We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
RYANAIR HAVE LAUNCHED an aggressive defence of their safety record in the wake of last night’s Dispatches documentary on Channel 4, with CEO Michael O’Leary taking to the radio airwaves this morning to rubbish the claims made.
The programme focused on a survey conducted among a thousand pilots at the airline, which found that more than eight out of ten questioned believe the airline does not have an “open and transparent safety culture”. The survey was commissioned by the Ryanair Pilot Group, which is not recognised by management, but claims to represent more than half of all captains and first officers.
In a number of statements reacting to the programme, Ryanair have highlighted the airline’s “outstanding 29 year safety record”, and this afternoon the Irish Aviation Authority rowed in with its support, saying the programme-makers had carried out a “misguided attack” on the low-cost carrier.
Ryanair have released full details of their correspondence with Blakeway Producations, which made the Dispatches programme. And as you might expect from a company that has regularly hit the headlines as a result of its forthright communications policy, no punches are pulled in its dealing with the producers…
Blakeway Productions begins its engagement with Ryanair, with a letter informing management that Channel 4 plans to broadcast a documentary outlining pilots’ concerns about safety on 12 August. The three page letter details concerns raised by pilots over working conditions and the amount of fuel they have to carry, amongst other issues.
The response from Ryanair’s Head of Communications Robin Kiely is swift (it’s dated the following Monday), and contains this less-than-conciliatory opening:
Your letter of July 26th was emailed at 17.24hrs on a Friday evening – i.e. after office hours…
Before addressing the core claims contained in the production company’s letter, it’s second paragraph makes counter-claims about Channel 4′s record in the area;
Having previously made false and unsubstantiated allegations against Ryanair (using actors to ‘simulate’ cabin crew) it’s surprising that Dispatches are again inventing false and unsubstantiated claims – presumably again using ‘actors’ – to make what are manifestly false claims.
Kiely then goes on to address 12 individual points raised by the programme-makers. This includes the following passages:
Airline safety is a matter of fact and evidence, it is not something that can be traduced to a subjective “survey” organised by an Aer Lingus pilot union which has repeatedly lied about Ryanair’s safety
These so-called “pilots” you have interviewed have misled you. Ryanair’s fuel policy clearly establishes that the final decretion on fuel lies with each captain.
The five page letter is CC-ed to the Chairman of Channel 4 and OFCOM, amongst others. Four appendixes include a statement from the Department of Transport backing the airline’s safety record and and IAA report on an incident where three flights to Madrid were diverted.
Blakeway Productions’ respond by saying the company will address the 12 detailed points, but opens by addressing Ryanair’s claims about the previous Dispatches documentary:
I am informed by Channel 4 that despite your allegations about that programme none of your claims were ever the subject of litigation or complaint to the broadcasting regulator Ofcom [...] no actors were used in the broadcast programme.
The letter then goes on to address Ryanair’s offer of an interview with CEO Michael O’Leary, which the airline had said could be whatever length producers wanted, as long as it was unedited:
…as you know it is not an acceptable condition that any interview not be edited. We would have to ensure that any of the interview used in the programme was relevant and was used in accordance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code which would of course mean, for example, that the content of the interview was fair to third parties.
1. It is extraordinary that despite the claimed urgency of your 26th July letter, you have failed to address any of the false claims detailed in points 1 – 12 of our 29th July reply, or the absence of any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your heresay and baseless claims. Please now do so by return.
Please now provide us by return, with whatever evidence – as opposed to anonymous hearsay – you have to support the 12 claims you made in your July 26th letter which have been comprehensively disproven by the facts set out in our reply of July 29th. Please also confirm if you wish to take up our offer to interview Michael O’Leary who we repeat is perfectly willing to address address any of these false and hearsay claims as long as his answers are not edited by our Channel 4 Dispatches programme which is clearly attempting to yet again smear Ryanair’s 29 year safety record which the IAA has recently confirmed is “on a par with the SAFEST airlines in Europe”.
…I will respond using your numbering :
1. We have noted all that you have said regarding points 1-12 of your letter of 29th July 2013. Your position will be fairly reflected in the programme when it is broadcast.
We of course would not edit any interview to “suit” a “baseless and inaccurate agenda” as to do so would be in breach of our regulatory Code. However we would retain the right to edit any such interview fairly and accurately. Does Mr O’Leary agree to give an interview on that basis?
It is grossly unfair and of grave concern to us that you have failed to address our specific and categoric responses to each of your “12 points”.
We cannot rely on assurances of “fairness” or “accuracy” from a TV programme what has produced no evidence whatsoever to back up its false allegations, which are based on anonymous hearsay claims from individuals who despite legal protection refuse to make these unfounded claims on the record.
…we continue to reserve all our rights, and put you on notice that the irresponsible broadcast of these allegations could have extremely serious financial and other ramifications for our company, for which we shall be holding you fully accountable.
We have offered Mr O’Leary an interview on the same terms offered for example to leading businessmen, politicians and generals on previous Dispatches programmes. We note his unwillingness to be interviewed on these terms.
Your accusations regarding our standards of journalism are rejected in their entirety.
We have now had sight of that survey and will be reporting the following within the programme:More than 8 out of 10 pilots said Ryanair did not have an open and transparent safety culture.
Two thirds of pilots who responded said they did not feel comfortable raising safety related issues through Ryanair’s own internal systems.
We will also report that:
“Ryanair told us their operations were fully compliant with EU requirements; “Airline safety is a matter of fact and evidence, it is not something which can be traduced to a subjective survey.
Pilots should raise concerns through Ryanair’s confidential safety reporting system.”
Ryanair aren’t happy:
I refer to your letter dated 9th August, which was received by email at 20.34hrs on Friday evening, long after close of business one working day before your planned broadcast.
It is clear that your programme, having failed to produce one shred of evidence to dispute the IAA’s confirmation that “Ryanair’s safety is on a par with the safest airlines in Europe” is now flailing around trying to concoct spurious claims to support your baseless slur…
The letter goes on to say that the survey results are bogus, and can’t be objective as the body that compiled it doesn’t have access to Ryanair’s 3,000 pilots, and goes on to state:
Your claim that you will “report” that “Ryanair told us their operations were fully compliant with EU requirements” is another example of your inadequate, misleading and biased reporting. It is not Ryanair that have “told you”, but rather the independent EU designated safety regulatory authority for Irish aviation, namely the Irish Aviation Authority, which has publicly confirmed that “Ryanair’s safety is on a par with the safest airlines in Europe”. Your programme MUST report this fact.
The Dispatches programme “Ryanair: Secrets from the Cockpit” was aired on Channel 4 last night, and is still available to view on 4oD.
Ryanair released the following comment as part of a lengthy statement in the wake of its broadcast:
Ryanair has instructed its lawyers to issue legal proceedings against Channel 4 Dispatches for defamation and Ryanair looks forward to this matter being resolved in the Courts and the safety of Ryanair’s operations being thoroughly vindicated since the IAA has independently confirmed “Ryanair is on a par with the safest airlines in Europe” and the C4 Dispatches programme has produced no shred of evidence to undermine this independent verification of Ryanair’s outstanding safety.
[All images: Screengrabs via Channel 4 Dispatches]
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
How bout longer sentences for the people committing the crimes and then in turn there will be less people needing to hide behind the screens
@Dlow Brown: careful, the liberal left brigade and their allies the Irish Council for Civil Liberties will have you shut down for hate speech!
@Damien Mooney: your an idiot the vast majority of people want longer sentences regardless of political leanings
@Kevin Finnegan: can please elect some of this vast majority so that they reflect they opinions of the vast majority.
@Dave Doyle: Judges aren’t elected.
@Lisa Saputo: the elected officials make laws….those laws can include mandatory minimum sentences or whatever the law makers set as the law. The law makers need to be tougher…IMHO. Then the judges will not be able to squirm out. We could very easily have a 3 strikes out law
@Dave Doyle: @Dave Doyle: well said. The ‘vast majority’ are happy to peddle faux outrage. Signing the latest petition on change.org to have Martin Nolan fired while banging furiously into their keyboards such inane comments as “there are no words”
“Should rot in hell”
“Suspended sentence a joke”
“Down with this sort of thing”
“Have they no homes to go to”
@Kevin Finnegan: ah right, so this elusive bunch of people known as ‘the majority of people’ elected you as their spokesman? What are you and your merry band of followers doing about lenient sentences then, apart from writing asinine, meaningless sentences into the journal.ie ? How many letters have you sent to the dept of justice and law reform, and the DPP herself, asking that lenient sentences be reviewed? Perhaps we could meet up and pursue a strategy, I’ve sent several so far this year with a few more ready to go.
Or are you happy to peddle your faux outrage on Facebook in the faint hope that Ms Loftus will log into the journal.ie and read your comments and discover the horror of Martin Nolan’s work?
@Damien Mooney: haha I’ve never met or talked to anybody who was like you know what our criminal justice system really does the job well why should people get long sentences sure just give them a slap on the wrist and it’ll be grand! And as to what I do about it I try my best to be informed and vote for someone who shares my belief that there needs to be serious reform. It’s gas that you started going of on all that when my original comment was about you basically saying only people on the right care about stuff like this
@Damien Mooney: haha faux outrage you know f&ck all about me but sure believe whatever you want and just smear people on the left to make yourself feel good
About time this has been the norm in the UK for years
@Sonya Couch Dillon: VERY TRUE, & also in fact, ( to save some extra, IMO, monies on the transport of Criminals, as they are mostly brought to & from the Courts by private securicor type firms ) Judges & Govenors can order a video-link from the prison to the Court, & that goes from your Tax evader to the more Heinous Murderer type crimes & Screens & video-link testimonies have been in use in the UK for some time now, although there is some speculation that the “evidence” may not be as pure as an actual person in the Courtroom as opposed to a “link”.https://www.eyenetwork.com/judicial/court-video-link/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxtPYBRD6ARIsAKs1XJ5wX0SUMQncL-BPsfdJr4WF7O-F_chW3TUUB9Y0sWu05GVoEJE1GcYaAvHVEALw_wcB
@Michael Kelly: Video link in operation here too, but our system is slightly different. A prisoner has a right to be present . As for the private security companies , too easily infiltrated by crime gangs.
@Michael Kelly: Careful there, You’re interfering with the super incomes of the legal profession!
Now get wrid of the stupid “reducing”of sentences and let them serve a full sentence. Also lock up repeat offenders for robbery, serious assault or any repeated crimes.
@Mick12:
The reduction in the sentence on foot of a plea of guilty is pragmatism on the part of judges to reduce the waiting list of cases. The reduction is relatively small and criminals convicted of serious sexual offences are listed on the sex offenders register so that there are legal grounds for monitoring them closely after they have served their sentences.
@Mick12: Will never happen here. Sure would’nt it be an injustice not to fill the pockets of the poor auld Ambulance chasers.
Long over due ,glad to see some one is listening .
More prisons please and longer sentences. That is what people want. Imagine the money saved from criminals not being able to father children, save on children’s allowance, save on future criminals ever being born, save on council housing, save on dole money for future offspring etc etc.
Indeed , aren’t we all behind a screen giving evidence in some way
@Noel Walsh: deep
@Noel Walsh: give it a rest noel
@Noel Walsh: Did you forget to switch accounts before replying to yourself?
@Free comment ratings: Ha ! He’s got you there Noel !
This is all about gradually changing the rules of evidence in order to tip the balance against the accused (who in any just society must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law). What it will lead to is the thwarting of justice, where more innocent men, who have been maliciously (falsely) accused of rape or sexual assault, will be convicted and their lives destroyed. It is the holy grail of feminazis and the large misandrist element within the media, and certain political organisations, to prevent the full and fair cross-examination of complainants in court (such cross-examination being necessary in order to get to the truth and a just outcome in such cases). It is all part of the downgrading of evidence and examination.
Where man-haters want to get to is the point where all requirements for evidence and examination are dispensed with, and a potentially innocent man’s life can be destroyed in law simply by the word of a woman, even if she is not telling the truth.
I agree entirely with the contents of the ministerial order (and a new sentencing guideline) however the aspect preventing cross examination (as reported above) is incompatible with Art 38.1 and the established dicta in [In Re Haughey, 1IR1, 1971] and European conventions. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a challenge to that section of the order alone. Imagine acting for yourself and, in your own defense you weren’t allowed ask certain questions or challenge the prosecution evidence or put your own case forward in rebuttal. Just doesn’t seem right.
Even the headline in this media article is deliberately misleading. Complainants during such cases are not “victims”, as in the middle of a trial (particularly trials involving alleged sexual offences) it has not yet been proven that a crime has been committed, nor that the accused has done it. One only becomes a “victim” if it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt in court that a crime has been committed, and that the accused is guilty.
have your say