I have not seen this discussed before. Is this a common problem when an A319/320 is substituted for an A321?

A communication error meant too many passengers at the front of a plane caused take-off issues for the pilot, AAIB air investigators found. An Airbus A320 was replaced with an A321 ahead of a flight from London Luton Airport in January, but an email about the change was not passed on. It meant the passenger seating plan was not adjusted to the bigger craft.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... s-54477819

Without having read too much about it, they probably just took the seat numbers from the A320 and placed them right over into the A321. The A321 being longer, means in that scenario the weight would be placed too far forward. The big issue is that they have a W&B system set up that isn't checked over by the crew. I'm guessing it is done by the gate agent, rather than the pilots.

Shoddy work by the airline, but I can't say I'm surprised that it was Wizz Air that did it. They seem more busy with pay-to-fly and fire-and-rehire schemes than safety.

Just to be clear, a 321 was substituted for a 320, not vice versa.

DH106 wrote:

Just to be clear, a 321 was substituted for a 320, not vice versa.

Read again.

Article says 320 was replaced with the 321.

Thanks

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Just to be clear, a 321 was substituted for a 320, not vice versa.

Read again.

Article says 320 was replaced with the 321.

Thanks

Stretched aircraft are notorious for these types of balance issues.

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Just to be clear, a 321 was substituted for a 320, not vice versa.

Read again.

Article says 320 was replaced with the 321.

Thanks

Which makes stating a A321 substituted for a A320 the correct way to say it.

Alternatively you can say a A320 substituted with a A321.

The title of the thread currently implies a A320 was used in place of a A321, and that the A320 was the one with the take off issue.

This reminds me of a Life of Brian scene.

"No-one is to stone anyone, even, and I want to make this absolutely clear. Even if they do say Jehovah."

Doesn't say what airline but mentions control center in Hungary, so I guess Wizzair.
However I have flown some rather empty A320, never saw anything done to balance aircraft, is A321 so much worse?

miegapele wrote:

Doesn't say what airline but mentions control center in Hungary, so I guess Wizzair.
However I have flown some rather empty A320, never saw anything done to balance aircraft, is A321 so much worse?

As Enrila mentioned stretched aircraft are more prone to weight and balance issues as weight is getting added further from the center of gravity. The article also doesn’t go into specific engine type either, which also effects weight and balance. ie was this A320ceo to A321ceo or was the A321 a neo etc.

The A321 is not a difficult aircraft to load. If you spread the pax out roughly evenly the CG will sit nicely in the loading envelope. In this particular case it appears that a large block of seats at one end of the cabin had been left empty leaving the pax load concentrated to the opposite end. Many aircraft around would have problems with such an "abused" loading.

Polot wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Just to be clear, a 321 was substituted for a 320, not vice versa.

Read again.

Article says 320 was replaced with the 321.

Thanks

Which makes stating a A321 substituted for a A320 the correct way to say it.

Alternatively you can say a A320 substituted with a A321.

The title of the thread currently implies a A320 was used in place of a A321, and that the A320 was the one with the take off issue.

Agreed. Without wanting to be pedantic, I assumed the original aircraft was an A321 and the new aircraft was an A320. Only context made it clear that it was the other way around.

Dear all,

avherald does have a rather comprehensive article about this incident, including w&b sheet.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4dd9ae59&opt=0

Hendric

This happened to me once when the Airtours A320 we were scheduled to fly on was replaced at short notice with a 757. The cabin crew walked though the aircraft and instructed certain row numbers to move into the rear cabin (behind 3L &3R) as that cabin was completely empty, and the first 30 rows were completely sold out. Airtours A320s had 30 rows, and the 757s had 40 rows.

At least this was resolved with some extra thrust and good work by the crew to react quickly to this.

What are the regulatory requirements for crew verification of W&B in Europe? I had been under the impression that they were pretty stringent based on things like the strident announcement AF made or makes pre-takeoff telling folks to stay in their seats so they can be counted.

Every airline that has different variants of an aircraft probably had this happen to them, but most errors are caught before disaster strikes. I've seen it happen with ATR 42/72's and Dash 8 100/300's. Cabin Crew in the business long enough sometimes notice when the seating arrangements seem off and raise it with the captain.

Cubsrule wrote:

What are the regulatory requirements for crew verification of W&B in Europe? I had been under the impression that they were pretty stringent based on things like the strident announcement AF made or makes pre-takeoff telling folks to stay in their seats so they can be counted.

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

hitower3 wrote:

Dear all,

avherald does have a rather comprehensive article about this incident, including w&b sheet.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4dd9ae59&opt=0

Hendric

Another interesting tidbit is the crew opted for an intersection takeoff on a runway that is only 7,087 feet in total length (back taxiing is required to use it all). They were lucky they didn't have an excursion at the other end.

http://www.gcmap.com/diagrams/pdf/EGGW.pdf

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Is there anything in their training manuals or are their policies and procedures in place requiring the cabin crew to alert the flight crew to the fact that so many seats were empty at the back end of the aircraft?

Before we assign to much blame to the cabin crew for not speaking up, we have to remember cabin crew members are not trained to do weight and balance. If there is a policy at Wizz Air that requires the cabin crew to alert the captain when a large section of the cabin is empty then yes the cabin crew dropped the ball. But if no such policy exist and if it isn't part of their training then it is not fair to put this on the cabin crew.

In my opinion it seems like Wizz Air lacks critical check points within their weight and balance system. And according to the Avherald article not even the dispatcher noticed the problem once the plane change happened and dispatchers are trained in weight and balance. So no one alerted the flight crew (and seems like the flight crews at Wizz Air do their own weight and balance) no one alerted them to the fact that the back end of the aircraft was empty.

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Cubsrule wrote:

What are the regulatory requirements for crew verification of W&B in Europe? I had been under the impression that they were pretty stringent based on things like the strident announcement AF made or makes pre-takeoff telling folks to stay in their seats so they can be counted.

It is the captains responsibility to make sure it is within the envelope.

AF-KLM is from my experience pretty strict about it, but also has a fully digitized setup that the FAs can check. Other airlines barely bother at all. LCCs like EasyJet only care if you take emergency exit or front row seats, in which case the card reader comes out on the spot. Long story short, it's the wild west.

sk736 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

What are the regulatory requirements for crew verification of W&B in Europe? I had been under the impression that they were pretty stringent based on things like the strident announcement AF made or makes pre-takeoff telling folks to stay in their seats so they can be counted.

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

AFAIK all carriers that count passengers count them by row or sector of the aircraft. On my side of the Pond there’s often a form for f/as for this purpose.

VSMUT wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Do you know for a fact that Wizz Air FA training doesn't include awareness of W&B, or are you just rationalizing low pay as a reason for ignorance on the topic?

Wow! Reading this gave me quite a flashback!

In a previous life I made loadsheets for a living, working for a ground handling agent. A company with a less then stellar reputation, as with pretty much all the big names in the GH biz. One of our airline clients had scheduled a fully booked 320, but the aircraft turned back to its origin during the flight over to us, and a few hours later we got a subbed 321 instead. However still with 180 pax booked on it. By now it was some ungodly time during the night, and of course I was working overtime, because there's no one else to finish the job.

For this airline we'd make loadsheets on a computerized GDS system, pulling the pax/bag numbers from a separate check in system. And so as I did hundreds of times before, I pulled the figures from one sys, entered them into the next one, and a loadsheet comes out. Real simple stuff, anyone can do it. When crosschecking the data on the loadsheet I noticed that we were very close to optimal trim (the MACZFW). Something I found very odd as the 321's with this airline were always flying at trim values far from optimal. And we did use the default bag loading instructions.

So I went over the data again, making sure everything matched. And it did. So I drove over to the aircraft and as I'm walking down the jetbridge to the cockpit with the loadsheet, I still get the feeling something is off. But looking at the data again, I cannot find any discrepancies. I give the loadsheet to the crew and drive back to the office, and at some point it hits me, holy f***! The seating distribution is for a 320! We are out of trim BIG TIME. So I frantically get back to the computer, and indeed, the check in system was still showing the original 320 (mind you it didn't work with aircraft tail numbers, there was no simple way to spot this). Now I have to manually recalculate the actual seating on board. Because the only people who can edit the check in system have already gone home!

Well at least I have spotted the mistake in time, and the flight cannot close and pushback until I give the OK over the phone (as procedures were then). So I'm good, right? At which point I get called from the gate that the bridge has been removed, and the aircraft is pushing back right now. (Get-there-itis from the remainder of the ground staff who also want to go home). Thankfully we were able to get the crew on the company freq before they started the taxi. And after some frantic re-calculations, we had them move a bunch of passengers around and got them proper figures. Phew! Out of my 10 years around the airport, this is still counts one of the most stressful experiences of my career!

I never really blamed myself, considering the circumstances. The airline client never found out, and so my company couldn't care less, even though I did report the incident to the guys in charge.. That's the GH business for you!

enilria wrote:

FrenchPotatoEye wrote:

DH106 wrote:

Just to be clear, a 321 was substituted for a 320, not vice versa.

Read again.

Article says 320 was replaced with the 321.

Thanks

Stretched aircraft are notorious for these types of balance issues.

Whilst it sounds good when wanting to be sensational, the type of aircraft (A321) was not the issue. It was a pure issue of miscalculation by the airline itself.

Vicenza wrote:

Whilst it sounds good when wanting to be sensational, the type of aircraft (A321) was not the issue. It was a pure issue of miscalculation by the airline itself.

100% agree. Equipment oversight isn’t uncommon and usually gets caught by communicating registration and other identifying markers.

Does not matter what gets subbed for what. Airline’s communications system broke down somewhere. Could have been much worse.

Holy moly, that could have ended terrible! The A321 is such a nose-heavy aircraft in any 200+ pax configuration that it is sometimes really painful to get it in trim. What troubles me as a former load controller a bit is the statement that the actual seating did not match the passenger distribution on the loadsheet.

If an airline uses a common DCS (Departure Control System), the mismatch should have been noticed. Operations, the guys that do the loadsheet, knows the registration and therefore the aicraft type. If passengers services is checking in on a wrong seat map (and/or aircraft type), the DCS displays an error message and you are usually not able to create a loadsheet. The only exception is when someone does a manual loadsheet (like some LCC) or an Excel file (like some LCC) or a very cheap DCS (again, like some LCC). This could have been easily avoided if someone would have been willing to spend some money. Which is not a good sign for Wizz Air. Especially given the fact that this was no outstation but a home base.

No matter how you put it. The alarming fact that the loadsheet did have a suitable A321 passenger distribution contrary to the actual seating is not in favor of Wizz Air being a responsible operator.

sk736 wrote:

AFAIK all carriers that count passengers count them by row or sector of the aircraft. On my side of the Pond there’s often a form for f/as for this purpose.

No. Most airlines in Europe count passengers by totals to see if the numbers on the Passenger Information List (PIL) and Loadsheet match their headcount. If it's a match, they close the door. I have the very, very strong suspicion that Wizz Air is no exception here. The only airline I know of that does this is HOP!. Does not mean that they are the only ones but of all the airlines I have worked with, they are.

Cubsrule wrote:

What are the regulatory requirements for crew verification of W&B in Europe? I had been under the impression that they were pretty stringent based on things like the strident announcement AF made or makes pre-takeoff telling folks to stay in their seats so they can be counted.

AF (especially HOP!) is very strict. The purser always counts by seating and fills in a small piece of paper which is then given to the PIC. Only when the purser´s numbers match the data on the loadsheet, you are cleared to close the door and the aircraft is released. KLM is a bit more relaxed as they do not use such a procedure. However, CLC (Centralized Load Control) usually calls the local ground agent and instructs to move some passengers. The crew knows the drill and complies professionally.

Other than those two, I've never seen any other airline with a similar procedure. The bigger the aircraft, the less focus is on passenger seating. Most airlines even skip headcount.

This probably happens all the time and is never reported. Same thing with the bags being loaded in the wrong hold.

I don't how it works in other airports but here in BCN the majority of ramp agents are fired every autumn with fresh ones replacing them in spring. The handling company gets a nice subsidy for hiring and training unemployed, unskilled workers. And after they have gained the necessary experience they are let go.

MIflyer12 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Do you know for a fact that Wizz Air FA training doesn't include awareness of W&B, or are you just rationalizing low pay as a reason for ignorance on the topic?

I know from experience that their cabin crew don't know anything about the subject. When a former Wizz Air FA joins your company you need to look out, because they will happily move passengers and hand luggage around without consideration for W&B or informing the cockpit.

kjs607 wrote:

At least this was resolved with some extra thrust and good work by the crew to react quickly to this.

Should they not have aborted the take-off? Applying TOGA happened to resolve the problem in this case but, without knowing what the problem was, the pilots were taking a risk in my opinion. Anybody knows where the pilots actions were according to SOP?

AeroVega wrote:

kjs607 wrote:

At least this was resolved with some extra thrust and good work by the crew to react quickly to this.

Should they not have aborted the take-off? Applying TOGA happened to resolve the problem in this case but, without knowing what the problem was, the pilots were taking a risk in my opinion. Anybody knows where the pilots actions were according to SOP?

As per the avherald article, V1 was 112 knots, Vr 123 knots. V1 is the speed above which you can't abort. They didn't notice until they reached Vr, at which point you don't have enough runway left to stop.

aircatalonia wrote:

I don't how it works in other airports but here in BCN the majority of ramp agents are fired every autumn with fresh ones replacing them in spring. The handling company gets a nice subsidy for hiring and training unemployed, unskilled workers. And after they have gained the necessary experience they are let go.

Why?

VSMUT wrote:

It is the captains responsibility to make sure it is within the envelope.

AF-KLM is from my experience pretty strict about it, but also has a fully digitized setup that the FAs can check. Other airlines barely bother at all. LCCs like EasyJet only care if you take emergency exit or front row seats, in which case the card reader comes out on the spot. Long story short, it's the wild west.

From what I saw on avherald the data presented to the captain stated the aircraft was correctly loaded.

The issue here is the seat assignments used for the load sheet did not match the seat assignments used to board the passengers. The issue of boarding passes is not something any of the crew on the aircraft would get involved with.

I find it very strange at the cabin crew didn't at least mention it to the flight crew. They know there has been an equipment change, and they can easily see that the first 30 rows are full of passengers, while the last 10 rows are left completely empty.

The cabin crew knows that aircraft needs to be balanced, and that this seating arrangement with 30 rows full of passengers and the last 10 rows completely empty, hasn't happened before. Alarm bells should be ringing. "Something might be wrong. Let's inform the pilots."

I have seen many times that cabin crew monitors weight distribution and balancing, for example, while passengers are leaving the aircraft, ensuring the front of the cabin isn't completely empty while the back of the cabin is full. I have also experienced cabin crew moving passengers to get a more even weight distribution.

It seems a bit dodgy that whether or not a plane is loaded safely depends on an email being received. That sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Cubsrule wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

AFAIK all carriers that count passengers count them by row or sector of the aircraft. On my side of the Pond there’s often a form for f/as for this purpose.[/quote]

True, but this is only done by smaller commuter aircrafts - like the ATR, as passengers move around freely. Best airline I know in this matter is easyjet, as gate agents provide the split up by zones to the cockpit, prior and after boarding. The pilots flying will see any changes or miscalculations - e.g. if a larger travel group is not travelling. The crew can than react promptly by switching passengers.
Other airlines block the seats beforehand, but this only works if the check-in system is live and online... So it is not possible to seat the passengers in restricted zones, however this doesn't prevent the pilot and ramp agent to double check any last minute changes (like noshows). Especially during COVID 19 a fully booked flight can end up pretty empty due to the fact, as most passengers decide not to travel.

In this matter, regarding Wizz Air, I can't understand why the ground crew wasn't informed. I guess either Wizz Air was working offline at check-in or the seat map wasn't changed to the A321. Maybe the handling agent used their own in-house computer system, not updating the right configuration.

Unfortunately this is an issue that seems to be happening too often in different companies. In my previous company the opposite swap (A321 data, including takeoff performance calculations, were used for an A320) led to a high speed RTO close to V1 (The aircraft started to rotate by itself before Vr without any pilot input as the trim setting was incorrect, which led to the decision to abort the takeoff). There are many more examples of similar cases.
Loading an A321 is not a big issue, however some versions may require some balast during ferry flights to get the CG within limits.

MIflyer12 wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Do you know for a fact that Wizz Air FA training doesn't include awareness of W&B, or are you just rationalizing low pay as a reason for ignorance on the topic?

I suggest you read the AAIB report before posting ill-informed comments. The investigation report makes clear that the cabin crew should have been trained to notice such an anomaly and Wizz Air has accepted the recommendation.

smithhaddon123 wrote:

aircatalonia wrote:

I don't how it works in other airports but here in BCN the majority of ramp agents are fired every autumn with fresh ones replacing them in spring. The handling company gets a nice subsidy for hiring and training unemployed, unskilled workers. And after they have gained the necessary experience they are let go.

Why?

It's the good old hire and fire scheme. Because the longer you are employed the more rights you have. Plus the company gets subsidies and benefits for hiring people who are listed as unemployed.

reidar76 wrote:

I find it very strange at the cabin crew didn't at least mention it to the flight crew. They know there has been an equipment change, and they can easily see that the first 30 rows are full of passengers, while the last 10 rows are left completely empty.

Then you didn’t read the source material. There were 157 passengers and 450kg in hold 3. Given that wizzairs A321s seat 230, even their A320s seat 186, an empty section might not look that odd. The lack of cargo/checked bags exacerbated the issue, I guess.

debonair wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

AFAIK all carriers that count passengers count them by row or sector of the aircraft. On my side of the Pond there’s often a form for f/as for this purpose.

True, but this is only done by smaller commuter aircrafts - like the ATR, as passengers move around freely. Best airline I know in this matter is easyjet, as gate agents provide the split up by zones to the cockpit, prior and after boarding. The pilots flying will see any changes or miscalculations - e.g. if a larger travel group is not travelling. The crew can than react promptly by switching passengers.
Other airlines block the seats beforehand, but this only works if the check-in system is live and online... So it is not possible to seat the passengers in restricted zones, however this doesn't prevent the pilot and ramp agent to double check any last minute changes (like noshows). Especially during COVID 19 a fully booked flight can end up pretty empty due to the fact, as most passengers decide not to travel.

In this matter, regarding Wizz Air, I can't understand why the ground crew wasn't informed. I guess either Wizz Air was working offline at check-in or the seat map wasn't changed to the A321. Maybe the handling agent used their own in-house computer system, not updating the right configuration.

It’s not just regionals in the US. WN counts by sector as well. Empty-ish 738s can be a little front heavy if most passengers sit fairly close to the front.

Why doesn't software automatically generate a new seating chart when a different aircraft is substituted? It's not an uncommon occurrence.

W6 used to have a "free seating" policy until a couple years ago, when they started assigning seats (and charging for it ).

They changed the seating policy at some point, but probably kept the legacy W&B computing systems, which assumed even distribution of PAX in all sections. That's one of the loopholes, according to the report.


Anyhow, it was a close call. LTN intersection departure means that they only had around 1800m of runway. Also it's a table top airport with no overrun area and a significant slope on either end. If they had aborted the take-off, or failed to get airborne, it would have ended up in flames...

VSMUT wrote:

As per the avherald article, V1 was 112 knots, Vr 123 knots. V1 is the speed above which you can't abort. They didn't notice until they reached Vr, at which point you don't have enough runway left to stop.

Dear all,

These speeds look rather low for an A321, isn't it?
Would it be imaginable that these are for an A320 or even A319 instead?

VSMUT wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Not doubting you, but can it be legal to work yet not be paid for 4 months???

WayexTDI wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

sk736 wrote:

Counting the passengers would have made no difference here. The issue was where they were sitting, not how many there were. You have to question why the cabin crew did not notice something was amiss when they saw how many rows towards the rear of the aircraft were unoccupied.

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Not doubting you, but can it be legal to work yet not be paid for 4 months???

Legal in which country? Wizz Air (and Ryanair) just employ their staff in a country that allows it. That's the sole reason for Ryanair moving aircraft to AOCs in Malta or Poland, they are shopping for the countries with the worst employment laws and least oversight from the aviation authorities. They can operate freely across the entire European Union and a few affiliate states, regardless of where the crew are employed and aircraft are based.

VSMUT wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Wizz Air FAs earn between €900 and €1200 per month, and don't receive anything at all for the first 4 months. The airline pushes them to sell stuff from the trolley before anything else. Exactly how much knowledge do you think they have on weight and balance?

Not doubting you, but can it be legal to work yet not be paid for 4 months???

Legal in which country? Wizz Air (and Ryanair) just employ their staff in a country that allows it. That's the sole reason for Ryanair moving aircraft to AOCs in Malta or Poland, they are shopping for the countries with the worst employment laws and least oversight from the aviation authorities. They can operate freely across the entire European Union and a few affiliate states, regardless of where the crew are employed and aircraft are based.

So, which country allows it?

WayexTDI wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Not doubting you, but can it be legal to work yet not be paid for 4 months???

Legal in which country? Wizz Air (and Ryanair) just employ their staff in a country that allows it. That's the sole reason for Ryanair moving aircraft to AOCs in Malta or Poland, they are shopping for the countries with the worst employment laws and least oversight from the aviation authorities. They can operate freely across the entire European Union and a few affiliate states, regardless of where the crew are employed and aircraft are based.

So, which country allows it?

You'd have to see the employment contracts to know. I worked for one company where I was based in France. I was "employed" by an Irish company, who "hired" me as a temporary worker from a Canadian agency with an office in Dublin who hired me on a German contract. These sorts of contracts are unfortunately normal in European aviation, especially when you work for low-cost carriers. There are several countries in EU with no minimum wage. It's not exactly hard to figure out how that can be misused.

VSMUT wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

Legal in which country? Wizz Air (and Ryanair) just employ their staff in a country that allows it. That's the sole reason for Ryanair moving aircraft to AOCs in Malta or Poland, they are shopping for the countries with the worst employment laws and least oversight from the aviation authorities. They can operate freely across the entire European Union and a few affiliate states, regardless of where the crew are employed and aircraft are based.

So, which country allows it?

You'd have to see the employment contracts to know. I worked for one company where I was based in France. I was "employed" by an Irish company, who "hired" me as a temporary worker from a Canadian agency with an office in Dublin who hired me on a German contract. These sorts of contracts are unfortunately normal in European aviation, especially when you work for low-cost carriers. There are several countries in EU with no minimum wage. It's not exactly hard to figure out how that can be misused.

Back the bus here: you stated the Wizzair FA's weren't getting paid for the first 4 months of their employment. So, you obviously have knowledge about that.
However, when asked under which law it is legal, you come up dry.

So, can you back up what you're stating? Or is it just a suppuration?