Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

At the outset I too would like to express my disappointment that not all guests invited to appear today took up the invitation. While I respect the fact that we do not have the power to compel a private company to attend, it would have been in the interests of its own customers if it had sent a representative to answer questions. I thank those who did come for making their presentations in a concise and clear manner. This helps us in advance of our deliberations.

The IAA says it complies with international European standards and that it is the fourth in the world ranking in terms of safety standards. How often is that reviewed and checked? When has the league table most recently been adjudicated upon? Its role in this matter, as I understand it, is only from a safety perspective. Can it confirm that there was no breach of any safety regulations, be they Irish, European or worldwide regulations?

It is the IAA's role to inspect compliance with the flight time limitations. When did Europe move to align flight time limitations? Previously, each country had its own calendar year and then there was a move by Europe to impose an aligned calendar year across the Union. When did that happen? Was it only Ryanair that was operating a different calendar year in terms of April to March or were other Irish airlines operating a different calendar year prior to this EU directive? Are all airlines now meeting that requirement and did they meet it within the timeframe stipulated by the EU? It has been said that airlines operating on the April to March calendar are at a commercial advantage. I think the IAA has answered that already.

It is also said that there is nearly a question mark over the safety standards of low-fare airlines. Can the IAA, which enjoys long-standing international recognition of its competence in what it does, confirm there is no compromising of any safety standards by any of the airlines operating here? The IAA carries out planned and unplanned inspections. Perhaps the witnesses can tell me what kind of inspections they carry out to make sure they are happy that each airline is complying with the standards.

Moving on to the Commission for Aviation Regulation, it would appear that its counterparts in the UK have a lot more teeth and a lot more power in terms of how it has dealt with Ryanair.

It would appear that Ryanair went to the CAR's UK counterpart to give it information rather than face the consequences, but that does not appear to have happened in Ireland. From the timeframe outlined by Ms Mannion, it seems that the CAR had to go looking for Ryanair's co-operation at every step along the way. Has Ryanair a good track record of co-operating with the CAR?

Ms Mannion stated that this was not about going after Ryanair, but about ensuring that customers' rights were made known so that they were aware of where they could go to acquire the necessary information. It is funny. I was contacted a number of times - I will not say a large number of times - on the first weekend subsequent to a Facebook post that I published outlining where customers who had been affected could go to get the relevant information. Those people would not have known where to go had I not made that post. That is not right or fair. Neither is it right nor fair that the CAR should be following and observing social media sites and media reports to find out what is happening. Does Ms Mannion believe it is satisfactory that she must surf through social media to find out what is happening?

Surely to God there is a requirement for an airline to advise the CAR in advance. As Ms Mannion stated, this was not some unplanned cessation of flights. This was planned. Does the CAR know how long in advance of the flights being suspended Ryanair knew about it? Does Ms Mannion believe that there should be consequences for Ryanair for not pre-warning the CAR that this was about to happen? She mentioned that Ryanair had sent an email and that she was disappointed that it had not referred the matter to the CAR first, but surely there should be a requirement on Ryanair to refer something to the CAR first, especially where there is a risk that the email will contain misinformation. What are the consequences for an airline that issues an email that contains misinformation or, at best, does not contain all of the information that is required to help stranded passengers? This is about ensuring that the customer's rights are not exploited and are honoured.

Ms Mannion also mentioned that it was not until Monday, 25 September that Ryanair made the CAR aware that it had agreed a partnership arrangement with seven airlines. She stated that the CAR did not know why Ryanair could not have made that information available prior to that time, but it should know. In the CAR's discussions with Ryanair, it should ask why Ryanair did not make it aware. Are there consequences for not making the CAR aware?

Ms Mannion stated that it was only at the end of September, specifically 29 September, following a meeting with Ryanair that "Ryanair's final re-routing proposal and the information to be provided to passengers met the requirements of Regulation (EC) 261/2004". That was two full weeks after this situation started. Does Ms Mannion view that as satisfactory and are there consequences for this process taking too long?

Perhaps Ms Mannion will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that the CAR's counterpart in the UK seems to have stronger powers in this regard. Is my assessment right? If so, are there additional powers or legislative amendments that we can introduce that would help the CAR to ensure that an airline is afraid or, at a minimum, respectful of the commission's position and makes it aware of all information in advance in order that the airline's customers are informed at an early stage?