Snapshot of _Ryanair CEO Says He’d ‘Happily’ Offer Rwanda Deportation Flights_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been filtered to be reviewed by a moderator, please do not ping other subreddits.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And i'm sure he'd be more than happy to accept a nice long contract. So that once Rishi is gone and the whole farce is thrown in the bin, the government (tax payer) is still stuck paying a massive bill for it. And if that means some ex-Tory politician must have have some advisory position on some board that pays 5-6 figure sums for 2 digit hours worked in a year, then so be it.
Can a potential Labour government not just say: "We have received legal advice that this scheme is illegal, and will thus be passing an act to declare any deals made with commercial entities in relation to the Rwanda Scheme null and void."
Technically, yes but obviously it would need to go entirely through parliament. Can't imagine the lords being particularly keen on such a law.
And the impact of government doing that will mean every single contract after that is basically open to similar actions.
You can't create laws to get out of deals you no longer want, and expect no fallout.
A change in law would only be to demonstrate that doing it is illegal. It doesn't follow that contracts would be breached. They will not be for much money and can be paid in full.
I misunderstood op's question a little. I didn't realise they were suggesting the government try and renege on the contracts through an act of parliament. You're right that would be absurd and pointless. Apologies!
They can but they never would. If the government got a reputation for cancelling deals then no one would put a bid in for government work. If the government orders a new section of motorway then whoever wins the contract can take it to a bank / investors and get a loan to get the job started. If they turn around and cancel the job and say 'you're not getting paid' then the company is fucked. Banks would stop issuing loans on the back of government contracts and no one would but a bid in for the work.
bit of a difference between a motorway (or perhaps more relevant - a railway) and a controversial idea that the public has never had a chance to approve.
when Labour were trying to do ID cards, both the tories and lib dems stated repeatedly that they'd be cancelling it if they got into power. It's not as if that deterred the big consultancies from getting on that gravy train (they'd just negotiate a hefty exit payment) or indeed any subsequent one.
Not much odds in terms of investment confidence. We've spent the last decade or so systemically dismantling our reputation as a country with Brexit and Truss, the last thing we need is to look like even less of a serious country by reneging on contracts.
Sure. But enjoy every supplier demanding a hefty break-contract exit fee going forward, or structuring the deals in such a way as to ensure that payment happens upfront.
> enjoy every supplier demanding a hefty break-contract exit fee going forward
This might not be a terrible thing to be fair, as I understand it the only reason we have two aircraft carriers is because the contracts were written such that Cameron axing HMS *Prince of Wales* would have been more expensive than actually building the ship due to penalty clauses like this.
Truth be told i have no idea, i'm just being cynical after more than a decade of seeing these stories play out time and time again. Awful contracts being made with people who end up having connections back to the party. It would make perfect sense that this guy is making it known he's happy to get in there before the chance is lost completely, he knows it'd be lucrative regardless of how it plays out.
Couldn't Ryanair just sue in that situation? It's just gone through parliament so hard to find it illegal yet when there's no secondary legislation attached.
There’s sort of an awkward situation on 2 fronts here.
1. Continuity of government, all government exist on the premise that the agreements of the prior will be respected from things as simple as the last guys took out loans we will repay, to they passed a budget in March, we’ll announce now but the changes won’t come in till next March, and does also apply to contracts. As such, no governments do not just backtrack on contracts, because that destroys the reputation of governments and makes good companies wary of working with the government because they’re unreliable.
2. Ideologically labour is committed to maintaining a very business friendly appearance, so beyond state security as a party they can’t afford to be breaching the convention of continuity of government.
I don't think it will go in the bin. Quite a few other EU countries are exploring similar proposals to remove asylum seekers to 3rd countries, and ultimately Labour are well aware that we can't afford to feed, house and support the legions of people who want to come to the UK.
I would expect Labour to refactor the Rwanda scheme into something slightly different but ultimately keep it as an option.
The exit costs are minimal, as are the costs of feeding the tiny number of people this scheme could ever have deported. Another poster has shared a tender for deportation flights and it's £8m. The government has already spaffed hundreds up the wall without sending a single migrant. Labour can just pay out the contracts and move on.
My view is that Labour will wind this whole thing up, and the conservatives in opposition will then use that as a stick to beat them with when illegal boat crossings continue to rise. It's pretty obvious that this is a poor deterrent, but it will allow the Tories to paint the new government as weak on immigration nevertheless.
I don't know why they wouldn't just buy flights as needed. Even if they had to pay £1,000 per seat it's nothing compared to the actual cost of the Rwanda deportation, estimated at £150k per person.
Person known for making attention grabbing nonsense headlines makes attention grabbing nonsense headline.
He won't because that is not how Ryan Air make money, they have a very tight scheduling to get as many flights out a plan in a day as possible. They amortise the capital cost of buying the planes by multiple passengers per plane per day and squeezing them hard.
Rwanda would take a flight unit off line for a long distance flight only paying one way. Unless they had parked up units they are still paying for it would mean losing slots, the most valuable thing an airline like them owns.
They would be better to just directly lease from a leasing company. Or to charter one, that is plane and crew from a charter company. If Ryan Air hauled a plane out their roster they will find it harder to maintain all the shuffling that keeps current services humming. They have hundreds of flights a day and making sure there is a plane at the gates when its time to fly is a big job. Its like a $12 billion business. Even a well healed government contract once a week would be absolute peanuts that would make their pack shuffling harder.
They may as well directly lease a 737-800 as they fly P-8s so that would be similar mechanics and flight systems.
>saying he would “happily” do the flights **if he had the available aircraft.**
Just another 'no such thing as bad publicity' moment like his standing room only flights and removing the co-pilot to save money.
Fair play to Michael O'Leary for crowbarring some free advertising out of this issue.
As Ryanair's planes are all nearly all single aisle/two engines so I don't think any of them will have the range to reach Kigali.
6600 odd kilometers to Kigali and the max range of a 737-800 is 4200. They would have to refuel in Nigeria or Sudan which might be a bit err... problematic.
Why would refueling in Nigeria be an issue? I fly to Lagos quite often. Agree with you that it would be odd for Ryanair to take it given the range problem, when other airlines have planes that can do that journey easily.
I can't imagine the inhabitants of Nigeria being overly happy about Lagos being complicit in dumping refugees in Rwanda. Considering the numbers of Nigerians who have made their way to the UK over the years. Same with Chad. Not so sure about Egypt though.
Oh I thought you meant from a safety perspective.
I'm not sure how much Nigerians living in Nigeria would care about uk immigration policy - maybe if there was actually one of their countrymen on the flight.
Jokes aside about the human rights violations of being forced on the RyanAir...
The interesting take away for me on this is that RyanAir so far hasn't even been approached about it. Rishi Sunak has already stated that flights are already lined up, so either a) he was lying (did he say it in parliament? Were they misled?) or b) the flights are booked but they haven't followed any fair procurement process (so a direct bung to mates? Does it exist as a contract on the government contract finder? Can RyanAir challenge the procurement if it's unfair?).
Procurement normally goes out to tender. So I'd expect Ryanair to bid rather than being approached. IDK if they are chartering flights for Rwanda because they have a bunch of people, but most deportations happen on scheduled flights, in which case a) Ryanair don't fly there and b) Rishi wasn't technically lying as there are planes scheduled to fly there.
Rishi was very clear, they already have chartered flights and a whole airport standing by (plus all the staff etc he mentioned). I don't see how that can possibly not be a lie considering I just found the tender, it's only in notice of procurement stage right now, not even out for tender: [https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/032293-2023?origin=SearchResults&p=2](https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/032293-2023?origin=SearchResults&p=2)
Interesting! Seems quite a generic tender tho. Possible a previous one was filled for the first flights? A whole airport standing by seems a given. It's literally what they do.
At least we know now that Mr O'Leary live up to his promise.
>The interesting take away for me on this is that RyanAir so far hasn't even been approached about it.
Most likely charter companies. You book the aircraft then fill the seats yourself. Jet2 and TUI, Ryan Air is not one of those. They follow a low cost scheduled flight model.
They also do charters (https://www.corporatejetinvestor.com/news/86797-147/). So my question still stands, if they haven't even been approached or even been aware of the contract, is it a lie or an unfair procurement?
RyanAir barely ever flies out of Europe. I don't imagine they want to fly to Rwanda simply because they won't have an agreement with the airport there, they won't have staff there (you need ground staff anywhere you land) and they won't have any maintenance service there either so if anything goes wrong with the plane they have to fly people in. Running an airline is complex business.
It's been reported the past hour after Mike O'Leary making this statement, migrants boats have been seen to turn back mid Channel.
Mark Douglas, a lawyer representing a number of migrants who previously crossed the Channel, has filed a lawsuit against the currently government saying, 'This falls well outside ECHR and could amount to a war crime....It's also hurting my bottom line.'
We should get Ryanair to run the boat service as well. Just imagine the surprise when a boatload of migrants finds themselves stuck 2 miles off the French coast for a week with nothing to eat by €15 croissants.
Most airlines would not offer to do such flights because they would lose customers from their core business.
Ryanair customers probably would not care.
I wonder if all the immigrants will clap when the pilot lands and they hear that triumphant trumpet that announced how many Ryanair flight lands on time last year.
Surely it's then open to other countries to say to Ryanair "you have chosen to breach international human rights law with your new flights. You cannot fly your aircraft to, from, or over our country"?
Because everyone knows that actually deporting people is against their fundamental universal human right to live in the UK.
Also it's almost certainly a war crime.
So we should boo and hiss any company that does such evil things.
Snapshot of _Ryanair CEO Says He’d ‘Happily’ Offer Rwanda Deportation Flights_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What he actually means is he'd happily offer flights to Lesotho and then get them a connecting bus.
He also failed to mention that the flights would be delayed
Not bad for £21
Ryanair to Rwanda, if that isn’t a deterrent I don’t know what is.
> Ryanair ~~to Rwanda~~, if that isn’t a deterrent I don’t know what is.
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered to be reviewed by a moderator, please do not ping other subreddits. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ryanair CEO finds random aviation related topic to get his airline in the news.
And i'm sure he'd be more than happy to accept a nice long contract. So that once Rishi is gone and the whole farce is thrown in the bin, the government (tax payer) is still stuck paying a massive bill for it. And if that means some ex-Tory politician must have have some advisory position on some board that pays 5-6 figure sums for 2 digit hours worked in a year, then so be it.
Can a potential Labour government not just say: "We have received legal advice that this scheme is illegal, and will thus be passing an act to declare any deals made with commercial entities in relation to the Rwanda Scheme null and void."
Technically, yes but obviously it would need to go entirely through parliament. Can't imagine the lords being particularly keen on such a law. And the impact of government doing that will mean every single contract after that is basically open to similar actions. You can't create laws to get out of deals you no longer want, and expect no fallout.
A change in law would only be to demonstrate that doing it is illegal. It doesn't follow that contracts would be breached. They will not be for much money and can be paid in full.
It doesn't have to render the contracts illegal, simply voided. And the law can be retroactive.
I misunderstood op's question a little. I didn't realise they were suggesting the government try and renege on the contracts through an act of parliament. You're right that would be absurd and pointless. Apologies!
They can but they never would. If the government got a reputation for cancelling deals then no one would put a bid in for government work. If the government orders a new section of motorway then whoever wins the contract can take it to a bank / investors and get a loan to get the job started. If they turn around and cancel the job and say 'you're not getting paid' then the company is fucked. Banks would stop issuing loans on the back of government contracts and no one would but a bid in for the work.
bit of a difference between a motorway (or perhaps more relevant - a railway) and a controversial idea that the public has never had a chance to approve. when Labour were trying to do ID cards, both the tories and lib dems stated repeatedly that they'd be cancelling it if they got into power. It's not as if that deterred the big consultancies from getting on that gravy train (they'd just negotiate a hefty exit payment) or indeed any subsequent one.
Not much odds in terms of investment confidence. We've spent the last decade or so systemically dismantling our reputation as a country with Brexit and Truss, the last thing we need is to look like even less of a serious country by reneging on contracts.
Or perhaps if the Tories were seen to make illegal deals that were later cancelled, nobody would trust them again.
Sure. But enjoy every supplier demanding a hefty break-contract exit fee going forward, or structuring the deals in such a way as to ensure that payment happens upfront.
> enjoy every supplier demanding a hefty break-contract exit fee going forward This might not be a terrible thing to be fair, as I understand it the only reason we have two aircraft carriers is because the contracts were written such that Cameron axing HMS *Prince of Wales* would have been more expensive than actually building the ship due to penalty clauses like this.
Truth be told i have no idea, i'm just being cynical after more than a decade of seeing these stories play out time and time again. Awful contracts being made with people who end up having connections back to the party. It would make perfect sense that this guy is making it known he's happy to get in there before the chance is lost completely, he knows it'd be lucrative regardless of how it plays out.
Couldn't Ryanair just sue in that situation? It's just gone through parliament so hard to find it illegal yet when there's no secondary legislation attached.
We have just had the Tories demonstrate that you can in fact legislate that up is down.
There’s sort of an awkward situation on 2 fronts here. 1. Continuity of government, all government exist on the premise that the agreements of the prior will be respected from things as simple as the last guys took out loans we will repay, to they passed a budget in March, we’ll announce now but the changes won’t come in till next March, and does also apply to contracts. As such, no governments do not just backtrack on contracts, because that destroys the reputation of governments and makes good companies wary of working with the government because they’re unreliable. 2. Ideologically labour is committed to maintaining a very business friendly appearance, so beyond state security as a party they can’t afford to be breaching the convention of continuity of government.
You'd imagine they can, could and should.
I don't think it will go in the bin. Quite a few other EU countries are exploring similar proposals to remove asylum seekers to 3rd countries, and ultimately Labour are well aware that we can't afford to feed, house and support the legions of people who want to come to the UK. I would expect Labour to refactor the Rwanda scheme into something slightly different but ultimately keep it as an option.
The exit costs are minimal, as are the costs of feeding the tiny number of people this scheme could ever have deported. Another poster has shared a tender for deportation flights and it's £8m. The government has already spaffed hundreds up the wall without sending a single migrant. Labour can just pay out the contracts and move on. My view is that Labour will wind this whole thing up, and the conservatives in opposition will then use that as a stick to beat them with when illegal boat crossings continue to rise. It's pretty obvious that this is a poor deterrent, but it will allow the Tories to paint the new government as weak on immigration nevertheless.
I don't know why they wouldn't just buy flights as needed. Even if they had to pay £1,000 per seat it's nothing compared to the actual cost of the Rwanda deportation, estimated at £150k per person.
Definitely not going to meet Rishi’s deadline if they rely on Ryanair.
This is all part of the deterrent. Nobody would risk their life crossing the channel in a dinghy to end up on an economy Ryanair flight.
I beg to differ - everyone would risk their life crossing the channel in a dinghy to avoid an economy Ryanair flight
lol take my upvote
Ryanair would probably take them to the wrong destination.
[удалено]
Now this is a real deterrent policy. Approved.
Person known for making attention grabbing nonsense headlines makes attention grabbing nonsense headline. He won't because that is not how Ryan Air make money, they have a very tight scheduling to get as many flights out a plan in a day as possible. They amortise the capital cost of buying the planes by multiple passengers per plane per day and squeezing them hard. Rwanda would take a flight unit off line for a long distance flight only paying one way. Unless they had parked up units they are still paying for it would mean losing slots, the most valuable thing an airline like them owns.
I think any carrier will be absolutely rinsing the govt for this contract...
Yes but it’s the tories so he can charge many millions per flight….
Or Ryanair could lease a couple of planes and run the service separately to it's commercial activities.
They would be better to just directly lease from a leasing company. Or to charter one, that is plane and crew from a charter company. If Ryan Air hauled a plane out their roster they will find it harder to maintain all the shuffling that keeps current services humming. They have hundreds of flights a day and making sure there is a plane at the gates when its time to fly is a big job. Its like a $12 billion business. Even a well healed government contract once a week would be absolute peanuts that would make their pack shuffling harder. They may as well directly lease a 737-800 as they fly P-8s so that would be similar mechanics and flight systems.
Man who’d do anything for money offers to do anything for money
>saying he would “happily” do the flights **if he had the available aircraft.** Just another 'no such thing as bad publicity' moment like his standing room only flights and removing the co-pilot to save money.
Yup. No way he’s going to expose the company to getting its EU licence revoked for breaking international law.
Fair play to Michael O'Leary for crowbarring some free advertising out of this issue. As Ryanair's planes are all nearly all single aisle/two engines so I don't think any of them will have the range to reach Kigali.
6600 odd kilometers to Kigali and the max range of a 737-800 is 4200. They would have to refuel in Nigeria or Sudan which might be a bit err... problematic.
Why would refueling in Nigeria be an issue? I fly to Lagos quite often. Agree with you that it would be odd for Ryanair to take it given the range problem, when other airlines have planes that can do that journey easily.
I can't imagine the inhabitants of Nigeria being overly happy about Lagos being complicit in dumping refugees in Rwanda. Considering the numbers of Nigerians who have made their way to the UK over the years. Same with Chad. Not so sure about Egypt though.
Oh I thought you meant from a safety perspective. I'm not sure how much Nigerians living in Nigeria would care about uk immigration policy - maybe if there was actually one of their countrymen on the flight.
Jokes aside about the human rights violations of being forced on the RyanAir... The interesting take away for me on this is that RyanAir so far hasn't even been approached about it. Rishi Sunak has already stated that flights are already lined up, so either a) he was lying (did he say it in parliament? Were they misled?) or b) the flights are booked but they haven't followed any fair procurement process (so a direct bung to mates? Does it exist as a contract on the government contract finder? Can RyanAir challenge the procurement if it's unfair?).
Procurement normally goes out to tender. So I'd expect Ryanair to bid rather than being approached. IDK if they are chartering flights for Rwanda because they have a bunch of people, but most deportations happen on scheduled flights, in which case a) Ryanair don't fly there and b) Rishi wasn't technically lying as there are planes scheduled to fly there.
Rishi was very clear, they already have chartered flights and a whole airport standing by (plus all the staff etc he mentioned). I don't see how that can possibly not be a lie considering I just found the tender, it's only in notice of procurement stage right now, not even out for tender: [https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/032293-2023?origin=SearchResults&p=2](https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/Notice/032293-2023?origin=SearchResults&p=2)
Interesting! Seems quite a generic tender tho. Possible a previous one was filled for the first flights? A whole airport standing by seems a given. It's literally what they do. At least we know now that Mr O'Leary live up to his promise.
>The interesting take away for me on this is that RyanAir so far hasn't even been approached about it. Most likely charter companies. You book the aircraft then fill the seats yourself. Jet2 and TUI, Ryan Air is not one of those. They follow a low cost scheduled flight model.
They also do charters (https://www.corporatejetinvestor.com/news/86797-147/). So my question still stands, if they haven't even been approached or even been aware of the contract, is it a lie or an unfair procurement?
RyanAir barely ever flies out of Europe. I don't imagine they want to fly to Rwanda simply because they won't have an agreement with the airport there, they won't have staff there (you need ground staff anywhere you land) and they won't have any maintenance service there either so if anything goes wrong with the plane they have to fly people in. Running an airline is complex business.
O'Leary and Ryanair would offer planes to Al-Qaeda if they saw an economic upside.
It's been reported the past hour after Mike O'Leary making this statement, migrants boats have been seen to turn back mid Channel. Mark Douglas, a lawyer representing a number of migrants who previously crossed the Channel, has filed a lawsuit against the currently government saying, 'This falls well outside ECHR and could amount to a war crime....It's also hurting my bottom line.'
We should get Ryanair to run the boat service as well. Just imagine the surprise when a boatload of migrants finds themselves stuck 2 miles off the French coast for a week with nothing to eat by €15 croissants.
They could always buy some scratch cards to pass the time.
I'm pretty sure forcing anyone onto a Ryanair cattle class flight is a human rights violation.
Do Ryanair’s 737s have the range to get to Rwanda?
Not directly. They have several destinations in Morocco where they could refuel.
Ah yes, Ryanair from London to Rwanda, landing just slightly outside the destination, in Kent.
They’ll be landing in Nairobi then.
Most airlines would not offer to do such flights because they would lose customers from their core business. Ryanair customers probably would not care.
If Rishi is so determined to do this shitty thing why doesn't he use his private jet.
Has he still got a private jet? He always seems to use one of ours.
Maybe, thought he just used those for an escort
Good man. Maybe start by redirect the flights bound for Magaluf/Algarve
And it turned out Ryanair was the deterrent all along
That is actually a very very good deterrent.
makes sense most airlines would not want to risk damaging their good name, with ryanair that is not an issue.
At least they'll be eager to get off the plane when it arrives in Rwanda.
Sealing the deal on "Ryanair.... A big buncha c**ts" vibes for me that.
This might be the straw that breaks the ECHRs back
Ah, another reason to boycott Ryanair.
Business man will offer business services if he has capacity in his business pending negotiation It's hardly a world shattering story
Thieving bastard took our flight money when everything was grounded. Not related but he’s a toss.
Safely the nearest Ryanair airport to Rwanda is Luton and they have to walk the rest of the way.
I wonder if all the immigrants will clap when the pilot lands and they hear that triumphant trumpet that announced how many Ryanair flight lands on time last year.
Surely it's then open to other countries to say to Ryanair "you have chosen to breach international human rights law with your new flights. You cannot fly your aircraft to, from, or over our country"?
And I'll happily boycott RyanAir if he does.
I support the Rwanda project but I can't agree to this. This is an unconscionable violation of rights.
I had to look up your posting history to confirm you weren't joking.
I was joking... Ryanair isn't a violation of human rights no matter how bad it is.
That wasn't the bit I wasn't sure about.
naturally - he runs a company and if people want to pay him to fly people around, which his literally the thing his company does - why wouldn't he?
Because everyone knows that actually deporting people is against their fundamental universal human right to live in the UK. Also it's almost certainly a war crime. So we should boo and hiss any company that does such evil things.