I've lost count how many times I've pointed this out to various authorities and interested parties: http://www.ryanair.com/doc/investor/...nceRepairs.pdf , note the use of the word 'endeavors' in the first paragraph

And then read: Terrifying Ryanair 21,000ft emergency descent 'forced by maintenance errors' - AOL Travel UK

and: BBC News - Ryanair emergency descent 'forced by maintenance errors'

Maybe this, and similar incidents have something to do with Siemens decision?

AirResearcher,

A little more research (about 25 seconds) would have shown you that the two separate loss of pressure incidents appear to be the SAME incident.
Subsequent investigation noted that part installation could be improved and recommendations have been made to Boeing.
Ryanair have responded appropriately.
Congratulations, you've reduced your Ryanair serious incident list by 50%.

Little more attention to detail might get you taken seriously by the "various authorities and interested parties".

BRE questions how many Siemens employees fly. I don't know, but of the relatively limited number of European committees I go to (8), 6 of them have at least one regular Siemens attendee, two of them have two attendees and one has three. So 1% may well be a bit low.


I had the argument with our purchasing department about Ryanair. First, it didn't fly to Arlanda, which was the right side of Stockholm for our plant. Second, it didn't fly from Heathrow, adding at least an hour or an hour and a half to the journey. Thirdly, if you needed a flight within 72 hours, it was rarely any cheaper! Getting it into the heads of people in purchasing or corporate travel that the total cost must include the time taken is hard, as they all feel you travel in your own time. Which we did, but it had to go on the time sheet, and so was charged against the project.


The final stupidity was when we were told that the corporate agent charged £30 to get us a ticket. When I was able to show that I could get the same ticket at the same price on BA, but only costing £4.50, I was told to go and do it.

Many years ago, at a certain large company, the company travel agent changed and it was mandatory to use them. The travel company CEO was the wife of the Finance Director of the large company..........

Travel agents - I avoid them, just as I avoid Ryanair, and for the same reasons - I don't get the service I want.

Momoe -I was pointing to 2 independent reports of the same incident -standard research practise.. The rhetorical question I was asking was : COULD this be why Siemens have introduced this policy, bearing in mind the German report was only issued a couple of weeks ago? Hope this clarifies any confusion.

AirResearcher

Quite why you do this, I don't know. When writing papers, referring to independent and separate sources for verification/references are de rigeur but you're on an aviation forum and should post accordingly.

I would have thought that the interim report by the German "AAIB" would have been more relevant (Cause, effect and conclusion?). Especially as Boeing procedures were found to be wanting.
Aside from this, it's an isolated instance of a mistake in maintenance procedures which isn't a Ryanair monopoly as you well know, other depressurisation situations have had far worse outcomes.

None of this alters the fact that Siemens logic appears to be flawed, you don't blacklist an airline because you believe an accident will happen because of it's culture.

Air France should be on Siemens list as the general concensus is they have a culture problem and an unenviable safety record. Perhaps Siemens would like to explain why they consider Ryanair statistically less safe then Air France?

It always seems to me that there are 2 main aspects to any discussion regarding FR, and that sadly, many folks mix them up.
Yet despite it all, the FR flight crews are professional enough to ignore all this and do an outstanding job - despite, rather than with the help of, their management.

That's the underlying bed rock in this argument. But then, because it is FR, it gets overlain by 3 other layers:
So they ignore the fact that 4 aircraft captains independently chose to make decisions that, with the benefit of hindsigh MAY be debatable, regarding fuel is not down to each Captains own choice, but is directly because they were ordered or compromised into it by MOL or edicts from management.]

In my mind, it's this third group that have lost the plot. They no longer have the ability to differentiate between being wise after the event and blaming everything on FR and MOL in particular.

Maybe, with the benefit of hindsight, or a bit more foresight, the Captains should have chosen to take more fuel - but it WAS their choice, nobody else's, and certainly not Mr. O'Leary's or his minions.

But wouldn't it be nice if we always had the benefit of hindsight before we made every decision?

A final disclaimer - I don't work for FR and I'd say I fall into tier 2 above - the FR haters - i.e. I hate their service and don't use them, but I admire the professionalism of their flight crews. And Orville was offered a job with them, but turned 'em down and went on to bigger and better things with another airline.

Can we add to the praise for the guys flying the FR's, the guys maintaining them ? There is an interview in the Catalan newspaper "El Punt" today talking about Ryanair's "lost reputation in Spain": an interview with somebody high up in flight safety is quoted in saying Ryanair's maintenance is to the very highest standards possible.

Not sure if MOL is "unspeakable" in a text thread. "Unmentionable" ? Whatever, quite agree.

Knowing nothing about the practicalities of the role etc could I ask a question ?

If there are a large number of aircraft all following the same basic guidelines on calculations on fuel loads, for broadly similar routes etc, what are the chances that the only four aircraft to 'have an issue' are from the same airline ?

So, are there so many such occurrences such that the incidence of Ryanair 'events' are statistically insignificant ?

Or is it that Ryanair are having these incidents at a rate which is statistically more significant which would indicate different factors being used in the calculations than other airlines?

Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, third is enemy action as Ian Fleming once said. Four times he didn't cover

flyingpicket

Many small (and sometimes big too) national carriers are in fact Government sponsored charities - they never made a profit and nobody really expects them to make a profit in current shape and form. If they were commercial airlines they will be bust decades ago.

So SR perfect service had nothing to do with going bust, same time FR rude service has nothing to do with their profits. As long as FR can have industry-record profits without spending a penny on customer service, they shall continue to do so. Being a nice chap will not buy you a yacht, however healthy dividends will do.

Thousands of people in this industry shall respect MOL for creating their jobs. They wouldn't be there without him, as FR has made European car, bus and train passengers to fly, others just followed the suit.

If somebody thinks that FR pays too little or conditions are too bad, there is an easy answer - take another job, slavery has long gone in this part of world. If you are contractor to FR like handler etc - refuse the contract at the price FR offered and keep going, there are very few cases when handling company can be enforced by law to handle the carrier, and this never comes at rock bottom rates. We are living in a free world, so enjoy goods and bads about it.

Ryanair etc
 

I'm avoiding Ryanair and Air France whenever I can.

I don't like Ryanair's business philosophy and their "passenger = paying cattle" attitude. That's enough to make me run far away from them.

Air France I simply don't trust in terms of safe operation. Too many negative headlines lately which make me believe that there's a serious problem with this airline.

There are many more airlines which I wouldn't trust, but it's a lot less likely that I'll ever have to use one of those.

It strikes me that the most hostile here appear to be individuals who have an unfavourably simplistic on non existent understanding of the composition of the company that is Ryanair.

Many of the individuals also seem to have followed this thread from another forum. Not typical of SLF.

Perhaps a nice Mod would move it elsewhere, it really isn't SLF stuff.

Well, we might not like the game being played, but at least we know where they are playing it, and can keep an eye on them from out of the kitchen window while we have a nice cup of tea and a choccie biscuit.

I'm always surprised at the endless hamster-wheel nature of FR discussions. I don't like FR, for lots of reasons and so I quietly exercise my consumer choice by refusing to fly with them and flying with others instead. I am in a minority and recognise that - they are the most successful airline in Europe and surely don't lie awake nights worrying about the loss of my business. Those are the facts, and there's not really much else useful to say.

:ok: In my case I've never flown them, but they don't fly here.

Many people would question the first part of that statement.

Siemens and 'el cheapo flights'
 

When I worked for Siemens we weren't even suppossed to use upgrade vouchers. The travel office told me I should always sit in an economy seat, regardless of what the airline or ticket stated, 'because I worked for Siemens'.

It's a BUS, no more, no less.
 

I really do not understand the fuss about MOL and Ryannair in this thread.

It is very simple. MOL wants to run a cheap bus company that happens to fly.
He knows that a hull loss is expensive, so he does all that is necessary to avoid a hull loss. Fine.

He knows that losing a pax, or even thousands of pax, is cheap, so he doesn't care less about that. There are plenty of others to fill the seats.

If folk are happy to take a very cheap bus from a very cheap airport to another very cheap airport, often miles from their destination, they will fly with MOL. Otherwise they will not fly with MOL.

Simples.

Ancient Observer has got it spot on. I'm just SLF but I have very good SLF credentials. I hold gold status with BA, gold with *A, gold with Skyteam and status (but not yet gold) with Emirates. If RYR had a loyalty programme, I would be gold with them too. I will board over 100 different planes this year, just like I did last year. And the year before.

I don't like O'Leary, but he offers a service to an airport I need to go. The planes are new, they're clean, and they are invariably on time. The crew are unfailingly polite (even when pushed to distraction by some of my fellow passengers).

I make my point about MOL by not paying for the extras - I carry my baggage, I don't pay for priority boarding or reserved seats, and I never buy anything on board. And I won't approve the expenses for any of my team who do so either ;)

But I don't spite my face by flying to a different destination further away just to use a different carrier. That would be bizarre.

Ryanair offer value and service. I've flown some airlines with a more interesting safety record and approach to maintenance, and Ryanair stand head and shoulders above. Yes, I don't see what goes on in the cockpit, but you can see more than enough to get a good or a bad feeling when you board your flight. The airports sometimes leave a little to be desired (I'm looking at you, Stansted) but that's not the airline's fault. I've flown about 40 times with them this year and I think I have been late twice. And each time, the problem has been promptly and politely explained by the Captain. If only the more mainstream airlines could boast such a record.

Most of those who criticise them go on to say they have never flown with them. How they can form a view on the product offered when they have never used it confuses me?

10bob

If the product offered isn't what you want, then you won't use it. In my case, it isn't, so I won't.

Well I was a regular user [ beat megabus, just] and I CAN tell you a few things about the way they treat their fare payers.