Talk:Ryanair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Ryanair is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 10, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

Contents

[edit] Destination Map

Can someone please do a destination map update as it is slightly out of date and Marseille needs to be changed to a hub Adamcobb 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its esaier put this link of Ryanair´s site: http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/dests.php?flash=chk

[edit] Aer Rianta

Also criticised are what are seen as vitriolic attacks on opponents, notably former Irish Minister for Transport Mary O'Rourke (1997-2002), who was personally ridiculed in a series of controversial newspaper advertisements when she refused to break up the state monopoly which then ran Irish airports, Aer Rianta (now largely restructured). (The break-up of Aer Rianta remains a high profile demand for Michael O'Leary. It is due to be implemented during 2005 under the State Airports Act 2004).

Was Aer Rianta broken up? The sentence is in the future tense -- or does the "large restructuring" refer to the breakup? Either way, this part is unclear and I don't know enough to fix it. Liamdaly620 23:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been broken up yet, only renamed to Dublin Airport Authority. Soon it will be broken up with a new Shannon Airport Authority and Cork Airport Authority. Seabhcán 12:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed

'Ryanair is one of Europe's most high-profile companies, strongly praised by consumers and by business people and sharply criticised mainly by some amongst the Trade Union establishment. '

marketing fluff a.k.a. POV

[the company is praised for] 'radical management, '

what does "radical management" mean? hopefully not that it's managed by IRA. please define this term properly if you want to include it back.

[edit] Online bookings

The story about online bookings being first something hidden from the CEO but then later when it proved successful claimed by the CEO as his original idea all along. Can this be substantiated in some way?

Siobhan Creighton's book.

[edit] disambig

A common error where I live and work confuses this airline with Ryan International Airlines - where best to place a disambig note? oreb 10:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • added it, i forgot all about that, i wondered for the longest time if they were the same company with seperate operations. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • thanks oreb 10:19, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Destinations Lists proposal

The Destinations list looks a little unsightly, with the long City (Airport) format. I propose changing it to City ✈. Using the Unicode character 9992 as a link to the airport website. So the code is [[airport|<font size=+1>✈</font>]] .

For example, Ireland...

would become...

Any objections? Please let me know if this doesn't work in anyone's browser. Works fine in Netscape Seabhcan 15:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Agree the list looks unsightly and needs working on. Your idea seems good but the unicode character shows up as a question mark here, using both Mozilla and Firefox. Maybe use three-letter IATA codes? So we'd have:
Possible that's a little bit obscure for the average user though.Worldtraveller 15:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hmm...what I did was basically add in the data following the format I have seen in quite a number of other major airline pages. They all use this format, except for some which dont list the airport.--Huaiwei 18:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see the little planes in Firefox on both Linux and Windows and but not in IE. I think using the IATA codes is a better idea (and better than what's there now). It certainly tidies up the list and the status bar link shows the fullname of the page anyway. jlang 19:55, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


new destinations: Rimini, Italy and Warsaw, Poland

[edit] Criticisms list

I just removed the bullet pointing from the list of criticisms, as well as the bolding of the text. I felt that it looked like some kind of charge sheet, and thought it could do with just reading like a normal paragraph, for the sake of an NPOV. Worldtraveller 10:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webpage screenshot

I just removed the screenshot of the web page, because I felt it didn't really illustrate anything in particular and looked a bit awkward and out of place. Worldtraveller 20:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repetition

Just a comment: The wheelchair criticism and O'Leary's "bloodbath" comment are both mentioned twice in the article. It looks like fill, and could (albeit unlikely) be construed as a little biased by some. --dahamsta 16:06, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agee - I've removed the offending duplications, and also adjusted a couple of other bits, hopefully making them more NPOV. Worldtraveller 16:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Does Ryanair fly to Erfurt?

Ryanair seem to advertise a Stansted-Erfurt flight but it isn't available to book. When you book Altenburg, the site offers "We also fly to Erfurt Weimer from London Stansted". And Erfurt appears as a ghostly image on their new route-map, but cannot be clicked on. Whats going on? This isn't a new bug, its been there for months. Is there some airport dispute going on at Erfurt which is preventing Ryanair from flying there? Seabhcán 15:09, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Also the Erfurt Website offers "Shopping in London - Fly from Erfurt Airport. The direct flights of the airline Ryanair are carried out daily on seven days per week.", but the flights don't appear on its schedual. Seabhcán 15:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Strange one - from this article it looks like the STN-ERF route was closed down as 'underperforming'; quite why they've still got it on the routemap I don't know. Couldn't find any indication of a dispute that might have led to a temporary stopping of flights. Worldtraveller 15:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd say they just haven't gotten around to updating the webpage booking code, I've often found the website out of date. I remember on the old webpage they had launched a new route but it was literally months before there was any content on the destination page. Actually if you look at the Rochefort destination guide there is nothing there at the moment -- Lochaber 16:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On an article about an Irish company that mainly operates in the UK, is "labor union" correct?

At the least it should be labour union, surely? And most likely "trade union"? In British politics, the phrase "labour/labor union" is virtually never used. Using U.S. terminology in this context is a little grinding! VivaEmilyDavies 00:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks like somebody has fixed this inconsistency. Good work. -- Yama 03:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Could some one change "70 miles" to "112km (70 miles)".

The article isn't protected. You can make this change yourself.-gadfium 09:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] picture

That flight-map picture is a mess! or maybe thats the point to it--Thewayforward t(c)e) 11:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree, it should be deleted, as it serves no use. Astrotrain 18:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Re-installed the map, as it shows the extent, in a visual perspective, of the ariline coverage based on it's route network in Europe, maybe next time some one would like to come up with a better argument then "is a mess", and "serves no use" before removing it from the page. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It serves no use because it is not a map of Ryanair's destinations in Europe. Mainly because no destinations are listed, or identifable from the map. It is just a map of Europe with a lot of red lines. If you were looking to see if Ryanair flew to a particular destination you could not use this map to find the answer. Therefore it should be removed. In any case, it is listed for deletion. Astrotrain 18:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Once again it is used to represnt the coverage of their route netowk in europe, i never said that it is used to determin what cities are liked to what cities for the purpose fo booking a flight, or should be used in that way what so ever, and when it does get delete then it cam be removed at that time, but since it hasnt their is no need to delete untill that time. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It doesn't represent the coverage of their network if it cannot be used to identify coverage. This could be any airline's route map. In any case, Ryanair change their destinations so often, it cannot possibly be accurate. Astrotrain 18:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It usless in saying anything to you, so i'll just revert you when you remove the map. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 18:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sound ground for removing this particular image is that it's not under a completely free license. However, I do not see how the image 'serves no use'. It shows the coverage of the network. Ryanair add new routes every few months so it's not hard to keep it accurate. Worldtraveller 19:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The map is not accurate enough to give a reliable indication of coverage of its flights. It would be better to link to the page on their website [1] which is far superior. Astrotrain 19:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 296

I removed the paragraph alleging that Ryanair was criticised for a number of things following the engine fire on this flight - the investigation report doesn't substantiate the claims made. Worldtraveller 19:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • The report states clearly that the crew struggled to open doors, and passengers were evacuated on to the burning wing. And the media critised Ryanair's handling of the affair (and the practice of having flight crew pay for their training, security passes etc). Although the air investigation board did make recommendations to change training practices. Astrotrain 19:42, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The report didn't say the airline was at fault, and also said the evacuation was completed within 90 seconds, and that it was a 'text book' operation. The paragraph I removed said that the report slated the airline, not the press, so it was inaccurate. Anyway, I think detail and media coverage of this is better off in the Ryanair Flight 296 article - links to relevant articles are essential either way if we're going to claim the press criticised. Worldtraveller 20:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flight 685

I was a bit surprised when I read this entry, as I clearly remembered this alleged hi-jacking as "false news". I did some investigation and could not find any evidence of a hijacking attempt apart from the newspaper articles the days immediately after the incident. The rumor seems to have originated from a Reuters article, quoting anonymous Swedish intelligence sources, and from there it spread to media all over the world. This was later denied by the same Swedish intelligence organisation (SÄPO), and after about a month of investigation the hijack charges were dropped and the man was only prosecuted for "attempt to bring a weapon onboard a plane" (which he insisted was a mistake). It seems that these later developments were only reported in Swedish and Norwegian media, but never made it to the international press. See for example this and this article in major Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. --Sfrey 10:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 5 December 2005 reversion by 83.70.34.70

Hi, I reverted an edit of 83.70.34.70 to the previous version by 213.94.247.132 - 83.70.34.70's edit seemed to be an (accidental?) uncommented reversion that removed info (added hubs) and reintroduced bugs (e.g. lack of hubs in the infobox.) Please discuss here if not accidental. Blorg 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It was'nt accidental - the previous version seemd to be a kind of PR version of Ryanair's very mixed early history. For example most people don't realise that Ryanair was'nt founded by the Ryan family - it was a co-incidence that it was set up by a guy with the same family name (Christy Ryan).

It also contained lots of errors about things like for example, traffic numbers (the PR version mixes up charter and scheduled traffic numbers - Ryanair used to perform lots of charter flights for tour operators in the late '80's) and about its financial performance (dreadful until 1991 /1992).

It also was also very incomplete regarding Michael O'Leary's role. After all he did'nt become Chief Executive until January 1994 - after Ryanair had been very successfully turned-around. His genius seems to have been that when he did subsequently take the helm (of what was by then a small but very profitable regional airline with a great operational formula) that he was able to build this company into a large, world class operation. Mind you he was helped by a really great management team (Howard Millar - Finance (1992), Charlie Cliften - Ops (1986), Mick Hickey -Engineering (1987) and David O'Brien (1992) - Ops in particular and later, post-flotation, Michael Cawley (1998) and Jim Callaghan (2000) ) who don't seem to either seek, or to get anything like, the public recognmition that their superb achievements in building-up Ryanair appear to deserve.

So why not fix any bugs (eg. hubs) rather than reverting to a less informed version?

[edit] Quality

Over the last few weeks, this article has seriously declined in quality, with large sections being rewritten without sources cited and with numerous spelling and grammatical errors. I don't have time to fix it up right now but I hope those who helped to elevate it to featured status might be able to work on getting it back up to its previous quality. Otherwise, I fear it may be in danger of being FARCed. Worldtraveller 23:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've made some edits which (hopefully) start moving this in the right direction - some grammar fixes, but also tidying up some of the PR tone in the history section, adding some topical points (the flight cancellations in 1Q2006 due to - depending on who you believe - Boeing delivery delays, or pilot duty hour limits, the dispute with Cardiff airport, etc.). Just a starting point... Ecozeppelin 11:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added Incident

Added Rome Fiumicino incident from September last year, though I haven't been able to find out the flight number. --DrFod 14:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I question whether the rejected take-off at Gatwick earlier this month is really relevant. This is not exactly a major event, however the media may like to hype it ('Passengers on board were terrified when it became clear something was wrong. One passenger said: “The blood drained out of my body."). They hadn't even left the runway. No-one was hurt. If we are going to define rejected takeoffs as "accidents and incidents" then every airline article will be considerably longer. Unless anyone has a strong argument for keeping it (which would imply a similar level of detail in other airline articles for consistency), I propose to delete it. Ecozeppelin 12:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- I've removed it Astrotrain 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For future reference, "Incidents and accidents" are defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines as Major incidents or ones with fatalities over the airline's history. It is my impression that routine emergencies like aborted takeoffs, cabin pressure loss and security alerts don't fit in to this category. 84.9.33.116 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispatches documentary

Astrotrain, I had removed the seat 1a claim as it is patent rubbish. Obviously the tutor should not have said it, but as it was it took up almost half the paragraph about the documentary, which is an undue amount. I have now summarised. -- Blorg 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I did think it was too long for that one comment. But given the abusrdity of the claim, I thought extra detail would have been required. Astrotrain 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally disagree that the Dispatches programme somehow vindicated Ryanair. It showed abysmal training which could lead to passenger deaths in an emergency, exhausted cabin crew and pilots and dangerous lapses of security at check in. The programme and Ryanair was summed up by one of the crew who said that once passengers had paid for their seats you can treat them like dirt as there are many more to take their place. Ryanair is typical of the ultra-capitalist companies that abound in todays business world. What should be said though is that are companies like Easyjet and others any better, somehow I doubt it! I fear it will take a crash resulting in large number of deaths before the culture of Ryanair changes. Holden 27

[edit] New flights/airport

Ryanair has a website in Hungarian http://www.ryanair.com/site/HU/ obviously for Hungarians to fly to the UK. But with the opening of new services in April 2006 to an airport called FlyBalaton in Hungary, an outgoing traffic from London Stansted to lake Balaton is also envisaged.

FlyBalaton is not only a new airfield, but a real airport on the shore of Lake Balaton. FlyBalaton is Hungary's second airport and is located in Zala County in western Hungary. The territory of the Airport is owned by the two villages of Sármellék and Zalavár. Along with Debrecen and Budapest airports, FlyBalaton has an international designation and is operational throughour the year for all kinds of aviation activity. A concrete runway 2,500m long and 60m wide is augmented by a grass strip 1,000m long and 50m wide.

  • The details of the airport are:
  • LHSM/SOB
  • Reference point: 4641 10.85N 01709 32.56E
  • Frequencies, TWR: 127.6 MHz Balaton Info
  • Range beacon: NDB short-range S 428 kHz

Flybalaton homepage

[edit] Early history

Interesting article here [2] (which looks as though it's somehow related to this article!) but which provides a lot more detail on Ryanair's foundation and early years, which I think it would be worthwhile including here. I'm not sure if this is an authoritative enough source, though - any views (or alternative links)? Ecozeppelin 07:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and Complaints; Customer Service

The lines read:

However, two factors make this particularly problematic in the case of low-cost carriers in general and Ryanair in particular:

-the company notifies affected passengers by email rather than by telephone, so there is sometimes a delay before the passenger learns of the change (passengers on holiday may not have regular access to email);

-because Ryanair does not provide connecting flights, many passengers make their own connections by booking separate tickets. If the Ryanair flight time change makes the connection impossible, the passenger loses the cost of the connecting flight unless this is covered by travel insurance;

-the only way for a passenger to contact Ryanair is through a premium rate phone line.


[edit] =

It may seem trivial, but there are three points made there, not two as the lead-in states.209.114.201.30 15:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Annual 900-hour duty time

If I divide 900 hours by 8 hours a day than I get approx. 112 working days. I work over 220 days a year. What is wrong with this figure? 84.173.241.238 19:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing. Pilots by law work far fewer hours than most people. Harry was a white dog with black spots 11:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This following section in the article seems very NPOV to me, what do other people think?

"Rudeness of staff towards passengers Ryanair staff are notorious for behaving rudely to passengers. There have been numerous incidents, including the following which have appeared in the press:

using foul and offensive language and attempting to grab a boarding card from a passenger [19] treating passengers dismissively during a security alert. A judge called on Ryanair to issue an apology [20] behaving in a menacing manner towards passengers [21] extremely rude and offensive behaviour towards a 14 year old boy with a broken leg and accompanying adults. The boy was forced to stand for the duration of the flight (1 hour 40 minutes) [22] gratuitous rudeness towards a passenger who asked for a non-alcoholic drink after passengers were kept in a plane for three hours due to a delay [23]"

The claims are properly cited but terms like notorious, gratuitous and menacing seem NPOV and not sutible for wikipedia to me.Dwyatt 101 20:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If those terms are used in the cited articles they should be included. If not they should be removed. Quakerman 09:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article, it should NOT be included, whether the letters are italic, or even if the font is well cited as being pink. 24.7.56.29 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Largest International Airline?

People have been disputing that Ryanair is not the world’s largest international airline. In terms INTERNATIONAL PASSENGER numbers it IS.

In terms of International Passengers Ryanair is the largest International Airline in the world. Carrying 40,532,000 International Passengers in 2006, American Airlines only carried 21,228,000 International Passengers.

American Airlines is the largest in the world for total passenger numbers, but Ryanair is the largest in the world for international passengers.

Here is a link for Largest Airlines, in all terms.

[3]

Actually this is incorrect. It carried 40 million passengers in total, of which many were domestic (eg London-Glasgow). Unless someone can provide a breakdown of how many Ryanair passengers were international, the statement does not stand. Lufthansa is probably the largest as it carried almost as many international passengers last year as Ryanair carried in total. Harry was a white dog with black spots 19:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The IATA website itself does list Ryanair as #1 in international scheduled passengers carried [4]. Lufthansa is No.2, but bigger overall. I don't find this surprising, only a tiny proportion of Ryanair's flights are domestic. -- Blorg 19:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Not that tiny. They have domestic flights in several countries including Ireland, the UK, Italy and Spain. Even 20 domestic return flights a day with 150 passengers (both conservative estimates - there are at least a dozen daily domestic return flights in the UK alone) would account for almost 2.2 million passengers. The point is, IATA is saying that the total number of passengers Ryanair carried last year (a shade over 40 million) were international. That is simply not the case, and so the IATA stats must be suspect. Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Presumably UK domestic flights and all other internal flights in continental Europe are treated as international except for flight within Ireland. I suspect the internal irish flights are not that many, thus I suspect is where the 40 million international passengers comes from. MilborneOne 18:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What does it do to be the cheapest airline?

The Emirates article tells me how they cut costs to be cheap. It also says Ryanair has cheaper costs. Yet the article does not say how they get them. This should be added. (e.g. no tax) 124.168.12.159 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a few important reasons why they have low cost (two big reasons are small private airports and no tickets with airplane change). It was reverted since it had no source and someone didn't like the text. --BIL (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Point Of View issues in this article

This whole entry sounds like a Ryanair bashing website rather than a serious encyclopedia entry. Anyone care to help add a little balance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.33.84 (talk) 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profit,revenues unavailable

Can someone please add them . Nikhilhuilgol 07:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article should be deleted, and rewritten from scratch

It is nothing more than a medium for airing grivences and criticisms. The fact that something can be referenced and sourced does not make it worth including. It has become a LIST of complaints and it's sources. What is the point in that in an encyclopaedia? The truth yes, using it just as a shit list? No. Come on, there is less negativity about HITLER in his article. One step away from AfD to get rid of this PATHETIC content. Did IMPACT write this? Idiotic 24.7.56.29 10:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I have just deleted this nonsense. A new SHORT section should be created mentioning that there has been a lot of criticism. It should not list every last bitch and moan. It is very notable that most of the editors who added all that rubbish did not participate in the discussion. Telling. 24.7.56.29 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It may provide some perspective to have a look at the British Airways article. BA have had a long history of problems with Unions, wildcat strikes, baggage handling problems, catering problems etc yet this is barely mentioned. The RyanAir article is pumped up with tabloid nonsense stories about passengers who decided to make a martyr out of themselves and then sell their story to the paper. At the end of the day, around 40 million passengers chose RyanAir last year. If they are REALLY that bad, how come they are so successful? 84.9.108.71 10:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hubs only?! How about focus cities!!

I propose we move some hub airports into secondary hubs and focus cities. There is absolutely NO reason why all these airports should be hubs! Thank you!--Inetpup (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From the point of view of Ryanair itself, there are 22 bases/hubs (plus Birmingham and Bournemouth when they start up). 84.68.13.139 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I should point out that a base here means an airport where aircraft are based overnight and where an engineering crew will exist. There's still plenty of difference in scale; some only have one aircraft overnight and no daytime engeering presence, whilst the other extreme example - stansted - has something like 45 aircraft.84.68.13.139 (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents and accidents

These are defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airlines as Major incidents or ones with fatalities over the airline's history. or as WikiProject_Airports puts it:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if:

   * The accident was fatal to either the aircraft occupants or persons on the ground.
   * The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport.
   * The accident invoked a change in procedures, regulations or process that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry

By this definition, most, if not all of the incidents listed should be removed as they did not involve a lost of life or an aircraft. Certainly, a bomb scare and loss of cabin pressurisation shouldn't be here.

Deleted all except Ryanair Flight 296, though even that one is debatable as there was no major damage to the aircraft and no fatalities. The rationale behind the others are:
Bomb scares or cabin pressure failures are not "major incidents".
A passenger attempting to take a loaded gun on board is not a major incident.
The Eirjet aircraft, flown by an Eirjet pilot landing at the wrong airport was not a major incident, and indeed it didn't even involve a Ryanair aircraft.
The aircraft losing a tyre was not a major incident as there was little or no damage to the aircraft and no injuries. 84.9.33.116 (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
An Aircraft overshooting the runway at Limoges is not a major incident as there was little or no damage to the aircraft and only minor injuries. 84.9.34.2 (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You'd be surprised. The engines suffered a lot of foreign object damage. Many of the turbine blades are unusable. 84.66.248.80 (talk) 13:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe that's true (I haven't seen any report to confirm or deny this), but an engine suffering a bit of FOD isn't notable enough to be included here. 84.9.109.65 (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I have added a bulletpoint with the latest Ryanair issue (Refusal to let a steel band board a flight because of "irrational" fears and because the band was black). Although I agree that the article should not become a list of complaints, the judge's ruling was unusual enough to warrant a mention.--Scotchorama (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it was a distressful and embarrasing incident for the passengers involved but let's not forget that this is an airline which flew 50 million passengers in the last year. Does a single denied boarding incident involving a small amount of compensation belong here? Unless there is an example of another airline's Wikipedia entry where such trivial events are logged then I suggest that the reference is removed. 84.9.34.41 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ryanair has consistently been named in several cases pertaining to discrimination against disabled passengers. It wasn't only the fact that this was "distressful and embarassing", but that the decisions by the company were taken on the basis of colour of the travellers' skin, and on the fact that one of them was blind. This isn't only one isolated incident involving a disabled person, but one in a series, recognized by courts. Using other airlines' Wikipedia entries is no basis, as Ryanair has been singled out in reports, and is known among the disabled community as being one of the most disabled-unfriendly airlines. I also would also hesitate to call a case involving a disabled person and racial discrimination a "trivial" event.--Scotchorama (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed some 'biased' elements in the entry

Hi, have made some changes to the article. The article, in parts, reads like a campaign against Ryanair. This is meant to be an encylopedic entry!

Removed the bit in the "destinations" part about controversies over Ryanair handling of contract negotiations with airports. This is not the way the destinations part of other airlines' wiki entries are structured.

Other minor changes can be seen in 'history' by looking at changes made from my IP address.

[edit] NPOV

Is it me or is this article approaching a point where it does not meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and is attracting a lot of WP:SOAP. Dont get me wrong I think their is room for balanced criticism but a long list of individual non-notable complaints does not help maintain a NPOV. Remember this is an encyclopedia not a soap box - Any comments on how the balance can be restored? MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned posts

There are an awful lot of unsigned or otherwise anonymous posts on this talk page - please remember to sign your posts. Dmccormac (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Toilet fee

According to media, Ryanair will introduce a toilet fee onboard, to be paid with coins or credit card using equipment at the toilet door. Ryanair already has luggage fee, booking fee, payment fee, so why not one more. --217.209.46.111 (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Negative comments in lead

After much deliberation, I've removed some of the negative comments in the lead. Specifically, I've removed the "Trade Union" reference citing a 4 year old news story (far too weak for a lead). Likewise I've deleted the reference to a 4 year old poll by the BBC which was (old, poorly referenced - no reference to the poll itself). I have also added that easyJet was voted the world's second most disliked airline to add balance and put the TripAdvisor poll into context. I also qualified the statement about complaints to the Irish Regulator to note that the number of complaints per million passengers was low84.9.109.220 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the 2nd paragraph starting with "Its supporters praise" should be removed from the lead paragraph, and moved to a different section such as "Criticisms and Complaints". They are not appropriate for the lead paragraph. --Bardcom (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent incident at Limoges

I'm surprised there's nothing about the aircraft that overshot the runway at Limoges the end of last month... Made a bit of a mess of the engines, as I understand it, amongst other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.248.80 (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially because afaik there is still an investigation ongoing to determine why the airplane completely overshot the runway. BlackfoxT (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:AIRLINES for the guidelines on inclusion of incidents / accidents on Wikipedia. That's why it is not here, it is not notable enough (no hull loss, no fatalities). SempreVolando (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)