Talk:Ryanair/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

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Can someone please do a destination map update as it is slightly out of date and Marseille needs to be changed to a hub Adamcobb 21:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)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

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)

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.

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.

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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.


=

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)

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)

Your formula is completely wrong. They fly 900 hrs per year, emphasis on the word fly. A pilot can work a 8 hour day and only fly 4 hours that day. So it is not working hours that is counted in the 900 hours, it is flight hours only. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Profit,revenues unavailable

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

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)

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)

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)

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)
A cabin pressure loss is not a notable incident despite the "people thought we were going to die" reports by the BBC. (FR9336 from Bristol to Barcelona Girona, 25 August 2008) (talk) 07:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You are commenting on the wrong incident. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

April 2008 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)

Headquarters??

Since when did Ryanair change HQ to London Stansted?? If Ryanair is an Irish airline it's HQ should be in Dublin Airport not in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.213.38 (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It hasnt - I have changed it back. It was changed recently but with the article being vandalised so often some changes can be missed. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ryanair's headquarters are in Dublin. Ryanair's main stores are in Stansted. 87.194.209.86 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor incidents

I've removed the list of minor incidents where passengers were paid a few pounds of compensation. Incidents such as this aren't mentioned on other airline's entries. I any case, they are irrelevant in the context of the 50 million or more passengers who fly with the airline. Also, it's the airport that provides the assistance for disabled passengers NOT the airline. If the airport fails to provide the facilities required (wheelchairs, lift on/lift off etc) then it's unfair to blame the airline. There are plenty of Ryanair bashing websites out there which do a fine job, we don't need biased point of view here.... 84.9.33.11 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think it needs to go even further. Ryanair is a really large airline and an airline that is based on the low cost model. What I see when I read this article is that it has become more of a blog for disgruntled passengers than an encyclopedia type article. I am not saying that a criticism section should not be included. But I do not think this is the place to individually list any negative aspect of the airline. I am confident that a small section of this article could address the criticisms in a compact form so that people could understand the negatives of Ryanair but does not go so far as to take up 50% of the article. From browsing wikipedia I have not seen any other airline where a criticism section makes up such a large portion of the article. I think people really should think about editing down the criticism section so that it includes the basic negatives of Ryanair, but does not become a blog instead of an encyclopedia. I have traveled on Ryanair only a few times but I knew what I was buying when I purchased the ticket. As an American I can only imagine the criticism sections of some American airlines if what is included in this article became the norm of wikipedia.--76.19.222.40 (talk) 02:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem here being that many contributors feel that people complaining about Ryanair are foolish because it is a low cost airline and very successful. this might be true, but the fact that there have been repeated allegations of discrimination and improper practice regarding Ryanair make it a controversy that should be covered by this article. the often mentioned 50 million passengers seem entirely irrelevant in answering the issue of whether or not the criticisms section is valid. I agree with the above comment that the list of criticisms is so long it takes up too much of the article, so why not create a new article in regards to the phenomenon of many respectable, well considered groups stating Ryanair is significantly different in regards to the norms of service it provides? I don't feel that concept (of being significantly different) is in itself too controversial, indeed Ryan air's CEO Michael O'Leary has said as much many times, the lack of a customer service department was an example he proudly mentioned several years ago. the real issue is whether or not those changes in service levels are legal and whether or not they constitute discrimination (or a variety of grounds as mentioned). It's worth saying though, that while some obviously feel this section is trivial, to many Wikipedia user, not least disabled ones, that way well be the most noteworthy thing about an airline, which, in many other respects isn't all that different to other airlines.Olyus (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Links to tabloid stories where people are paid to moan about Ryanair aren't the type of well sourced comment we want on Wikipedia. I fully agree that the airline has a history of poor customer relations, often they do this deliberately to make a point. We need a concise summary of the background to these incidents not a rap sheet of every trivial incident. I've travelled on Ryanair many times, including with my young son who needed assistance as a disabled passenger. It made me realise - the airline does NOTHING for disabled people, It's the ground handlers who do everything. If the ground crew make a mess of things then it's NOT the airline's fault. The other issue we have is that the disabled lobby are extremely powerful and vocal, we mustn't let them push their biased point of view unfairly into this article. I think the 50 million or so passengers is important context - a few coplaints a year hit the headlines. That's not evidence of systematic abuse of disabled passengers, it's just that stuff goes wrong from time to time. Mostly it's the ground handling agents who mess it up and nothing at all to do with the airline. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should whitewash this away but we need a general overview not a series of bullet points with links to tabloid junk stories. 84.9.33.11 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the criticism section needs to be cut down. Compared to other airline articles this is a disgrace. It should be one section which talks about misleading advertising, hidden fees, lack of customer services, and criticism from disabeled passsengers. I find the environmental criticism section a joke, maybe we should include an environmental criticism section in all other airline articles just to be fair???--193.33.186.220 (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008 Limoges incident

An incident that sends 26 people to hospital is at least as notable as a hazardous approach. There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia. For example Air Canada#Incidents contains incidents that resulted in neither hull loss or death, or even injury, but which are certainly notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the section above is not clear but I'll repeat it here since you want to create a new section:

Incidents and accidents 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

Considering the points above which are taken from WikiProject_Airlines, I don't see that any of these apply to the Limoges incident.

87.74.2.211 (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The section above relates to a different case.
You are in violation of the 3RR rule. The guidelines you mention are just that, guidelines. They are not fixed rules. As I pointed out, there are many incidents that are included on Wikipedia that are neither hull losses or fatal, but which are nonetheless notable. Each case is treated on its merits. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I won't revert it anymore. Can you please explain why this incident was notable in the context of WikiProject_Airlines. It sounds minor incident to me but maybe I'm missing something. 87.74.2.211 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh, I can see part of the confusion. The section I was referring to was the "Incidents and Accidents" section above which refers to the section of the same name in the article. A number of minor incidents are already discussed there, I didn't see the need to add a new section. Sorry if it wasn't clear. 87.74.2.211 (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I am an airline pilot and this is not a serious incident. I suggest you look at American, Delta, United, Southwest.... all major airlines that have had many incidents over the years of severe turbulence, landing gear problems, engine shutdowns, and decompression's and most if not all are not listed. All that happens in a case like this is to descend below 10,000 feet and make a normal landing. As soon as the masks drop people think they are going to die. You are descending at a faster rate than normal and people's ears are going to pop more easy. You also have people who have asthma, shock from the masks dropping, anxiety, or heart conditions who are going to feel like their oxygen mask was not working. I would not include it but since people feel it is necessary to include any minor criticism or incident involving Ryanair I would be willing to bet that it will probably end up staying there. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Most incidents are not serious enough for people to be hospitalised. I think two dozen people being sent to hospital puts in in a different league. We need to make sure that articles don't get swamped by minor issues, but we have to use common sense. Many airline articles contain far more minor incidents than this because they were deemed notable for one reason or another. On Wikipedia, we reach consensus. If the consensus is that is notable, even if there is a policy which says generally we don't, then it should be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Harry the Dog, I know you think this is a big event but really it is not. When I used to fly the Beech 1900 a few years back there was one aircraft which had a problem of dropping the masks for no reason. There was people that refused to get back on even though there was absolutely no problem. Should we include that in the description of that regional carrier. I work for an American airline (which has had many MINOR incidents like this over the years) I have also been on an Aerlingus (Irish like Ryanair) plane which had to shut down an engine right after talkoff (KBOS) and my wife has been on an Aerlingus flight which had to land in an Maine or Novia Scotia Airport just a few months ago because of an decompression incident. Why are these not included? The simple answer is that these events (however traumatic to the passengers) do not live up to the level of being a real serious event. The only reason that these events are considered serious is because the passengers do no understand what is happening and they think they are going to die just because some masks drop. Get over your personal thoughts and unless you have real knowledge about the risk to the passengers I suggest that you don't add minor events like this to an encyclopedia. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Number one, please do not leave abusive messages on talk pages. It does not help your cause. All I will say in reply is that if Qantas Flight 30 merits not only a mention on the QANTAS page but its own article when there was no loss of life, no hull loss, and not even anyone hospitalised, I don't see how anyone can argue that this incident doesn't merit a mention. Hospitalisation of passengers and extensive media coverage makes it a notable event by Wikipedia standards. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so now your comparing an explosion in an aircraft that blew a hole in a side of an aircraft which could have led to a far worse situation, to a simple decompression and descent where the only injuries to people was all in their heads. Read this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4621003.ece Also if this is the standard for including incidents in wiki, we should include the two other Ryanair incidents that happened within the past few days, a passenger was burned from mushroom soup and the plane had to divert for medical attention (there was injuries!!!) the second incident was a fire from a microwave installation error (a fire!!!!) http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/aug/28/ryanair.theairlineindustry --76.19.222.40 (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As someone who claims to know so much about aviation, you might want to acquaint yourself with http://www.avherald.com. If an incident is a C (crash) or an A (accident) on that site, it is serious enough to be considered for inclusion. The incident with the soup (it dripped on him, it did not burn him) rates an I (incident) and therefore is not worthy of inclusion. It was also not caused by the airline but by the contents of a passenger's carry on, so you can't really blame the airline for that. The incident with the microwave happened on a Thomson flight, not Ryanair. Please try to get your facts straight. The point about QANTAS 30 is that it too does not meet the criteria under the WP:AVIATION policy but certainly serious enough to be included. The same is true of this incident. Please stop reverting until consensus is achieved here.
Also as someone who claims to know about aviation, you should know that rapid decompression and descent can lead to serious inner ear problems. The injuries may have been "all in their heads", but that is because it's where their inner ears are. The were NO injuries in the QANTAS 30 incident. Despite being more spectacular, it was not as serious as the Ryanair incident, which did result in injuries requiring hospitalisation. That is why it is notable by WP standards (and classified as an accident rather than a minor incident by Aviation Herald).Harry the Dog WOOF 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh thanks, I didn't know that www.avherald.com replaced the NTSB. So in your opinion less than a few hours in the hospital because of ear problems and shock is what makes an event more serious. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the plane and there was no risk to the passengers means nothing. Whereas an explosion which ripped a hole in the side of fuselage just in front of the wing is less serious because no body was injured. That is an interesting view of things, so in your opinion an event like Air Transat Flight 236 is less serious than this Ryanair incident because less people got injured? I find the criteria they use for labeling an event at avherald to be deeply flawed (see FAQ page) if anybody is injured it is automatically an accident instead of an incident, so if you made a successful emergency landing and somebody twists there ankle going down slide it becomes an accident instead of an incident. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
We are talking about reliable sources for Wikipedia. AV herald is a reliable source. They rate this as an accidnet, not an incident, something they don't do lightly. Therefore it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Nothing wrong with the plane??? Planes just routinely depressurise for no reason do they? Harry the Dog WOOF 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In my view because this has been widely reported and will no doubted be widely referenced in the future within the media is deserves inclusion. It is perceived as important and has become a well known fact, which seems to lend itself to inclusion on wikipedia. Olyus (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This should not be included. This is not another Aloha Airlines Flight 243 type event, it is not anywhere even close. --193.33.186.220 (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This incident does not deserve inclusion on Wikipedia, apart from failing the agreed criteria for inclusion of an air incident / accident, depressurisation events are relatively common and literally hundreds of similar incidents would need to be included on Wikipedia before this one was added. It is also not the first Ryanair depressurisation incident, where are the other (identical!) ones? Spanair knee-jerk media reactions do not equal notability. SempreVolando (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, many included incidents on the surface fail the criteria for inclusion, including QANTAS 30. However, a reloable source (www.avherald.com) rates this as an accident rather than a mere incident, so it can be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
"Harry the Dirty Dog" please stop reverting the edits. You should try to listen to your own advice when you say "See TP before reverting."--193.33.186.220 (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus here to remove this accident. Until there is, it should remain, especially since the "dangerous approaches" paragragh remains. This incident is far more serious than those. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The article Ryanair Flight 9336 is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryanair Flight 9336. If the related article is deleted then it should be deleted here. No point in an edit war just wait for the outcome of that discussion. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Just because something doesn't merit its own article (and I agree it doesn't) doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned in another article. The test is whether the inclusion is reliably sourced as a serious enough incident to be included in the body of the main article. It is (at www.avherald com, which takes it beyond the tabloid journalism and classifies it as an "accident" rather than an incident) so there is no reason why this adequately sourced addition should be removed, especially when the dangerous approaches paragraph remains. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter so much to some people if this is included? Come on, wikipedia is a computer based project. It has unlimited space. It seems really selfish of some users to try to stop other users from putting up things that are interesting and important to them, especially as it comes at no cost to those who dislike it. Really, if you dislike it so much then don't look. why not make all these ryanair issues a separate page so those who really can't find the will to live if someone writes about an aspect of ryanair they don't like can find some peace.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olyus (talk • contribs) 12:17, 29 August 2008

Harry the Dog WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping another item. If you think that the dangerous approaches bit is not notable then delete it or discuss is as a separate subject on this page. Although it does not appear notable just another of the in the new of that particular week type additions. I would suggest again that we wait and see if the Ryanair Flight 9336 article is deleted then it can be discussed here. Olyus it is not a matter of like or dislike it is a matter of producing a balanced and reliably sourced article, a separate article was created in the past for those that wanted to use this article as a soapbox against Ryanair but it was deleted! Perhaps we should add that Ryanair probably carried over 150,000 passengers today and this has to be balanced against complaints and observations of a small number of passengers. MilborneOne (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. What I am saying the notability of any item is determined based on its merits. If you look at the vast majority of airline articles, there are incidents and accidents there that don't have a separate article. I agree that this accident should not have a separate article, but that does not mean it shouldn't be included here. Look at http://www.avherald.com and you will see why this accident is notable and not "just another of the in the new of that particular week type additions". Those are all listed too, under the category of incidents. When a reliable source like AV World rates an event as a crash or an accident, then we have reliable sourcing for including it per WP standards. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
OK as you keep mentioning it I am not sure that avherald is a good reliable source is appears to be based on inputs from subscribers with no verifiable references for any of the information. So a accident or incident category from avherald I would suggest is not a reliable indication. MilborneOne (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
From the AV Herald website: "We require at least two independent agreeing information flows unless we can base our report on an official source. But even information provided by official sources like accident investigation units, airlines, airports and similiar do get cross checked with available flight data. "Errare humanum est." And we do hope to deal with humans, not robots!" (So no, 76.19.222.40, it's not a "computerised system".) That is more stringent than even Wikipedia, so to dismiss a source that verifies things more thoroughly than this site requires seems odd to me! Harry the Dog WOOF 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
The avherald picks up news articles and if it mentions any injuries it is considered an accident instead of an incident. For some reason Harry seems to think that the avherald and there computerized system of classifying events is based on some scientific formula that takes into account Irish or French aviation law. So unless the French or Irish aviation authorities classify this as an accident instead of an incident it has no valid point for it being here. It is funny that we are waiting to remove this because of a person who thinks an explosion which ripped through the side of the fuselage and caused a few million dollars worth of damage is less serious than masks dropping, steeper descent, and a normal landing with absolutely no damage to the aircraft. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
AV Herald looks at each case and classifies it as appropriate. Wikipedia works on appropriate sourcing. AV Herald is a valid source by Wikipedia standards, at least as appropriate as a newspaper, which is what it is for the aviation world. They are very strict when they classify incidents, and their criteria are clear. You know where you stand, which is important in deciding whether a source is reliable. So looking at how they classify different events is valid. As for damage to an object or damage to people, I think most people would say that physical injuries to people are far more serious than repairable damage to an aircraft. You keep ignoring the potentially serious injuries that cause 26 people to be sent to hospital. The point you can't get around is that this is sourced to WP standards. As long as that is the case, the balance should be to include it not to remove it. 76.19.222.40, your aggressiveness is not helping your case. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but Avherald is an amateur blog site probably run by an enthusiast in Austria it says all the information is sourced but does not provide any evidence of what the sources are. None of the articles I sampled on the front page has a source. Anybody can create a website like Avherald and say it is sourced which is why it is not a reliable source to wikipedia standards to quote from its own web pages Our articles are always based on own research. Again mention of potential serious injury none of news report mentions that any of passengers were seriously injured the BBC - In total, 16 passengers were taken to hospital with earache, the Guardian - A total of 16 passengers, together with five accompanying family members have transferred, at their request, to a local hospital complaining of earache. So your reliable!! source for potentially serious injuries is AvHerald which did manage to get the number wrong but it doesnt mention serious injury Avherald - However, 26 passengers had to be hospitalized with hearing problems. MilborneOne (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually the correct number is 26, and the authorities are investigating. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryanair&action=edit&section=41 It may yet become even more notable.
I am simply answering the anon who is arguing that Flight 30 is notable because people might have been seriously injured, which is of course no WP standard. I used the word "potentially" serious injuries (not AV Herald) because we don't know the long-term effects. There are conflicting reports as to the number of hospitalised, but the advantage of AV Herald is that they update if better info becomes available.
Others have argued that Flight 9336 doesn't conform to the WikiProject_Airports policy, and I am pointing out that neither does Flight 30, but that is no reason why it shouldn't be included. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no research involved in Avherald, look at there FAQ page if somebody is injured it is an accident, if something happens and nobody is injured and there is no damage to the aircraft it is an incident. The investigation into the Ryanair incident will probably involve two fat ryanair mechanics looking at the plane and filling out forms, the pilots/flight attendents filling out a report, and then the French or Irish authorities looking at the forms and waiting 6 months to release a report. The Qantas incident (which is less serious according to Harry because nobody got an ear ache) involved investigation teams sent from Australia and America to help out the Philippine authorities. Boeing also sent people there. In aviation it is not the number of injured which designates if something is considered serious. If a hole is blown in the side of the aircraft and nobody is injured, it is still way more serious than a few people having an ear ache in a plane which suffered no damage and had no risk to the lives of the passenger. The only reason that this got any attention is because A.)it involved British passengers which meant the British excuse for papers got involved B.) The spanair accident just happened a few days ago C.) You had passengers saying words like "plummeted" and "dropped" from the sky to describe a faster than normal descent.

FROM THE TIMES[5]

"The sudden loss of pressure in an airliner cabin, as occurred on the Ryanair flight, is a frightening and potentially painful experience for passengers but it is does not usually endanger the aircraft. Half a dozen episodes of rapid pressure loss have been suffered by airliners over the past year.

Pilots follow a standard procedure if the cabin pressure suddenly drops while at cruising altitude. They don the oxygen masks which are constantly at their shoulder and put the aircraft into an emergency descent to about 8,000ft above sea-level, the altitude at which the air becomes comfortably breathable.

At the same time the crew would have declared an emergency to the en-route air traffic control and requested immediate clearance to the lower altitude and landing at a nearby airport. In the meantime the oxygen masks will have deployed automatically to supply passengers and other crew during the descent.

The Ryanair Boeing 737 performed exactly this procedure after it suffered pressure loss. The pilots descended from about 35,000ft to 8,000ft in five minutes, according to the authorities at Limoges airport, where it landed. The media and passengers may call such manoeuvres a "plunge" or a "free fall", but the descent rate of about 5,600ft per minute is perfectly controlled and within the normal performance of the aircraft — assuming that all its flight systems are functioning." --76.19.222.40 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

More or less exactly the same was the case for QANTAS Flight 30 yet it is notable enough to have its own article. Passengers on that flight were using exactly the same words. It was more "spectacular", that's all. You can't get around the fact that people were hospitalised, which clearly takes it out of the run of the mill depressurisation and other incidents that happen in aviation every day, and which makes it notable. Things are notable for different reasons. Flight 30 is notable because a big hole appeared in the aircraft, Flight 9336 is notable because there were injuries (for which no doubt Ryanair will have to pay compensation).
According to Ryanair, "While this investigation is ongoing with the French and Irish Authorities Ryanair will not comment further on this incident." The authorities are investigating. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you are still missing the point a few passengers having earache does not make it notable, but it has to be said to be notable for passengers to gain compensation! MilborneOne (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the point is actually quite simple. We need better guidelines as to what makes an incident notable or not, because right now Wikipedia is all over the place on this. There are lots of incidents listed on various airline pages that resulted in no hull loss, no deaths, no changes to aviation policy or even serious damage to the aircraft, but the consensus is that for whatever good reason they are notable. There is no consistency on Wikipedia, that is the problem. It's all very well to refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but unless we have regard to what else is on Wikipedia, in order to have some semblance of consistency on how these things are handled, Wikipedia is not as good as it could be. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry, we do have guidelines as to what makes an incident notable in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Accidents_notablilty.

An incident/accident/crash is "notable" in Wikipedia terms if:

  • General criteria:
    • It involves unusual circumstances.
    • One or more of the passengers on board is notable.
    • The flight crew, military, airline, airport or air traffic professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions
  • Air carrier criteria:
    • It involves a scheduled or charter air carrier and results in serious injury or loss of life.
    • It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.
    • It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target
    • It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline or airliner
  • General aviation/corporate aviation/private aircraft:
    • Accidents are generally not notable unless unusual circumstances are involved, notable people are involved, or the incident/accident otherwise results in downstream changes to the industry or procedures. Note: momentary news coverage, which would not last beyond the immediate timeframe of the accident, does not confer notability.

The only one of these tests that the incident may pass is that "One or more of the passengers on board is notable". I'm sure Pen Hadow is a great explorer but his wikipedia entry is barely 5 lines long. Hands up who had heard of him before today.

The circumstances were not unusual, these things happen from time to time. No one has been dismissed or repremanded. There was no injury or loss of life. No change in procedures. Not a military or terrorist incident. Nor is this the first (or worst) incidence of cabin pressure loss.

You can't compare this incident to Qantas_flight_30. The QF30 incident was caused by an expoding oxygen cylinder which ripped a 2 meter by 1 meter hole in aircraft fuselage and damaged the instrument landing system and anti-skid braking system. I haven't seen any evidence that the Ryanair 9336 incident was anything more than a rapid decompression followed by a divert and routine landing. Some passengers were taken to hospital, but once again there is no evidence that anyone was actually admitted to hospital or that their injuries were anything other than minor.

I think people should read the comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ryanair_Flight_9336. The concensus there is that the article should be deleted and if this is carried then it also reflects on the notability of this incident.

Hundreds of incidents like this have occurred. Let's put this one to rest - it's wasted enough of everyone's time already. 84.9.35.8 (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is these guidelines don't seem to be followed consistently. There are many incidents listed within airline articles that would not pass the notability test to have their own article but are still worthy of a few sentences in the airline's own article.
Just starting alphabetically, here is a similar incident that is deemed notable enough for a few sentences on the Air Canada article
  • 19 November 2006: Air Canada Flight 38 Boeing 767-300 was bound from Shanghai, China to Vancouver suffered severe turbulence and made an emergency landing at Tokyo's Narita International Airport. Four flight attendants were sent to hospital. Flights in and out of Shanghai (and in the area east of Japan) are notorious for turbulence problems.
Of course it doesn't rate it's own article, and is indeed is less serious than the case we are discussing (only four people, not even passengers, hospitalised), but it rates a mention as does this one.
Not to mention:
  • 20 May 2007: Air Canada Jazz Flight 8911, a Bombardier CRJ-100 bound from Moncton, landing gear collapsed while vacating the runway after touching down at Toronto-Pearson International Airport. There were no injuries reported as a result of the incident

Harry the Dog WOOF 20:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Harry the point you are making is pointless. Injuries do not mean that an incident is more serious than another. Two planes nearly colliding is more serious than severe turbulence that injures a few people because the potential outcome of the two events is much different. The severe turbulence has the potential to injure a few people, the near collision of two planes could mean the loss of hundreds of lives. Also just because one article on wiki includes minor events does not mean that all should. Go look at some of the major American airlines that have been around for the past 70-80 years and if they were to include every minor incident it would be a list a mile long. Instead the list of accidents include only serious incidents (which include potential terrorist actions).

Irish aviation authorities have three labels for incidents/accidents: Incident, Serious Incident, Accident.

Ryanair depressurization with emergency decent and with oxygen masks deployed in cabin. People had earaches but nobody hospitalized. Labeled an INCIDENT by the Irish aviation authorities. [6]

Ryanair: depressurization with passenger oxygen masks deployed with no injuries. Labeled INCIDENT by Irish aviation authorities. [7]

Ryanair: depressurization with passenger oxygen masks deployed with no injuries. Labeled INCIDENT by Irish aviation authorities. [8]

Ryanair: engine bird strike and shutdown on takeoff and return to airport single engine labeled INCIDENT by Irish aviation authorities. [9]

Ryanair: labeled SERIOUS incidents by Irish aviation authorities although no damage or no injuries [10] [11] [12] [13]


Aerlingus depressurization incidents (only 737's listed)

Depressurization with emergency descent with passenger oxygen masks deployed with no injuries. labeled INCIDENT by Irish aviation authorities. [14]

Depressurization with emergency descent with passenger oxygen masks deployed. 21 passengers did seek medical attention and 3 crew, suffered from earaches and nose bleeds. Labeled INCIDENT by Irish aviation authorities. [15]

Depressurization incident where the flight crew completely messed up. Continued to climb, passenger masks dropped, first officer taking oxygen, captain refuses oxygen and then tells the passengers they don't really need the oxygen although they are still at 14,000 feet. Labeled incident by Irish aviation authorities. [16] --76.19.222.40 (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The point I am making is the need for consistency on Wikipedia, so that we can avoid problems with POV and people trying to add or delete things based on their biases. I find it interesting that the inclusion of this event is raising so much anger from you while you don't seem concerned at all about the seemingly minor Air Canada Jazz incident above. I would have more respect for your position if you showed some consistency. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Your absolutely right there is no consistency. I agree with you that the Air Canada severe turbulence incident is not worthy of inclusion but I disagree in the case of the landing gear collapse because although there were no injuries the aircraft was written off. I also had no reason to go to the Air Canada page. But the big difference between the Air Canada article and this article is that this Ryanair article is already messed up. If you were to include this incident the next time something happens they will point to this incident as the reason why the new incident should be included even if minor (example: criticism section) Personally I don't even think that Ryanair flight 296 should be included and it definitely should not have it's own article. For one, there was no fire (which it says in the main ryanair wiki article and flight 296 wiki article) only smoke from the release of oil from the broken bearing. Secondly it was the passengers who opened and tried to exit on the wrong side (not sure how that is Ryanair's fault that passengers would exit towards the firefighters) Thirdly, the only problem for Ryanair is that some of the staff had trouble opening the doors but still everybody was able to evacuate in 90 seconds. Then in the flight 296 wiki article they even talk about how paying for uniforms and training in eastern Europe had something to do with the incident even though no ref is provided. Finally, most reports that are released from accident investigators have a list of recommendations for changes in training (that is half the reason why they have an investigation to begin with) But I know that if I delete anything about it I would probably end up in another edit war. --76.19.222.40 (talk) 22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I referenced the Air Canada article in my first entry under this heading. Not to mention Jetblue 292 which, while spectacular, had no injuries and the aircraft was quickly returned to service. It has its own lengthy article.
The solution is not to start randomly deleting incidents from various articles but to start a discussion on the aviation project page about how we can improve things generally in this regard. Otherwise, it just looks like people are trying to prevent things from being said in relation to one particular airline for whatever reason. Harry the Dog WOOF 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think we've discussed this enough. The only argument for including this incident appears to be that because other Articles ignore the guidelines then this one can ignore the guidelines too. Wikipedia doesn't work like that. When you see something wrong, you fix it. And that's what I am going do do here. 84.9.35.8 (talk) 22:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. It's about achieving consistency in how we treat these incidents so that there is no appearance of people adding or deleting things based on bias for or against a particular airline. If you try to invoke guidelines, but these can be shown to not be implemented consistently, then they aren't very good guidelines! Harry the Dog WOOF 06:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The only way we can achieve consistency is by following the guidelines. If the guidelines are wrong then it's the guidelines which need to be changed, not individual articles. This is not the place to debate whether the guidelines are right or wrong, the only debate is to decide if the article follows the guidelines or not. 84.9.35.8 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Let's leave this and other articles alone for now until we can achieve a consensus elsewhere on the guidelines. Or else, we have to go through and delete everything that does not conform if we don't want to have an appearance of bias. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
If you want to try and change the guidelines then good luck to you, but this is not the place to do it. Until the guidelines change the articles have to follow them. If other articles fon't follow the guidelines then those articles should be edited too. That's the way the Wiki works. 84.9.35.8 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless the guidelines are applied consistently, there are pointless. That is what the aviation project is about. I am not suggesting that we should change the guidelines, just that they be applied consistently. The guidelines are also just that, guidelines. They are not hard and fast rules. Execptions can be made in individual cases if consensus can be reached. That is why we have discussions like this on the individual article talk pages. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and complaints

This needs to be spread throughout the article - there should be no one criticism and complaints section. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryanair/Archive_1&oldid=1144747524"