In my five years with Ryanair ...........................Whilst I do not agree the ethics of Ryanair the technical and operational side of the Company is second to none thanks to their training system and the skill and dedication of all their crews.
Exactly. I have personal knowledge and experience of working with (not for) Ryanair - maintenance related - and have said many times on Pprune that their maintenance and operations are excellent and in many respects well ahead of most legacy carriers, including the world's favourite which I have also experienced at close quarters. The simple reason for this is that good maintenance costs less than bad maintenance.
At the same time I think that the way they treat their customers is simply unacceptable; it's a mixture of quasi-fraudulent practices and contempt, which reaches into the way people are handled at airports. And they are often more expensive than any other airline on a given route, taking all charges and costs into account.
Last time I looked, Ryanair's average yield was higher than BA's, on short-haul. That was a few years (3? 4?) ago. Ryanair carefully cultivates the myth of its cheap fares, not least by keeping the "fare" low and adding ridiculous "charges", as well as simply shouting the nonsense so often that people believe it.
I love it when people talk about "perceived" things like "pressure". What this usually means is that there isn't a shred of evidence for whatever is "perceived", but let's complain about it anyway because everyone says it's there.
By the way, it's a long time since I did a flight plan and load sheet, but I seem to recall that the sector fuel required (aka "minimum" fuel) included a provision for unforeseens? The Captain could add to that, and did, if unusual events were a risk (aka foreseeable), ie airport closure at destination or alternate. But the norm of 90%+++ of departures was sector fuel calculated as per FOM. Anything wrong with that?