Ryanair Sacks Captain Goss
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Near the rain!
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just read through this thread quickly I may have missed something. But I would ask how do you judge safety?
My thought would be that it is not as simple as judging intelligence, can you do a test? Can you find hard facts?
Is a company safe because it hasn't had an incident? If it continues to not have an incident is it still safe? Perhaps it is spending too much money on the SMS, perhaps it should reduce its spending! Then at that point is it still safe?
Or is it luck, inevitability?
Do you let a toddler cross a busy road on its own? If it makes it across was it safe?
My thought would be that it is not as simple as judging intelligence, can you do a test? Can you find hard facts?
Is a company safe because it hasn't had an incident? If it continues to not have an incident is it still safe? Perhaps it is spending too much money on the SMS, perhaps it should reduce its spending! Then at that point is it still safe?
Or is it luck, inevitability?
Do you let a toddler cross a busy road on its own? If it makes it across was it safe?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 64
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How 'minimum' is minimum?
SLF alert:
I live in Europe, and work/fly all over the place.
I find that the vast majority of European safety legislation is - if anything - overly conservative/protective. The national speed limit for cars in most places has remained essentially unchanged for the 35 years I've been driving, notwithstanding the quantum leaps made in vehicular design and safety. Hell, I'm not even allowed to have a medium-rare hamburger for fear of e-coli, or whatever.
My point is that the minimum safe fuel uplift, as required by EU and presumably NA law, is surely ALREADY conservative. If so (and I'd love to be corrected on this) then Ryanair's apparent policy of regarding the minimum uplift as a target is perfectly legitimate.
It's not as if Ryanair (or any carrier's) aircraft are running out of gas on even an occasional basis, is it?
I live in Europe, and work/fly all over the place.
I find that the vast majority of European safety legislation is - if anything - overly conservative/protective. The national speed limit for cars in most places has remained essentially unchanged for the 35 years I've been driving, notwithstanding the quantum leaps made in vehicular design and safety. Hell, I'm not even allowed to have a medium-rare hamburger for fear of e-coli, or whatever.
My point is that the minimum safe fuel uplift, as required by EU and presumably NA law, is surely ALREADY conservative. If so (and I'd love to be corrected on this) then Ryanair's apparent policy of regarding the minimum uplift as a target is perfectly legitimate.
It's not as if Ryanair (or any carrier's) aircraft are running out of gas on even an occasional basis, is it?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 64
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On another note...
I'm not a pilot, but I know a lot about how good companies work, and their attendant management styles.
Trust me when I tell you that many of the very best, most profitable and MOST ADMIRED companies in the world are not run by nice guys. MO'L is widely disliked (especially, it seems, on this and other professional fora)...but he deserves a lot of credit for his clarity of vision, and dogged pursuit of a very clearly stated business purpose. They won't admit it, but most other airline CEO's would sell their own children to be in his position.
Cheap, safe, and does what it says on the tin, IMHO....
(Just to ward off the inevitable flak, my only connection to RYR is that I'm a regular customer).
Trust me when I tell you that many of the very best, most profitable and MOST ADMIRED companies in the world are not run by nice guys. MO'L is widely disliked (especially, it seems, on this and other professional fora)...but he deserves a lot of credit for his clarity of vision, and dogged pursuit of a very clearly stated business purpose. They won't admit it, but most other airline CEO's would sell their own children to be in his position.
Cheap, safe, and does what it says on the tin, IMHO....
(Just to ward off the inevitable flak, my only connection to RYR is that I'm a regular customer).
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you miss the point, as do most who try to compare airlines with selling beans or whatever, it is very different, because when it goes Pete Tong you cannot just pull the beans off the shelf, or pull over to the side of the road when the car manufacturer has screwed up. It is VERY different and if you are not in the industry I am sorry, but you just don't get it.
Also to say he should be praised for his 'clarity of vision', is that the same vision he has that his passengers are idiots? That his pilots are 'Aerosexuals'?
You need to do a bit more research before posting.
Also to say he should be praised for his 'clarity of vision', is that the same vision he has that his passengers are idiots? That his pilots are 'Aerosexuals'?
You need to do a bit more research before posting.
Last edited by Leg; 22nd Aug 2013 at 22:50.
Leg -maybe you miss the point and should get out more
Simple fact is Ryanair has a top tier safety record in an industry that has a incredibly good safety record. Compared to railroads, crash of the week anyone?, and not even in the same universe as cars, flying is a very safe activity.
So punters pay their money and take their choice. Picking Ryanair is a very logical choice for those who want to save some money and put up the terms.
Given their passenger numbers they must do something right.
AF undoubtable provides all the terms and conditions the moaning minnies insist are necessary for safety but are they safer? Does anyone care what the CEO of an airline, or any business thinks of them? Why should they? I have yet to hear of anyone being forced to buy a ticket on Ryanair.
For years there has being a large contingent on here predicting Ryanair is about to bury one due to their unsafe operation. Still has not happened.
Maybe the people who vote with their cash are wiser than some of the "experts"on here give them credit for.
So punters pay their money and take their choice. Picking Ryanair is a very logical choice for those who want to save some money and put up the terms.
Given their passenger numbers they must do something right.
AF undoubtable provides all the terms and conditions the moaning minnies insist are necessary for safety but are they safer? Does anyone care what the CEO of an airline, or any business thinks of them? Why should they? I have yet to hear of anyone being forced to buy a ticket on Ryanair.
For years there has being a large contingent on here predicting Ryanair is about to bury one due to their unsafe operation. Still has not happened.
Maybe the people who vote with their cash are wiser than some of the "experts"on here give them credit for.
My point is that the minimum safe fuel uplift, as required by EU and presumably NA law, is surely ALREADY conservative. If so (and I'd love to be corrected on this) then Ryanair's apparent policy of regarding the minimum uplift as a target is perfectly legitimate.
If the 5% contingency is burnt because of getting a flight level two below planned or a 100nm weather deviation, then you are arriving with NO fuel to spare. If something goes slightly wrong, you are diverting. The diversion is planned so that you land at your alternate airfield with 30 minutes fuel remaining. If you don't then this is an emergency.
If the 5% contingency fuel is used up (not uncommon), there is no spare in the planning. Nothing. These figures are not conservative. They are minimums. Absolute minimums.
If you want an example of how trusting the company provided ''legal'' fuel plan can go wrong, then this is it:
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/5..._FINAL_ENG.pdf
This crew, bought up in the ''low cost'' culture didn't consider carrying extra fuel to an airfield where there was a known potential for problems and ended up having to declare a Mayday. The passengers posting on this forum may not see much wrong with it, but running an airliner out of fuel is not quite like running out of fuel in your car. Most of the professional pilots reading this report will get goose bumps.
Now consider the case of several aircraft approaching a busy airport all with close to minimum fuel, and a thunderstorm has to all and intents, rendered the airport unusable. However, the aircraft have to make the approach because they don't have the fuel to hold to let the storm pass. They can't make the approach, so have to go around and divert. Now, four of them want to go to their alternate at the same time, but that airfield can't cope so tells them to hold. But they can't do that. They are flying with the legal minimum and that doesn't factor in further holding at the alternate. The result:
Three Ryanair mayday calls go out on same day - Independent.ie
The policy of uploading the legal minimum; by definition; is legal. The pertinent question to ask is, ''Is it safe?''. Often it is, but frequently there are factors which make taking the legal minimum imprudent. The responsibilities of the Commander in all aviation jurisdictions require him/her to take enough fuel and reserves considering all the factors and possible contingencies - it is his/her legal responsibility. And this doesn't means that by taking the legal minimum they will always fulfil this requirement. However, the drive for greater profits in the "low cost'' airline industry has seen managers gradually reduce the Captain's authority to do this. But one thing is for sure, if the Captain does run out of fuel, it's he/she who will be legally responsible - and the manager, through careful wording of fuel policy instructions will be largely absolved. A company cannot legally prevent a Captain from taking extra fuel, but he can easily be intimidated into following policy.
As a Captain myself, I never take the minimums. For a start, I fly for a "full fares'' airline and our fuel policy requires us to arrive with quite a bit more than the legal requirements. And because I operate in an environment with high ground, poor weather, political considerations and where ATC delays are common, I regularly load more and I have never had this questioned by the company. As passenger, you have to ask yourself which airline would you rather fly with, if the ticket price was the same. And then, are you willing to fly with an airline which treats the legal minimums as a target in order to save a few dollars.
If you treat the legal minimums as a target, you are eroding safety margins and going to have incidents. Airline travel is safe, and Ryanair have an enviable safety record. Unfortunately, the statistics are compiled taking into account actual accidents and not reported incidents.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Queensland
Posts: 408
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum safe fuel
There is widespread confusion amongst slf between minimum safe fuel and minimum fuel. Absolute minimum fuel is a legal amount that cannot ever be reduced before departure. Within the same regulations there is reference to other conditions that may require more than the absolute minimum. Like very bad weather or very busy airports. Not so obvious to the casual observer will be fuel calculations that allow for additional fuel burn for engine failure at a critical point of the flight etc.
When all of the operator approved fuel load and all the little extras that are present but not detailed in the regs, are carried, you have the minimum fuel actually intended by regulation. The actual quantity of some of the extras is determined by the captain. If the regulation extras are actually needed in a particular case, but not carried the captain is not complying with regulations.
If the crew, during flight, negligently allows or causes the fuel to not include the known required extras, the flight is not technically compliant, and safety is degraded. If the minimum extras have been expertly considered and the crew conserve that fuel while it is still required, the aircraft commenced with minimum fuel. If conditions require extras, they are not optional.
So really, there is no minimum safe fuel, just minimum fuel. If an operator successfully induces captains to take less than their fully assessed minimum fuel, or the captain's expert assessment is deficient, the flight is not legal, and the operator and/or the pilot are unsafe.
In this context, extra fuel does not mean more than is needed to be legal. It means the additional required fuel above the absolute minimum that some pilots are pressured to accept.
If the assessed minimum fuel cannot be carried due to the aircraft payload, another solution need to be considered. In-flight re-planning, a fuel stop enroute or reduce payload for sufficient fuel. In-flight re-planning might already be in the flight plan, or be of limited assistance. Not many operators will go for fuel stop and unsafe airlines will avoid off loading.
Finally the captain may have decide if he is the captain.
When all of the operator approved fuel load and all the little extras that are present but not detailed in the regs, are carried, you have the minimum fuel actually intended by regulation. The actual quantity of some of the extras is determined by the captain. If the regulation extras are actually needed in a particular case, but not carried the captain is not complying with regulations.
If the crew, during flight, negligently allows or causes the fuel to not include the known required extras, the flight is not technically compliant, and safety is degraded. If the minimum extras have been expertly considered and the crew conserve that fuel while it is still required, the aircraft commenced with minimum fuel. If conditions require extras, they are not optional.
So really, there is no minimum safe fuel, just minimum fuel. If an operator successfully induces captains to take less than their fully assessed minimum fuel, or the captain's expert assessment is deficient, the flight is not legal, and the operator and/or the pilot are unsafe.
In this context, extra fuel does not mean more than is needed to be legal. It means the additional required fuel above the absolute minimum that some pilots are pressured to accept.
If the assessed minimum fuel cannot be carried due to the aircraft payload, another solution need to be considered. In-flight re-planning, a fuel stop enroute or reduce payload for sufficient fuel. In-flight re-planning might already be in the flight plan, or be of limited assistance. Not many operators will go for fuel stop and unsafe airlines will avoid off loading.
Finally the captain may have decide if he is the captain.
Last edited by autoflight; 23rd Aug 2013 at 07:26.
Dan Winterland - Autoflight
Two excellent posts.
Two of the flag carriers I flew for are covered by the above.
My last employer was the most expensive carrier in Europe...no one ever questioned tankage and occasionally we off loaded freight to take sufficient fuel.
My first carrier was run by bullies - flame out after landing due to lack of fuel, taking minimum fuel when you knew that you would probably have at least 1 hour holding...and many other unpleasantries....little trust in management nor training departments.
And of course no trust in the regulator.
The attitude of paring margins gave us 8 airframe losses in 6 years and if it hadn't been a state airline it would have gone bust.
Fortunately FR are obviously not in the latter catagory but if there is undo pressure on crews due to the management philosophy then something needs to change before the apparent "risk management strategy" bites them on the nose.
Perhaps this thread should be printed off and sent to the appropriate transport ministry then when the sh@t hits the fan they won't be able to say we didn't know.
Two of the flag carriers I flew for are covered by the above.
My last employer was the most expensive carrier in Europe...no one ever questioned tankage and occasionally we off loaded freight to take sufficient fuel.
My first carrier was run by bullies - flame out after landing due to lack of fuel, taking minimum fuel when you knew that you would probably have at least 1 hour holding...and many other unpleasantries....little trust in management nor training departments.
And of course no trust in the regulator.
The attitude of paring margins gave us 8 airframe losses in 6 years and if it hadn't been a state airline it would have gone bust.
Fortunately FR are obviously not in the latter catagory but if there is undo pressure on crews due to the management philosophy then something needs to change before the apparent "risk management strategy" bites them on the nose.
Perhaps this thread should be printed off and sent to the appropriate transport ministry then when the sh@t hits the fan they won't be able to say we didn't know.
Last edited by blind pew; 23rd Aug 2013 at 07:05.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan said:
In essence, I said this in an earlier posting, I believe this is actually what this discussion boils down to, margins.
Absolute minimums doesn't automatically mean unsafe, all it means is that it starts from the minimum point considered legal.
How you then operate can then make that starting point unsafe down route, but the starting point was not unsafe.
We all like greater margins of safety, as opposed to absolute minimums because that gives us more of a buffer, but that's a luxury and not a legal or safe necessity.
What is a necessity is a high level of training, well written SOPs, adherence to the AFM, consideration to OM-A,B,C & D's, good CRM and good decision making.
Podcast,
What are the minimum regs?
To me they are:
1. The AFM
2. EASA-Ops
If you take the legal minimum fuel (point 2) operate according to all AFM procedures (point 1) and apply good airmanship and common sense then you should be safe.
If you are fully complaint with 1&2, it's only the subjective decision making that can turn that scenario unsafe. (Not including catastrophic failures or emergencies)
As BOAC and others have said earlier you can take as much extra fuel as you like, but if you burn it holding/waiting, you could be in the same situation as another plane who arrives at the same point with minimum fuel but immediately diverts, then what's the difference?
If you choose to operate with minimum fuel, it means as Dan said, you have reduced your margins (thinking time) and I think you really should have a pre-briefed plan for certain eventualities, so should a decision need to be made, time and fuel are not wasted while you decide, you have already decided what you would do and you just execute the plan.
you are eroding safety margins
Absolute minimums doesn't automatically mean unsafe, all it means is that it starts from the minimum point considered legal.
How you then operate can then make that starting point unsafe down route, but the starting point was not unsafe.
We all like greater margins of safety, as opposed to absolute minimums because that gives us more of a buffer, but that's a luxury and not a legal or safe necessity.
What is a necessity is a high level of training, well written SOPs, adherence to the AFM, consideration to OM-A,B,C & D's, good CRM and good decision making.
Podcast,
What are the minimum regs?
To me they are:
1. The AFM
2. EASA-Ops
If you take the legal minimum fuel (point 2) operate according to all AFM procedures (point 1) and apply good airmanship and common sense then you should be safe.
If you are fully complaint with 1&2, it's only the subjective decision making that can turn that scenario unsafe. (Not including catastrophic failures or emergencies)
As BOAC and others have said earlier you can take as much extra fuel as you like, but if you burn it holding/waiting, you could be in the same situation as another plane who arrives at the same point with minimum fuel but immediately diverts, then what's the difference?
If you choose to operate with minimum fuel, it means as Dan said, you have reduced your margins (thinking time) and I think you really should have a pre-briefed plan for certain eventualities, so should a decision need to be made, time and fuel are not wasted while you decide, you have already decided what you would do and you just execute the plan.
Last edited by south coast; 23rd Aug 2013 at 08:07.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you choose to operate with minimum fuel, it means as Dan said, you have reduced your margins (thinking time) and I think you really should have a pre-briefed plan for certain eventualities, so should a decision need to be made, time and fuel are not wasted while you decide, you have already decided what you would do and you just execute the plan.
Well said, and again it is back to education. All the SOP training in the world does not educate new commanders to think. That is too often skated over in the up grade process. I was on my line check with an F/O who, as always, was also on a line check and it included a command potential assessment. They were PF on a good weather day with minimum plog fuel on departure. Single rwy destination with a very close by alternate and good weather all round. I sit back as PM and allow them to manage the flight. Approaching TOD (-30mins) I suggest going off ATC to obtain destination and the other airfields weather. We were above cloud, so could not observe the actual good forecast for the region. The reply from PF was "why bother, it was all taf-ing good." As we would be arriving at min resv +300kgs I suggested that if anything happened it would be prudent to have an escape route well prepared and ready for immediate execution. "If you want." Yawn.
The LTC's command potential assessment was not enthusiastic and the F/O didn't understand why. Yet there they were, 6months from possible upgrade. What had they been learning from all the other captains? What had they been learning from flying with LTC's/TRI/TRE's etc. Had they too all been so complacent over the years of this apprenticeship? I hope not. As I always tried to instil in them, an SF/O should be able to fly to captain's standard, but can they think like a captain should. I asked some new upgrades about their command training: had they been in class-room discussions about the 'what if',... had they reviewed known accidents due to poor judgement; learning from others mistakes? No, it had all been pretty standard simulator scenarios with simple dual failures and nothing special. Agreed, the test could be that, but the opportunity for mass discussion and some brain storming about known events might just prevent the next one and alert the newbie about what the upgrade really means. Thinking!
Perhaps someone from RYR can inform us what was the internal reaction to the MAD/VLC event. Was it just that all crews were legal and therefore there was nothing to learn from the day and let's just ignore all the furore, or was there some education value spread amongst the crews. The former would be rather disappointing.
As a survey amongst companies: there must been incidents nearly everyday, especially in the +100 a/c airlines. So many flights over diverse regions in differing conditions; different types, different maintenance philosophies etc. Events must occur. Which airlines teach their own crews from their own events, and which keep quiet. The more the airline teaches its own crews to be aware of traps and pitfalls etc. the better the safety culture I would suggest. The opposite would be true, of course, for the quiet one.
Well said, and again it is back to education. All the SOP training in the world does not educate new commanders to think. That is too often skated over in the up grade process. I was on my line check with an F/O who, as always, was also on a line check and it included a command potential assessment. They were PF on a good weather day with minimum plog fuel on departure. Single rwy destination with a very close by alternate and good weather all round. I sit back as PM and allow them to manage the flight. Approaching TOD (-30mins) I suggest going off ATC to obtain destination and the other airfields weather. We were above cloud, so could not observe the actual good forecast for the region. The reply from PF was "why bother, it was all taf-ing good." As we would be arriving at min resv +300kgs I suggested that if anything happened it would be prudent to have an escape route well prepared and ready for immediate execution. "If you want." Yawn.
The LTC's command potential assessment was not enthusiastic and the F/O didn't understand why. Yet there they were, 6months from possible upgrade. What had they been learning from all the other captains? What had they been learning from flying with LTC's/TRI/TRE's etc. Had they too all been so complacent over the years of this apprenticeship? I hope not. As I always tried to instil in them, an SF/O should be able to fly to captain's standard, but can they think like a captain should. I asked some new upgrades about their command training: had they been in class-room discussions about the 'what if',... had they reviewed known accidents due to poor judgement; learning from others mistakes? No, it had all been pretty standard simulator scenarios with simple dual failures and nothing special. Agreed, the test could be that, but the opportunity for mass discussion and some brain storming about known events might just prevent the next one and alert the newbie about what the upgrade really means. Thinking!
Perhaps someone from RYR can inform us what was the internal reaction to the MAD/VLC event. Was it just that all crews were legal and therefore there was nothing to learn from the day and let's just ignore all the furore, or was there some education value spread amongst the crews. The former would be rather disappointing.
As a survey amongst companies: there must been incidents nearly everyday, especially in the +100 a/c airlines. So many flights over diverse regions in differing conditions; different types, different maintenance philosophies etc. Events must occur. Which airlines teach their own crews from their own events, and which keep quiet. The more the airline teaches its own crews to be aware of traps and pitfalls etc. the better the safety culture I would suggest. The opposite would be true, of course, for the quiet one.
Last edited by RAT 5; 23rd Aug 2013 at 09:40.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trust me when I tell you that many of the very best, most profitable and MOST ADMIRED companies in the world are not run by nice guys. MO'L is widely disliked (especially, it seems, on this and other professional fora)...but he deserves a lot of credit for his clarity of vision, and dogged pursuit of a very clearly stated business purpose. They won't admit it, but most other airline CEO's would sell their own children to be in his position.
Even Ryanair's own website acknowledges that they copied the Southwest business model.
Except they forgot to copy an extremely important part: the culture.
To be fair, MOL admits he's not very good at that.
However, Mr. Justice Thomas Smyth was recently scathing about the way the airline is run: https://www.eurocockpit.be/sites/def...A_CC_Log_F.pdf
Last edited by SR71; 23rd Aug 2013 at 12:43.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even Ryanair's own website acknowledges that they copied the Southwest business model.
Except they forgot to copy an extremely important part: the culture.
Except they forgot to copy an extremely important part: the culture.
So their management have proven you can be low-cost, safe and facilitate a happy and productive workforce.
The biggest disappointment for Ryanair shareholders must be that if MOL actually treated the workforce better they would probably make more money.
A happy workforce is a good workforce!
Last edited by south coast; 23rd Aug 2013 at 12:51.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: gashbag
Age: 53
Posts: 558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not read that report before. Glad i did. The diverting A340 landed on three engines, due to fuel starvation on the no.3 engine. It also diverted with MORE than minimum required (legally!) fuel, and landed with about 100kg less.
Enough said.
Enough said.
Last edited by PURPLE PITOT; 23rd Aug 2013 at 14:10.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 452
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
South west & Ryanair
Other than both flying 737 you could not have two airlines less alike, i flew with South west some years back and turned up with a few too many bags, i expected to be raped Ryanair style for my error, not a bit of it, welcome to South West, we don't try and nickel & dime you, i had to cancelled two sectors for 4 of us, they even offered me a credit note to fly with them any time in the next 12 months, i didn't use it, but it left me with a warm feeling towards them.
FR have led a charge down hill in customer service standards and of course price, but i senses the mood is changing, with fast growing Vueling & Norwegian starting to push towards the 100 aircraft fleet size and many more on order, let alone the orange product and having flown with or for most these i ask why would you bother with the hassle of FR's website other than they are the only people who fly where you want to go off the beaten track
So have 5 minutes off from Pprune and look at the web sites of the next 3 biggest, in most cases you can see from the first or second click what you will PAY
Vuelos baratos, billetes de avión y ofertas de vuelos | vueling.com
Cheap flights ? Book cheap flights to Europe - easyJet.com
Welcome to Norwegian - Norwegian
Then check out Skytrax for customer feedback.
FR have led a charge down hill in customer service standards and of course price, but i senses the mood is changing, with fast growing Vueling & Norwegian starting to push towards the 100 aircraft fleet size and many more on order, let alone the orange product and having flown with or for most these i ask why would you bother with the hassle of FR's website other than they are the only people who fly where you want to go off the beaten track
So have 5 minutes off from Pprune and look at the web sites of the next 3 biggest, in most cases you can see from the first or second click what you will PAY
Vuelos baratos, billetes de avión y ofertas de vuelos | vueling.com
Cheap flights ? Book cheap flights to Europe - easyJet.com
Welcome to Norwegian - Norwegian
Then check out Skytrax for customer feedback.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: On the Rump of Pendle Hill Lancashi
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the engines of any Ryan Air A/c sucked the last drops from the tanks due to some land bound jerk of a Director putting a cap on fuel take up.
who would get the blame, man holding joystick, or said grey haired Jerk..?
I would ask the Pilots to always ensure that the SLF people at least had a chance to land under power, rather than losing precious things, due to silence.
Shame on the CAA and Airport Authoritys for not sticking their boots deep into Ryan Air ribs.
who would get the blame, man holding joystick, or said grey haired Jerk..?
I would ask the Pilots to always ensure that the SLF people at least had a chance to land under power, rather than losing precious things, due to silence.
Shame on the CAA and Airport Authoritys for not sticking their boots deep into Ryan Air ribs.
MOL flunks at copying
From what I can tell Ryanair has little in common with Southwest except the airplanes.
SWA is my choice every time and it comes down to incredible staff at every level and a very good deal. No charge to change tickets, 2 bags free, super accommodating staff.
I was on a plane in Newark that went tech and we had to transfer to another plane. The agent who gave us the bad news did it so well, with such obvious concern that people starting clapping for him!!! When we transferred to the other ship they had us lined up like school kids and I did not hear one "I'm never flying this airline again" moan or anything similar.
My one experience on Ryanair was not taking a flight I booked and loosing the cash. But that was, as they say, on the tin, and my hard luck.
The biggest reason for SWA success is they found a formula and have stuck with it. Ryanair does the same, but it is not the same formula, not even close.
I can think of a lot of reasons I would skip Ryanair but safety is not one of them. Given a even choice I would skip AF over safety.
SWA is my choice every time and it comes down to incredible staff at every level and a very good deal. No charge to change tickets, 2 bags free, super accommodating staff.
I was on a plane in Newark that went tech and we had to transfer to another plane. The agent who gave us the bad news did it so well, with such obvious concern that people starting clapping for him!!! When we transferred to the other ship they had us lined up like school kids and I did not hear one "I'm never flying this airline again" moan or anything similar.
My one experience on Ryanair was not taking a flight I booked and loosing the cash. But that was, as they say, on the tin, and my hard luck.
The biggest reason for SWA success is they found a formula and have stuck with it. Ryanair does the same, but it is not the same formula, not even close.
I can think of a lot of reasons I would skip Ryanair but safety is not one of them. Given a even choice I would skip AF over safety.
If you want to know more about Southwest and how to treat customers and staff with respect and dignity, I thoroughly recommend this book:-
More about their style here:-
Speaks for itself really.
More about their style here:-
Speaks for itself really.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Slough, Berks
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all, anyone know where this dispatches programme can be viewed online? The YouTube link earlier in this thread appears to be only a 40 sec clip and I'm unable to find it on 4OD. Thanks