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.
AER LINGUS AND Ryanair have confirmed both airlines require two people to be in the cockpit at all times when a plane is in the air.
It comes in the wake of today’s revelation that the co-pilot of the Germanwings flight that crashed in the French Alps on Tuesday appeared to want to destroy the plane.
A French prosecutor said today that on the basis of information from the “black box” flight recorder, he had been alone in the cockpit and intentionally started his descent while the pilot was locked outside.
“If a Cockpit Crew member needs to leave the cockpit, a Cabin Crew member is required to remain in the cockpit, with the door closed, while the Cockpit Crew Member is absent,” an Aer Lingus spokesperson said.
“Pilots and Cabin Crew are trained in cockpit door procedures during initial training and during annual recurrent training.”
“Ryanair requires two people to be in the cockpit at all times,” a spokesperson for the budget carrier said.
“If a pilot needs to visit the bathroom the cabin crew supervisor is required to stand in the cockpit for these brief periods.”
British airline EasyJet said today it would enforce a new policy for two crew members to be in the cockpit at all times from tomorrow.
“EasyJet can confirm that, with effect from tomorrow… it will change its procedure,” the airline said in a statement.
Similar decisions have been announced by Canada’s Air Transat, Norwegian Air Shuttle and Icelandair but EasyJet is by far the biggest airline to take action.
The low-cost carrier transported nearly 65 million people around Europe over its last financial year and has 8,000 employees.
It has a fleet of 200 Airbus planes.
Includes reporting from AFP.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Maybe I’m getting old but I have no idea what that article was about
It’s essentially about two guys who made a company based on their popularity online and tried to trademark the word ‘reacts’ among other things. They wanted the ability to remove content which looked anything like theirs (or not, they had a go at Ellen DeGeneres for a scene which only vaguely alluded to their work) and ultimately the right to sue anyone who wouldn’t abide by their wishes.
Essentially, it’s about what happens when trademark laws are taken to a ridiculous extreme.
But wtf is a ‘react video’? Jaysus I’m only 27 and I haven’t a clue…
It’s basically people filming their reactions to things. Usually YouTube videos. How anyone thinks they could trademark that is beyond me
That’s what I thought, but then I thought, Na no one would watch something so utterly mundane…
I actually heard from somebody I watch on YouTube sometimes, a ranter that the Fine Bros went around copyright claiming videos that even had the word “react” or “reaction” in them and some of these videos were from as long ago as 2007! Its absolutely ridiculous what they are doing.
Two arrogant p***ks react to being taken down a peg or two.
Sorry, you can’t take back being douchebags. I hope your subscriber exodus continues.
I can’t blame someone for wanting to protect their work, although the Fine Brothers were not looking to do that. They were looking for the freedom to monetise an entire style of video.
It would be like Disney trying to protect the Star Wars trademark (fully understandable) but also looking for the freedom to sue any other film company that produced something even remotely like it.
One of the problems is their videos are all based off of other people’s content. They make money using other people’s videos and try to trademark something incredibly vague. They certainly were not the first to come up with the concept of a reaction video either.
Prohibited ave become too greedy. They already make a lot from their videos so why attempt to milk more…money makes the world go round I guess…
People have *
I’m not sure if she was successful or not but Paris Hilton wanted to trademark the words, “that’s hot”. Ridiculous!
The great thing about YouTube is that it’s not like television, in the sense that you don’t need a massive team of people to create something. Anyone with a webcam and a computer can make a YouTube video and trying to licence what essentially is a whole genre of videos on the website will ruin the whole thing, in my opinion.
They are nothing without the content other people created.
Exactly Seth.
Exactly! I’m so relieved that they decided not to go ahead. this kind of legalisation of YouTube video formats would have had a drastic effect on how video sharing works and would destroy the notion of the freedom of the Internet. there’s space for anyone to express themselves on YouTube, and this move would have damaged that
Alice I’m surprised they didn’t expect this kind of backlash after what happened to Sam Pepper. And anyway, if you get caught stealing someones idea/video on youtube you get dragged in the comments lmao
very true! there’s a level of courtesy that you follow and if you don’t- you get called out! I’m so relieved it’s been reversed that could have been catastrophic
“YouTube Stars” – what is wrong with this statement? :-)
TV Stars, Movie Stars, no difference really
Well said @Seth.
Hey ho
Two knobs who make videos featuring lots of pretentious people playing up for the camera.
They wanted to trademark their series, as in the kids react and elders reacts!
have your say