Ryanair - 7
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Alps
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bratislava?
From June new (seasonal?) routes from AHO to BRE (restart), BTS and GSE and from July OPO-CCF 2 weekly
Could this be the first route announced for a Bratislava based aircraft or have I just missed something?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FA10
Appreciate your explanation. As you are obviously in the know, can you explain to me one thing.
During boarding process at Stansted, rear steps were removed early, so majority boarded at the front, and as we all know, people tend to seat in the first available seats they come to and get in the way of others (never been a fan of free seating).
Result was that most were seated at the front with acres of space at the rear end. How do you do a loadsheet when you don't know were anybody would sit or do you take our seating habits into account.. If rear steps stay in place till boarding complete surely would be better.
I guess this is done in the race to get away on time, but is it correct ?
During boarding process at Stansted, rear steps were removed early, so majority boarded at the front, and as we all know, people tend to seat in the first available seats they come to and get in the way of others (never been a fan of free seating).
Result was that most were seated at the front with acres of space at the rear end. How do you do a loadsheet when you don't know were anybody would sit or do you take our seating habits into account.. If rear steps stay in place till boarding complete surely would be better.
I guess this is done in the race to get away on time, but is it correct ?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Alps
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right, Teaboy - it is correct.
The system is made for the "worst case scenario", so it does not do any harm when all the passengers are sitting in the most forward or rearward available position.
The reason for the early removal of the back stairs will remain in the dark - however the situation of boarding with only one entry is quite common. Imagine for example using the airbridge (happens occasionaly) or boarding at the rear during a handicaped passenger is entering in front.
The system was designed by the manufacturer of the aircraft in cooperation with FR - you can be sure, that it works in all cases!
FA10
The system is made for the "worst case scenario", so it does not do any harm when all the passengers are sitting in the most forward or rearward available position.
The reason for the early removal of the back stairs will remain in the dark - however the situation of boarding with only one entry is quite common. Imagine for example using the airbridge (happens occasionaly) or boarding at the rear during a handicaped passenger is entering in front.
The system was designed by the manufacturer of the aircraft in cooperation with FR - you can be sure, that it works in all cases!
FA10
Last edited by FA10; 25th Mar 2010 at 14:22.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair will not be among the first carriers to start operating at the new SWIFT low-cost terminal in Copenhagen, writes the Danish press. Only three airlines - easyJet, Germanwings and Transavia - have shown their concrete interest, SAS and Cimber Sterling are not interested. The limited transfer capabilities are discouraging Norwegian, FR probably will wait for the better conditions, Air Berlin is still pondering.
Swift will open in October this year.
Swift will open in October this year.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from MST-Aviation.nl
Anyone here with info? Correct/incorrect?
Originally Posted by PH-MST
There are rumors going around that Ryanair is planning to base 2 737's at MST. :shock:
Last edited by Limburg; 30th Mar 2010 at 06:21.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Troon
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure of the exact loads on PIK-STN but have flown it 3x in the last two months (and again tomorrow) of the six sectors, I would estimate that the lowest was 75% withe highest close to 95%. first put and last back always seem the busiest with flight in between lower. Flying on the early afternoon flight from STN tomorrow so will be interested to see what the load is.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Alps
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just checked the AHO-BTS times and see this on is gonna be flown ex BTS. Further checking the incoming flights to BTS I find... NOTHING that matches.
Could this be the first route announced for a Bratislava based aircraft or have I just missed something?
Could this be the first route announced for a Bratislava based aircraft or have I just missed something?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: keighley
Age: 46
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surley this is an april fool!
Ryanair to Install Onboard Vending Machines
Ryanair, the world’s favourite airline, has announced that it will install vending machines onboard its 225 aircraft in a drive to further reduce costs and increase ancillary revenues through increased passenger choice. From June 2010 Ryanair passengers will be able to purchase hot and cold drinks, sandwiches, snacks, ice-cream, condoms and smokeless cigarettes directly from onboard vending machines.
Ryanair said that the phased installation of vending machines will allow it to reduce its cabin crew teams onboard from four to two who will perform safety announcements and ensure passenger seatbelts are securely fastened. The substantial savings which this initiative will generate will then be passed on to the travelling public in the form of lower fares.
Ryanair’s Stephen McNamara said;
“Ryanair is delighted to announce the installation of our onboard vending machines which will provide passengers with an extensive choice of in-flight snacks and drinks, allowing Ryanair to reduce crew members, lower costs and pass on lower fares to the travelling public.
RYANAIR TO INSTALL VENDING MACHINES ONBOARD
AND REDUCE CABIN CREW TO LOWER COSTS
AND REDUCE CABIN CREW TO LOWER COSTS
Ryanair, the world’s favourite airline, has announced that it will install vending machines onboard its 225 aircraft in a drive to further reduce costs and increase ancillary revenues through increased passenger choice. From June 2010 Ryanair passengers will be able to purchase hot and cold drinks, sandwiches, snacks, ice-cream, condoms and smokeless cigarettes directly from onboard vending machines.
Ryanair said that the phased installation of vending machines will allow it to reduce its cabin crew teams onboard from four to two who will perform safety announcements and ensure passenger seatbelts are securely fastened. The substantial savings which this initiative will generate will then be passed on to the travelling public in the form of lower fares.
Ryanair’s Stephen McNamara said;
“Ryanair is delighted to announce the installation of our onboard vending machines which will provide passengers with an extensive choice of in-flight snacks and drinks, allowing Ryanair to reduce crew members, lower costs and pass on lower fares to the travelling public.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,069
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think cabin crew will really notice this if they have any wit about them. Ryanair already operate the minimum cabin crew that the authorities allow so there is little chance of them losing out to a 'vending machine.'
The article seems to suggest that a cabin crew's role is focused solely on service and "making sure seatbelts are fastened." This is very much their secondary role and for the airline to go about focusing their role on service is not only incorrect but very insulting to the staff.
Typical Ryanair April fools and I must say, it isn't their best compared to previous years.
The article seems to suggest that a cabin crew's role is focused solely on service and "making sure seatbelts are fastened." This is very much their secondary role and for the airline to go about focusing their role on service is not only incorrect but very insulting to the staff.
Typical Ryanair April fools and I must say, it isn't their best compared to previous years.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Euroville
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any website or document that shows how many aircraft FR have at a given base and when a new aircraft starts operating? I can see on the FR website when a new route opens but not the aircraft.
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Items usually get moved because they are in the incorrect forum. The Rumours and News Forum has the following byline:
Does this item affect the jobs or lives of professional pilots ? Nope.
Is it of interest to professional pilots ? Maybe, but we don't think so as headlining news.
It's about an airline (Ryanair), and an airport (Dublin).
Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.
Is it of interest to professional pilots ? Maybe, but we don't think so as headlining news.
It's about an airline (Ryanair), and an airport (Dublin).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair are very quick to get the lawyers out when they sniff a comment which does not put them in a good light. Please read this before anyone continues on thei post England’s libel laws don’t just gag me, they blindfold you | Simon Singh - Times Online
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there is not much point arguing with a moderator.
However, I thought it was "News" - which is supposedly a bit better than Rumour. Hence the "News and Rumour" thread was chosen.
It is indeed important news. I should therefore lay out why I think that this is a backwater for placing such an item and why it is wrong to remove it from a prominent - and, in my opinion, a singularly appropriate - thread.
It is relevant because the serious bit of this is that the Chief Executive of a major European airline has been found to have "mislead [a] Court". This is judicial language for telling a lie, which is what some of the newspaper headlines have called it.
This particular airline now has several executives, not to mention the Chief Executive, who have been similarly criticised. In most companies such executives would receive some attention, including from the Board. In most companies such a Chief Executive would not last and would now be "considering his position".
But I doubt than nobody think that this particular Chief Executive will be doing any such thing, especially as he has tolerated similar findings for those who work for him. The Board will do what the Board of this company always does. All of this makes it important, factual, news.
This particular Chief Executive is controversial, and has been for some time. There have been court cases involving professional pilots as well and issues relating to fatigue, incidents, etc, etc. and suggestions that the hand of this Chief Executive is very much "on the helm".
All of this is, in my humble opinion, highly relevant to Bulletin Board calling itself the "Professional Pilots Rumour Network"
The bonus was that this piece gets both the drama and significance of the court events in one rather amusing article.
That is why I posted it and that is why I consider(ed) it relevant for the thread I originally chose.
Finally, the letter of apology has just appeared elsewhere on the web. Where might one post that? Here for the airport watchers ....? (Not that I am going to. I'm giving up).
That said, I have to admire the sophistry of the justification offered and congratulate our moderator:
However, I thought it was "News" - which is supposedly a bit better than Rumour. Hence the "News and Rumour" thread was chosen.
It is indeed important news. I should therefore lay out why I think that this is a backwater for placing such an item and why it is wrong to remove it from a prominent - and, in my opinion, a singularly appropriate - thread.
It is relevant because the serious bit of this is that the Chief Executive of a major European airline has been found to have "mislead [a] Court". This is judicial language for telling a lie, which is what some of the newspaper headlines have called it.
This particular airline now has several executives, not to mention the Chief Executive, who have been similarly criticised. In most companies such executives would receive some attention, including from the Board. In most companies such a Chief Executive would not last and would now be "considering his position".
But I doubt than nobody think that this particular Chief Executive will be doing any such thing, especially as he has tolerated similar findings for those who work for him. The Board will do what the Board of this company always does. All of this makes it important, factual, news.
This particular Chief Executive is controversial, and has been for some time. There have been court cases involving professional pilots as well and issues relating to fatigue, incidents, etc, etc. and suggestions that the hand of this Chief Executive is very much "on the helm".
All of this is, in my humble opinion, highly relevant to Bulletin Board calling itself the "Professional Pilots Rumour Network"
The bonus was that this piece gets both the drama and significance of the court events in one rather amusing article.
That is why I posted it and that is why I consider(ed) it relevant for the thread I originally chose.
Finally, the letter of apology has just appeared elsewhere on the web. Where might one post that? Here for the airport watchers ....? (Not that I am going to. I'm giving up).
That said, I have to admire the sophistry of the justification offered and congratulate our moderator:
It's about an airline (Ryanair), and an airport (Dublin).
PPRuNe Bashaholic
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: The Peoples Alcoholic Republic of Jockistan
Posts: 1,442
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe has editorial rights, hence we place threads where we think serve the site best. This one sits nicely in here in the opinion of PPRuNe.
Incidentally Aloue, you did get written permission to post the article under copyright ...... didn't you ?
If only you'd just posted a link as per the notice, you might not have placed PPRuNe under a potential copyright breach threat 
Incidentally Aloue, you did get written permission to post the article under copyright ...... didn't you ?
Sunday Tribune Copyright Notice
All information, content and services on this website and archive, including but not limited to news articles, features, reviews, photographs, illustrations, video, audio and graphics copyright © Tribune Newspapers PLC (unless specified otherwise). Reproduction only with prior written permission. Linking to content is permitted but must be ceased upon request from Tribune Newspapers PLC. Emailed content and printed hard copy versions of this content also copyright © Tribune Newspapers PLC.
All information, content and services on this website and archive, including but not limited to news articles, features, reviews, photographs, illustrations, video, audio and graphics copyright © Tribune Newspapers PLC (unless specified otherwise). Reproduction only with prior written permission. Linking to content is permitted but must be ceased upon request from Tribune Newspapers PLC. Emailed content and printed hard copy versions of this content also copyright © Tribune Newspapers PLC.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Various
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did I not show some prescience in starting my post above with the following words?
It is normally the case that a recalcitrant poster perpetuates an argument that should be dropped. But we may have a case of role reversal here! When near the end of my post I said
What I meant was: This is over. I don’t agree with the reasons advanced. I have explained why. I’m going off now. The moderators of this site will (necessarily) win any argument.
Next I see a new post from the moderator. But the argument has changed. Now I could reply to that (and I do have answers) but it will still be the case that he or she will win in the end. However only because those folks up in “PPruNe HQ” make the rules. While that is how it must be, it nonetheless does not necessarily every decision correct.
In any case to chase the copyright rabbit is to head off the subject. The nub of this matter is that, were I to obtain permission to publish this article from the Sunday Tribune – which I think I could probably get in this case – where would the article be posted on PPRuNe?
However, that question has already been answered and I have explained above why I disagreed. That, in my humble opinion, should have ended the matter.
Changing the subject to one of copyright does not change the points I made above and the introduction of a new argument tends in my opinion to support my suspicion that the post was removed for reasons other than provided. But who cares about a suspicion? It amounts to nothing.
I do think it was important to say what I said because of who and what is involved. I equally think it best that we all let this go.
I hope that it is therefore clear that I (1) accept the moderator’s decision, and, (2) I do not agree with it.
Well, there is not much point arguing with a moderator.
Not that I am going to. I'm giving up.
Next I see a new post from the moderator. But the argument has changed. Now I could reply to that (and I do have answers) but it will still be the case that he or she will win in the end. However only because those folks up in “PPruNe HQ” make the rules. While that is how it must be, it nonetheless does not necessarily every decision correct.
In any case to chase the copyright rabbit is to head off the subject. The nub of this matter is that, were I to obtain permission to publish this article from the Sunday Tribune – which I think I could probably get in this case – where would the article be posted on PPRuNe?
However, that question has already been answered and I have explained above why I disagreed. That, in my humble opinion, should have ended the matter.
Changing the subject to one of copyright does not change the points I made above and the introduction of a new argument tends in my opinion to support my suspicion that the post was removed for reasons other than provided. But who cares about a suspicion? It amounts to nothing.
I do think it was important to say what I said because of who and what is involved. I equally think it best that we all let this go.
I hope that it is therefore clear that I (1) accept the moderator’s decision, and, (2) I do not agree with it.
PPRuNe has editorial rights, hence we place threads where we think serve the site best. This one sits nicely in here in the opinion of PPRuNe.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Teesside
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Aloue,
At the moment there is a case going through the English Courts of a Rwandan National who has permission to stay in the UK suing an American newspaper ( Christian Scientist ? ) for comments posted on it's website which were seen by 6 people (hits so it could have been one person six times ) in the UK. I don't know where you reside and I know the server for this site is in USA but MOL and Ryanair have a reputation in the jurisdiction of the English Courts so I understand why the moderators are wary of allowing any comments which could be construed as libellous. Whether they are or not is by the way it is who has the deepest pockets who wins. For information the Rwandan national is I believe being funded on Legal Aid which means that HM Govt are paying for it. Lots of US sites are already deciding whether to block English access because of the crazy libel laws in this country. Please bear with the Mods. ( God how that hurt )
At the moment there is a case going through the English Courts of a Rwandan National who has permission to stay in the UK suing an American newspaper ( Christian Scientist ? ) for comments posted on it's website which were seen by 6 people (hits so it could have been one person six times ) in the UK. I don't know where you reside and I know the server for this site is in USA but MOL and Ryanair have a reputation in the jurisdiction of the English Courts so I understand why the moderators are wary of allowing any comments which could be construed as libellous. Whether they are or not is by the way it is who has the deepest pockets who wins. For information the Rwandan national is I believe being funded on Legal Aid which means that HM Govt are paying for it. Lots of US sites are already deciding whether to block English access because of the crazy libel laws in this country. Please bear with the Mods. ( God how that hurt )
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: EIDW
Age: 70
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bases in GB
So what are the chances of any new GB bases? Does anyone forsee that any new bases will be created or indeed any new routes ex GB airports?
Does anyone forsee that there will be a new Ryanair airport for London, ie Southend, Cambridge etc? Any future potential?
EI-BUD
Does anyone forsee that there will be a new Ryanair airport for London, ie Southend, Cambridge etc? Any future potential?
EI-BUD
If there is to be a new base at Southend or Cambridge, then FR would have to be careful to ensure it doesn't end up inadvertently cannibalising business from its existing operation at STN while incurring the additional cost of a 3rd base serving the area around London north of the Thames
Having said that, it might be a good way to keep STN management on their toes... in the same way as Easyjet at BFS+BHD
Having said that, it might be a good way to keep STN management on their toes... in the same way as Easyjet at BFS+BHD