among Ryanair's competitors. But I rather suspect even then that once the fuss had died down, customers would still flock to whoever was offering the lowest price. That is until some major disaster is blamed on such failings - when it will be too late for those caught up in it.

It is to be hoped at least that the aviation authorities took note of the more serious issues raised in the programme. And that, despite official denials, Ryanair itself will address the points highlighted. If so, the programme will have served some positive purpose. 

[Sprogster]

As someone who had a flying background, I would not be so dismissive of the Dispatches programme. As media interest on the sensitive issue of airline safety and security by rousing public interest can be helpful.

All I would say is that not all low cost carriers are the same, as safety and security requirements differ widely dependent on where the airline is registered. For example, Easyjet is regulated by the British CAA and the number of duty hours a pilot can fly in a month are lower than Ryanair which is regulated by the Irish aviation authorities. 

If you look at America, being the pathfinder with domestic low cost airlines, there are some salutary lessons to be learnt. In that there were in the nineties a number of major fatal accidents, where cost cutting was found by the accident investigators to be a significant contributory factor. The highest profile of these involved one of the largest and most succesful US low cost airlines, which went bankrupt following a major fatal crash into the Everglades. 

As a result, the US public started to become much more sensitive about the issue of safety and low cost carriers. Suddenly being seen as too cheap and insensitive to customer complaints was not good PR and a new type of low cost carrier, such as Jet Blue, emerged. Offering a more customer and safety orientated service with reserved seats, internet check in and free soft drinks.

This is not just a Ryanair issue, it is a matter that effects European aviation generally at the moment and sadly it will take a major accident or breach of security incident before matters improve.

In the meantime never be complacent!

[Baz]

RTE business reported this afternnon.

The French transport ministry has told its civil aviation authority to discuss Ryanair's security practices with regulators in Ireland and Britain.

It will be interesting to hear their findings.

Baz

[Owens88]

Alan Zoff said

>Seems to me that the programme makers were trying to make a provocative programme while Ryanair's response (as ever, to any criticism levelled at them) has been to deny and to tough it out.

 

Well yes. TV programme makers accentuate to interest.

I don't think that O'leary's pugilistic response was what I would have recommended (back when I worked in corporate land including PR responsibilities).

 

Everybody watching the film must have thought:

the crew do clear 'most' litter before landing

matching a face and name to a name on another document  wasn't brain surgery

BUT

the off-guard comments by Ryanair staff were also quite believable.

 

It is a given that an organisation with hundreds and thousands of employees cannot micro-manage all of them. Mistakes happen. People are not all saints. SO

The organisation sets standards and goals/visions/ethos/culture which every rank can relate to. AND processes for checking that the priorities are covered. AND

Doesn't undermine them with Ratner-like comments in the media.

 

 

 

[Iceni]

I missed most of the programme (it clashed with Megastructures) so I can only act on hearsay and guesswork - a bit like a Sun journalist (sic) I suppose.

1. Safety - unless Ryanair has broken regulations over working hours etc what is all the fuss about ?

2. R staff do not deposit the litter on the planes so vent yr spleen at those who do.

3. Disgruntled employees can be found in every organisation - sometimes it is necessary to add a pinch of salt.

4. Afetr 5 months and how many flights ? - is the evidence on the tv prog really the worst they could find ?

But then I am a fervent admirer of Michael O'Ryanair and his profitable business - long may he continue. As I said elsewhere, customer service is a means to an end not an end in itself. The only way that his detractors will succeed in driving him out is to vote with their bums not their mouths.

John

not

 

[Ron Avery]

Just one point

What is it that is so worrying about Ryanair's staff and security?  At Stansted, Ryanair staff check passports with pasenger lists but then passengers come under BAA staff for security checks before boarding and they are again checked at the departure gate by Ryanair staff.  All that may be missed by Ryanair staff is a person with the wrong passport, not a knife or bomb.  On arrival, passports are again checked by local police or customs.

On flights from France it is often Air France staff.that book passengers in,  Airport security staff do the bag and searches and French gendarmes check the passports, all Ryanair staff do is check the boarding card.  Just where are the security breaches that are solely atributable to Ryanair??.

[Deimos]

[quote

user="Ron Avery"]

and they are again checked at the departure gate by Ryanair

staff.  All that may be missed by Ryanair staff is a person with the

wrong passport

[/quote]

 

The

program was saying that regulations state that everybody boarding should have

their passport checked (i.e. that name on boarding card matches name in

passport and person holding passport matches photo in passport).  However, this takes time and in not normally

done.  The program stated that Ryanair boarding

staff tend to just check that everybody boarding has a passport not that it is

their passport.  Certainly, whenever I

have boarded a Ryanair flight I have never had my passport checked.  I don’t know how much of a security risk

this is in practice but it does break the regulations.

 

[quote

user="Ron Avery"]

Just where are the security breaches that are solely atributable to

Ryanair??.

[/quote]

 

Another major security risk they “exposed” was the use of

temporary security passes for cabin crew and the general free availability of and

management temporary security passes. 

The program said that the timescales where cabin crews were allowed to

use temporary security passes whilst security checks (e.g. background, police,

etc.) were being made was strictly limited and that this was massively exceeded

by ryanair.  They also pointed out that

blank temporary security passes were left in the Ryanair staff areas at Stanstead

(i.e. for anybody to take).  In theory

anybody with a temporary security pass should always be accompanied by somebody

with a full security pass.  However,

this was not done by Ryanair.  In

practice people passing BAA checkpoints with temporary passes would have

somebody with a full pass as they went through, but after that the “accompaniment

rule” was not longer bothered with.

Probably several other points but cannot remember them all.

Ian

[Weedon]

Maybe none of us are all that secure on any carriers aircraft anyway.  Your carry on bag is subjected to x-ray,  passengers go through a security check doorway thing and check-in staff ask if you packed the bags yourself. Are there giant x-ray machines checking the tons of luggage going into the hold?  And how do you feel at the thought of plunging into the sea like a javelin at 500mph knowing you have an inflatable life vest with a flashing light and a whistle to save your life?

weedon

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Deimos"]

 

[quote

user="Ron Avery"]

Just where are the security breaches that are solely atributable to

Ryanair??.

[/quote]

 

Another major security risk they “exposed” was the use of

temporary security passes for cabin crew and the general free availability of and

management temporary security passes. 

The program said that the timescales where cabin crews were allowed to

use temporary security passes whilst security checks (e.g. background, police,

etc.) were being made was strictly limited and that this was massively exceeded

by ryanair.  They also pointed out that

blank temporary security passes were left in the Ryanair staff areas at Stanstead

(i.e. for anybody to take).  In theory

anybody with a temporary security pass should always be accompanied by somebody

with a full security pass.  However,

this was not done by Ryanair.  In

practice people passing BAA checkpoints with temporary passes would have

somebody with a full pass as they went through, but after that the “accompaniment

rule” was not longer bothered with.

Probably several other points but cannot remember them all.

Ian

[/quote]

If proven, that is naughty. It makes a complete mockery of "front of

house" security checks if people without their full background checks

can wander around with impunity. Part of the problem is that airports

are just so damn busy - not the small ones necessarily, but places like

Stansted or Gatwick - that effective security management is very, very

difficult. If a company (any company - given the number of companies on

site at a large airport I would find it very hard to believe that

Ryanair could be the only one lapsing) is not taking it seriously they

should be jumped on.

I thought that hold baggage was X-rayed these days?

[Polycarpe]

Security breaches are a concern but if Ryanair staff are not being properly checked at control points then thats a issue for BAA surely.

As for passport checks of passengers, not only are these done at the check-in and gate but at to top of the aircraft stairs too.

Staff's working condition are poor and the pay not good. As an employer, Ryanair is lousy. Accepted, staff know this when they apply. There's no harm customers knowing this before they decide to fly Ryanair. Some friends of mine don't fly with this carrier because it doesn't allow union recognition. I bear cabin crews poor wages in mind and am polite and a model passenger. I've always been treated very courteously and have nothing but praise for all the staff.

Until recently I made at least 6 return flights a year with  Ryanair, always on time. Its punctuality record is second to none. 

I don't like Michael O'Leary and why Ryanair allows him to be the face of he company defies belief as I can think of no one more skilled at rubbing the public up the wrong way. However he's turned Ryanair from an operation with three UK-Eire routes to a major player and revolutionised the euorpean airline business, even forcing the national carriers to re-think. Billions of euros must have been brought into French backwaters alone in the last ten years and at a time when the French economy seems to be en crise, regional regeneration encouraged by Ryanair et al must be a rare brightspot.

Just what was the point of this programme?  I have to wonder whose interests were being served and whose agenda was being followed.