Ryanair, the terrorists friend

[English assassin]

Well, it seems Ryanair are FAR more interested in keeping on making profits (and trashing the environment) by shipping muppets off in flying cattle trucks than they are in co-operating with security measures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5261908.stm

BBC industry correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones said Mr O'Leary was being particularly strident because the "new regulations are a threat to his business".

If Ryanair passengers travel with large pieces of luggage, which have to be checked into the hold "that's a real impediment to his business".

Mr Cellan-Jones explained: "He depends on getting away fast, no baggage in the hold and a quick turn around at the other end.

"If he is kept behind schedule his whole business starts to suffer."


What a surprise, from the airline that brought you the wheelchair surcharge. I love the idea that this is all necessary to avoid handing the terrorists a PR victory. What a revolting hypocrite. God knows I would never fly Ryanair anyway, or any other no-service airline, but this just shows what scum they really are.

[edyzmedieval]

Not a big surprise. Everywhere in the world, you can find enough scums like him, who are more interested in business than security and protecting the environment. :no:

[Ser Clegane]

Hmm ... in september I will for the first time fly with Ryanair (or any other budget airline).
Seems that this is also going to be the last time.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Someone I know used Ryanair and arrived for check-in 45 minutes before the flight time, but the desk was empty. They have a rule (fair enough rule) that if you don't check in 40 minutes before the flight you can't fly and no refund, but my friend couldn't check in because the desk was empty. She couldn't fly, had to buy a full price ticket to get home. She thinks they had (as most airlines) do oversold the flight and to avoid compensation had closed their desk to make check in impossible. Whenever I use them I always get to their desk way before the deadline because I don't trust them. I advise you to do the same, Ser.

[caravel]

You're better off on the boat going to Ireland from my experience. It's cheaper and alot more comfortable anyway.

[Red Peasant]

I've never had a problem with them, but I suppose because I can't afford club-class that make me a muppet, eh EA? :inquisitive:

How dare I fly on the cheap, mere peasant that I am! :laugh4:

[Ser Clegane]

You're better off on the boat going to Ireland from my experience. It's cheaper and alot more comfortable anyway.
Unfortunately there is no boat going from Frankfurt to Florence (at least none that I am aware of) ~;)


I advise you to do the same, Ser.
I will keep this in mind - thanks, DoG ~:)

(Next time it will be Lufthansa again)

[English assassin]

I've never had a problem with them, but I suppose because I can't afford club-class that make me a muppet, eh EA? :inquisitive:

How dare I fly on the cheap, mere peasant that I am! :laugh4:

I dare say they fly a few non-muppets like yourself. Just in case you do need to complain though: http://www.ryanaircampaign.org/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

While I agree he's a disgusting hypocrit he does have a point. All these regulations are a load of bull, all they manage is snaring up the system. If there's a real threat then every bag needs to be checked.

Example: It is now possible to take a large briefcase but not a normal bag.

Obviously, terrorists have never heard of a briefcase bomb.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Actually I quite like Ryanair. They are very cheap. I have used them to travel to Ireland and I think they are cheaper than sailing if you are not fussy about when you travel. This may be because I live near an airport rather than a seaport. However, you do get what you pay for, so I wouldn't use them if I needed to travel or if the trip was part of a package where I had already paid a lot for accomodation or car hire etc. For visiting relatives, especially kind relatives who will pick you up from the airport, they are ideal. You have to remember that if you don't follow their conditions exactly, you lose your flight which I think is fair enough, but I don't trust them so I always turn up early for check-in.

[Tribesman]

God knows I would never fly Ryanair anyway, or any other no-service airline, but this just shows what scum they really are.

So will you be flying British Airways instead , or will the fact that they are also sueing and are really pissed at the government and aviation authorities put you off flying with that " scum" as well .
Did you notice in the link you provided what the pilots assocition are saying about the security measures ?
Now then , this story was on the radio at work during lunchtime . The commentry following O'Leary's piece was by the editor of Flight International . He started by saying he didn't like o'Leary or his business , but ,and he really hates to agree with O'Leary , he couldn't find any fault in what he had said and thinks he was right to be saying it .

So finally , the "muppet" bit . If B.A./Aer Lingus want to charge me 390 Euros to fly Dublin-Cardiff return and Ryanair are only going to charge me 26 Euros return who is the muppet , the one on BA/AL or the one with 364 extra euros still in his wallet .

For a finally finally , my sister in law and one of her kids is flying Gatwick-Knock on monday with Ryanair , her solution , bring nothing apart from ID and a cashpoint card . :2thumbsup:

[English assassin]

I don't see BA mouthing off about how the only way to beat terrorists is for us all to take a million flights immediately (funny, I THOUGHT that was the way for Ryanair to make more money rather than to beat terrorism, but hey, what do I know), or bitching because a changed enviroment means the no service service they offer is less viable. If they do then they are scum too, fair enough.

Sure, sure, the low cost airlines have created the crack and now we are all addicted, but don't ask me to feel sorry for them, please? The last times I've flown I have to say I have never found Ryanair materially cheaper than a flag carrier, (maybe they are if you fly at 8.30 pm on a tuesday and book 6 weeks in advance, who knows) and its quite nice to land somewhere in the same country as your destination, with the chance of not being screwed right over as soon as something goes wrong in the whole shoestring outfit. But you pays your money you takes your choice. If they really were ten times cheaper than BA for a short haul flight I guess I'd fly them too.

[Tribesman]

EA if you look at the actual cotent of what BA and ryanair are saying it is the same , the precautions are a farce , the airport authority is screwing up badly omn many levels , the British government is not stepping in to take its share of the financial burden (as recomended by the EU and as the US has) .
So your problem sems to be that a company is moaning about a loss of income , well thats news isn't it , a company wants to make money ....shock .......horror .
I wonder how much BA investors lost when its shares nosedived on top of the £40 million lost through cancelled flights ? I bet their sharholders want the executives to get people back in the air again to keep the money coming in .

Now on to the title of your topic , the terrorists friend .
If last year the managers of London Transport said "screw the terrorists take the tube" would you be calling them terrorists friends or would you be going on about Britains grit and determination , how wonderfully they are able to get on with ordinary life ?

Oh and BTW the flights I gave as an example were 3 days in advance departing fromand going to the same airports on the same day with one departing 10 minutes later than the other .
Can you explain how it would cost 364 euro more to arrive 10 minutes later ?:laugh4:

[Al Khalifah]

Ryanair are right. The new security measures are bullshit and won't work in the long run anyway. Easily circumvented.

[BDC]

Ryanair are right. The new security measures are bullshit and won't work in the long run anyway. Easily circumvented.
Yes, I hate travelling with Ryanair, but it's good to see someone pointing out the stupidity of the current regime.

As the owner said in a tv interview, how does a slightly smaller case make things any safer? And why if bombs are so easily hidden in liquids can people take drinks onto the underground? Etc.

[Al Khalifah]

Bombs and explosives can be hidden in anything or can be just about anything - unfortunately.
The airline security were embarassingly forced to admit they can do very little to stop people bringing guns onto planes if they are broken into bits and distributed amongst many.
They only thing that can effectively stop this is if people are not allowed to bring anything onto the plane with them at all. Maybe a book. Thank god I travelled to America before all this - I don't think I could've endured an 11 hour flight with no hand luggage 13 inches or 15 inches of it.

[Keba]

I don't think I could've endured an 11 hour flight with no hand luggage 13 inches or 15 inches of it.

Especially with the British Airways' habit of losing your baggage. Well, not losing, but 'diverting' it someplace else.

Security gets waaay to paranoid, although it has been that way for awhile, since 9/11, actually. I seem to remember a yank security man breaking a bottle of (hole left by lack of proper terminology, let's call it alcochol and be done with it), just because it contained a greenish fluid.

[Al Khalifah]

Fly with BMI. They are quite simply now my favorite airline. They use those super new Airbuses which are infinitely superior to comparable Boeings. I mean, there's plenty of leg room in economy and a tele in the seat in front which can also be a SNES - that is it right there! The food's pretty alright too. No baggage problems with them ever and they often arrive ahead of schedule rather than behind. Plus they fly from Manchester which is convenient.

[macsen rufus]

Listening to this morning's news I heard that Ryanair are now proposing to sue the UK government over the impact increased airport security is having on their trade. So they want "damages" - ie compensation for lost trade. But then they say they're going to give the money to "charity". Now, call me dumb, but what's the point of suing for damages if you ain't going to keep the money? If they can afford to give it away then they aren't in need of it in the first place!

To my mind they're just exploiting the situation in a really sick way for free publicity. Or am I missing something???

[Sjakihata]

I like ryanair, it's cheap. Only better if the UK gov. can make it even cheapter, one way or the other.

[Tribesman]

Well O'Leary is going for the government other airlines are going for the airport authorities , all we need now is for the airport authorities to sue the government to finally get it sorted .
The security measures are a shambles , and that is the fault of the government for not taking responsibilty , or even following its own or the EU recomendations on airport security .

Now, call me dumb, but what's the point of suing for damages if you ain't going to keep the money?
The point would be that by suing you may get the government to actually implement its own recomendations , which in the long term would make both the airlines and airport authorities more money .
Though of course the measures would cost taxpayers money , but sorting out the mess would increase tax revenue .
So that means the politicians will have to argue over if the increased expenditure will be made up by increased revenue , when really they should just be addressing the issue of effective levels of security and its efficiency .

[Slyspy]

Of course he wants the flights back to normal. On some flights low cost airlines in the UK make just over £1 per seat in profit. They need the quantity.