Talk:Ryanair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ryanair flight FR4102 - Rome Ciampino Incident

It's hard to know if this one meets the notabilty guidelines or not. It was a significant incident but it's not yet clear if the aircraft is a total loss or not. Perhaps we should leave it here for a while until the investigation result is avalable?

Also, I think we should consider deleting the Ryanair Flight 296 incident. There was a load of smoke from an engine but no major damage or injuries therefore not that notable. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't know if it's notable yet. It looks like it will only be notable if the aircraft is a writeoff (unlikely to look at it) or the authorities make any changes to regulations as a result of the incident (which is why the 296 incident is notable; changes were made to crew training procedures as a result). If those things happen in the future, the incident can be added, but as it stands it's not notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If we don't know if it's notable yet, then maybe we should leave it there for now and avoid an unpleasant edit war as has happened in the past? If it's removed then (well meaning) people will just re-add it but often not as well written or NPOV as the piece which was removed.

From what I can see the under carriage has been rammed through the wing though of course it's not at all clear how bad the damage is. The aircraft IS damaged badly enough that it won't be moving anywhere without specialist equipment though and that's significant. As for the Flight 296 incident, I think it would probably be quite unusual for the investigation board to NOT make recommendations in their report. I'm wondering if this latest incident should superceede the Flight 296 incident of the basis that "It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline or airliner". (see WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Notability) 84.9.32.138(talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I would include the incident as long as weasel words like "massive bird strike" or "successful crash landing" is not included before any investigation is done. Some other reports are saying that the pilot landed long and we also do not know if anything was done wrong.

I think it should be included since:

A: It seems to have caused significant damage to the aircraft B: There seems to be an issue with the pilot landing long and fast C: It is not common for both engines to be struck and fail from a bird strike D: There was a few injuries E: The airport was shut down for the day causing significant delays F: There is likely to be recommendations by the authorities concerning this incident E Unlike the incident above, this was more than simply a fear aspect, this seems to have had the possibility of causing a serious event.--24.128.62.176 (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re all of the above, please read WP:CRYSTAL. Until its notability has been determined, it should not be included. It os not up to us to speculate on whether it may or may not be notable in the future. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability is determined by the following facts:

Fact 1: The aircraft suffered multiple birdstrikes on approach. (Verified by Ryanair statement). Unusual but not unprecedented.

Fact 2: The aircraft broke it's landing gear either by a hard landing or leaving the runway. (see pictures in the news). Not unusual but fairly serious damage,

Fact 3: It has caused an airport closure. Significant disruption

Fact 4: This is the worst incident involving the airline to date. Certainly more serious than the previous flight 297 incident whereby the aircraft vacated the runway under it's own power with damage caused by a broken engine bearing, not structural damage as in this case.

There is no WP:CRYSTAL in the above statements. I propose that we remove the Ryanair Flight 296 incident and replace it with this latest one on the basis that "It is the first or worst accident for a particular airline or airliner". (see WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Notability) Use one of the well written, NPOV sections that have been reverted. As I've said before, if we delete it all the time, well meaning people will just add their own sections (which fail POV, factual or speculation). —Preceding unsigned comment added by84.9.32.138 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple bird strikes happen every day. Birds tend to fly in flocks, so hitting more than one is common.

Nothing in this incident satisfies notability so far. Damage to an aircraft is not notable unless it is a writeoff. One can argue that the decompression incident over Limoges (see above) is a far more serious incident.

The 296 incident is notable not because it was the worst that the airline has suffered but because it led to changes in the way staff are trained by order of the Air Accident Investigation Board following their investigation. That is what makes it notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Sorry, didn't see this talk page before I added the info. A day after the accident it is now clear that both engines were affected by the birdstrike. The damage to the aircraft is described as "substantial" and it may even be serious enough that there is a hull loss. At this point in time, I'd say that the accident should be included in the Ryanair and Ciampino articles, but doesn't justify a separate article just yet. If the aircraft is declared a hull loss, then the criteria for WP:AIRCRASHwill have been met and a spearate article would be justified. Currently, the accident is covered in multiple independent sources, and thus is notable and verifiable enough for inclusion. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"and it may even be serious enough that there is a hull loss"... Again, WP:CRYSTAL. If the airframe is written off, it can be added, and a separate article created, but it is not notable yet. Just because something receives brief if sustained media coverage does not make it notable. The closure of the airport may be worth mentioning in the Ciampino article, but that is a separate issue - it is the closure, not the specific incident that is unusual and notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that bit is WP:CRYSTAL, which is why I said that I didn't think the accident justified a separate article yet. However, the accident is now sufficiently notable that it should be included in the Ryanair and Ciampino articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Then make the case for notability. So far you haven't. There was no hull loss (at least not yet), no seriosu injury or death, no notable person on board, and we don't know yet if the accident will invoke a change in procedures, regulations or process that has a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry. Until one of those things is established, it is not notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The notable thing about this accident is the fact that both engines were affected by the birdstrike, making a go-around an impossibility. The substantial damage suffered by the aircraft is also a factor which should ensure that the accident is mentioned in the Ryanair article as well as the Ciampino article. Had it been one engine affected and an otherwise normal landing, then a fairly routine, non-notable event, which this wasn't. Mjroots (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again speculation. We don't know that go-around was impossible. The pilots may have decided not to try, but that doesn't mean it was not possible. The investigation will determine that. Both engines being hit by birds is not unusual. It is likely to happen when an aircraft encounters a flock. We also don't know whether it was "substantial damage". A collapsed undercarriage, which was the main cause of the accident by the looks of it, is not uncommon. Had the undercarriage not buckled, the aircraft would probably have remained on the runway. This is not really a serious incident by any stretch, unless the hull is written off. There is no rush to include this. If and when we get answers to the questions it can be added if it turns out to be notable. Harry the Dog WOOF 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Damage to the aircraft has been stated to be "substantial" by the BBC (a reliable source if ever there was one) and the Aviation Safety Network (also reliable) - I'm sure I could find other sources too. Both engines being hit by birds may not be unusual, but both being put out of action by them is. BTW, the aircraft remained on the runway. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Having checked WP:AIRCRASH I believe the accident meets the criteria of it involves unusual circumstances. Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What is unusual? Not multiple birds hitting an aircraft. Not one set of landing gear collapsing. These happen relatively often. The extent of the damage at this point is only speculation. The left hand landing gear sustaining substantial damage is not the same as saying the aircraft as a whole sustained substantial damage. For the most part, apart from one engine cowling and the undercarriage, the damage as a whole is pretty minor. Also we don't know for sure yet that both engines "were put out of action" Until the investigation is complete we cannot, in this case, know whether it meets notability. Harry the DogWOOF 17:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, according to www.avherald.com, the fire chief at Ciampino said that "the crew declared emergency following problems with one of the engines. The landing gear failed to function properly thereafter causing the airplane to depart the runway." One engine, not two, and the aircraft did leave the runway. Only the skillof the crew brought it back there. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph is another source that states that both engines were affected. Mjroots (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a newspaper report or a direct quote from the airport fire chief who was there dealing with the incident. I think the latter is more reliable. Your case is based on speculation and a selective reading of sources. There is no prima facie case of notability in this case. You may well be right that it is notable, but we shall just have to wait and see. 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to go with the horse's mouth. Ryanair are quoted as having said in a press release that both engines were affected. Aviation Herald Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For one thing, the boffins at FR HQ who issued the early press release were not there, the fire chief was. Two engines were not mentioned in the subsequent releases. In any event, just because birds strike an engine does not mean that it is "put out of action". Engines are actually designed to ingest birds, because bird strikes are common. It looks like both engines were struck but only one was overwhelmed. But again, this is speculation. What is the problem with waiting until the full facts are known? Harry the Dog WOOF 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly true that multiple birdstrike is NOT unusual. However, this case IS unusual in that it caused enough damage to bring the aircraft down to a very hard/fast/veered off runway landing which caused damage to the landing gear. The incident was also significant enough that it closed Ciampino airport for over 36 hours.

That makes it notable for the CIA article, not the FR article. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Limoges incident was far less serious (NO evacuation, NO siginificant aircraft damage, NO airport closure). The Limoges aircraft was on it's way the next day, that won't be happening here.

There were more serious injuries in the Limoges incident. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The 296 incident was notable because minor though it was, it was the worst incident involving a Ryanair aircraft in the history of the company. It's true that the AAIB made recommendations, but every investiation leads to recommendations. If they didn't then the investigation would be pretty pointless.

No they don't. They make findings, and if changes in policy, procedures, training, design etc. are needed, they make recommendations. But it isn't always the case that they are. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am restoring the Rome Ciampino Incident on the basis that "It is the worst accident for a particular airline or airliner".Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Accidents_notablilty. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Before you do that, we need to achieve consensus here that it is the worst accident that Ryanair has suffered. There is no consensus on that at the moment, as it hasn't even been discussed. I certainly don't believe it is Ryanair's worst accident. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry, you've put a lot of useful input into this discussion - indeed you've made more comment than anyone else put together. Perhaps it's time to sit back and listen for a while. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will wait for the consensus to develop as long as you agree to do so as well. Let's hear what others have to say. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you don't start a revert war. If it's not included then someone else will just waste their time writing up a piece only for you to revert it. Let's leave it there and it can be debated here. Thanks for your understanding. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we would all prefer it if you understood the meaning of WP:CONSENSUS. Whether this is the worst incident is an issue on which we need to achieve consensus. Continuing to re-add it on that basis without consensus to do so shows a lack of good faith. Please try to achieve consensus if you want to re-add. If you can achieve that consensus, then the section will stay, but adding something on the basis that "someone else will just add it anyway" is not Wikipedia policy! Harry the Dog WOOF 21:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The reasons I think the incident was the worst suffered by Ryanair are clearly stated. Multiple birdstrike affecting both engines, hard landing causing landing gear damage, runway blocked and airport closed for 36 hours. Your contention that Limoges was worse than this is wrong because it had none of these factors, we don't need a concensus to establish that fact. The nature of the injuries in this incident are not clear but I would guess that they are more serious than the earache people suffered after the Limoges incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by84.9.32.138 (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Decompression and inner ear injuries (more than just "earache") are very serious and not that common. A hard landing caused by a common event (a bird strike) looks spectacular, but it was not a very serious incident. But clearly you want to ignore various WP policies. Harry the DogWOOF 06:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability and consensus

The 296 incident was notable because of the changes it brought in its aftermath. The accident at Ciampino is notable because of the apparent cause. It meets WP:AIRCRASHguidelines for inclusion. The addition of the accident to the article by five separate editors indicates that there is consensus that the accident should be included in the Ryanair article. An aircraft accident doesn't necessarily need someone to die to make it notable, there are other factors which can also give notability.Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again: "Apparant cause". WP:CRYSTAL Several editors have also removed the accident from the article. Consensus is achieved on the talk page. I have listed the factors that make an incident notable. This incident so far meets none of them. Whether it is the "worst accident" for Ryanair can be debated, and consensus on that point needs to be reached before it can be added on that basis. But if people want to ignore WP policy who am I to argue? Harry the Dog WOOF 06:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's leave out the speculation for now. The accident should be included because:-

1. The title of the section is Accidents and incidents. Personally, I'd say this was an accident rather than an incident.
2. It meets WP:AIRCRASH 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

My bolding to show criteria met. With 10 injuries, at the moment it is the worst suffered by Ryanair. Mjroots (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No it's not. The Limoges incident had 26 injuries requiring hospitalisation. I agree, this is not notable, and it is certainly not the worst incident on the basis of the number of injuries. It could also be argued that an incident like the one in which the pilot suffered a mental breakdown on approach and the first officer had to wrest control from him in order to land safely was a more serious incident. Seriousness does not just dpend on injuries or damage.217.28.34.132 (talk) 07:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No one REQUIRED hospitalisation after the Limoges cabin pressure loss, they were taken to hospital AT THEIR OWN REQUEST. This latest incident involved multiple birdstrike affecting both engines, hard and/or off runway landing causing landing gear collapse, runway blocked and airport closed for 36 hours. What happened in the Limoges incident? A loss of cabin pressure and a bunch of frightened passengers - get over it and move on, folks. I really don't see how a cabin pressure loss is more serious than a crash landing which closes a major airport for a day and a half. The piece about the Ciampino incident is well written, NPOV and properly references the facts that are known at this time. Please leave it there. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

They did require hospitalisation. Ryanair used that form of words in a press release to absolve themselves of responsibility. Some of them are now suing, and if compsentation is paid it will definitely make that incident notable. But the argument being made here is that this is the worst because 10 people were hospitalised. It is not on that basis, because 26 were hospitalised at Limoges. Harry the Dog WOOF 08:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this incident is not yet clearly notable, and is not the worst by the criteria suggested above. 212.159.92.22(talk) 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this incident should be included and the flight 296 incident should be removed (nearly all accident reports recommend changes go check out the NTSB accident database). This was not just a typical bird strike. The outcome of this bird strike was an unstabilzed approach, followed by a hard & fast landing which caused the landing gear to collapse and the airplane to veer off and back onto the runway, the closure of a major airport for an extended period, and most likely a substantial amount of money and time needed to repair the aircraft.

I spent about an hour searching the NTSB website and looking at this website (http://www.birdstrike.org/commlink/signif.htm) and I could find no other bird strikes involving large modern airliners that had the same outcome as this event. Typical event is that the plane is able to make a safe landing even if on one engine. Either way it is notable because the pilots either elected to land even while the engine/engines were still functioning with an unstabilized approach or else they did suffer dual engine failure from the bird strike and that is also notable.

Counting how many people are injured is not a accurate measure of how serious an event was. If there is smoke in the cabin and after an emergency landing 15 people get injured going down the chutes is that more serious than if there is an actual fire in the cabin and nobody gets injured during the evacuation?--24.128.62.176 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good case for inclusion. I agree about numbers of injuries etc. However, it still presupposes things that we will not know for certain until the investigation is complete. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a news source, and we can wait until the investigation is complete and the full facts are known before inclusion. This is not a prima facie case such as an airliner bursting into flames or deaths would be. When in doubt, leave it out, until the full facts are known.

I disagree that 296 should be removed. It meets the criteria of WP:AVIATION in that recommendations were made which resulted in down the line changes to procedures. That is enough to make it notable by Wikipedia standards. Harry the Dog WOOF 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not news, but it doesn't take much imagination to see that an aircraft stranded on the runway with broken landing gear apparently after a heavy landing caused by multiple birdstrikes and and airport closed for 36 hours is far and away more significant than the previous Ryanair_Flight_296 incident. I agree that in itself Ciampino is not such a notable event (no loss of aircraft, no loss of life/serious injury) but in the context of Ryanair's excellent safety record this is notable as it is the worst incident they have suffered. Yes, even worse than Limoges. You keep citing the changes to procedures after Flight_296 but the changes were minor and the fact is that EVERY incident report makes some sort of recommendations. The only time they are notable would be in the airline/airport/aircraft was criticised or the changes had a far reaching effect on the airline industry. In the Flight 296 case they didn't - changes and updates to proceedures like this happen all the time, it's quite routine. The only reason flight 296 was notable was that it was the most serious incident the airline had suffered to date. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about imagination or speculation; it's about facts. And if the facts have not yet been fully determined, then we should be very careful in what we include. And no, 296 was not included because it was the worst to date. It was included because it met the criterion in WP:AVIATION that the investigation made recommendations that led to changes down the line.

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

The second criterion is why 296 is included. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree about 296, the recommendations were to get a camcorder, to have fire crews tell the crew which way to evacuate(common sense), to have ATC tell the crew the direction of the wind so they would know which way to park the aircraft(they had just landed they should have known the wind direction), and to have Ryanair make sure that they not only tell the crew that the doors are harder to open when the chutes are activated but to actually have to them try to open the doors while armed in training(common sense). These are hardly down the line changes. They really are just making suggestions that are common sense. I quickly looked up the AAIB website and I went back to 2006 and every report had at least one recommendation and most had 2,4,6.....

The guideline says, "It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures."

I think you are misinterpreting this guideline. There was no change in the industry because of 296 incident. This applies to things like 2007 Dash 8 landing gear incidents.

Half the problem why people keep adding incidents here is because they see the 296 incident listed.--24.128.62.176 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am, but all I am doing is telling you the basis on which it was added in the first place, and subsequently retained when others were removed. It wasn't my decision, it's just what was done.

But if you say it is the worst to date, on what basis do you make that assertion. Not on hospitalised passengers. There have been more on other FR flights.

If we do decide that we want to make that the basis for including 296, and we want to supersede it with this one, then we have to wait until the investigation is complete before we can do so. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is a non-injury incident which materially contributes to a change in industry or aircraft procedures.

In this context, materially means "to a significant degree". Memo to staff: Doors are a bit harder to open when the slides are armed, please bear this in mind when evacuating. Oh yes, don't forget to look out the window to see if the engine is on fire before you go opening the door. Hardly earth shattering revelations is it?84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I make the assertion on common sense. It is obvious that whatever happened to this flight was more serious than 296 because there really wasn't anything that serious wrong with 296. The engine was not on fire, the part of the engine that broke would not have caused the airplane to crash.--24.128.62.176(talk) 21:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good grief, read the report;

Safety Recommendation 2004-50

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the instructions to Air Traffic Controllers, when they are advising an aircraft on the ground of signs of fire, to include the surface wind in their notification transmission.

Safety Recommendation 2004-51

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the instructions to Fire Officers, when attending an aircraft fire, to ensure that they consider advising the flight crew on the best route for evacuation, as well as advising on the need to evacuate.

Safety Recommendation 2004-52

It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority encourages aerodrome operators to provide suitable video recording facilities at airports operating public transport flights in order to preserve best evidence in the event of an accident or incident.

Three down the line safety recommendations. More than meets WP:AVIATION Of course 296 was and is Ryanair's most serious incident to date, so you will have to come up with a better argument for including the CIA incident unless it too leads to three or more safety recommendations. We don't yet know what happened in the CIA accident, so to include it now is premature.Harry the Dog WOOF 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I did read the report, see my post above. I said everything that report is saying. It does not meet the standards of the guideline.--24.128.62.176 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know how you can say that. There are three clear safety recommendations that each mandate "a change in industry or aircraft procedures." Not just Ryanair, but ATC and airport. It more than meets the guideline, and it is certainly more than a "memo to staff". If you don't believe me, pop over and ask the folks at the Aviation Project for their view. I'll happily go by what they say. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, so the recommendations were directed at the ATC, Fire and airport operators and nothing to do with the airline then? It doesn't belong in the airline's entry then. I seem to recall that the report called the evacuation "text book" and that it was done in 90 seconds. Material changes result in airworthyness directives and changes to industry wide proceedures. This didn't happen in this incident, these were pretty minor recommendations. The Ryanair_Flight_296 article is already voted for deletion, in time it will be removed from the Incidents and Accidents in the Ryanair article too as it isn't notable as the worst incident now that Ciampino happened.84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry contends that We don't yet know what happened in the CIA accident, so to include it now is premature. That's not true. In the Ciampino accident the aircraft suffered multiple bird strikes, a broken undercarriage on landing and closed the airport for a day and a half. These are all hard FACTS from reliable sources and this is enough information to justify it's inclusion. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Again we don't know that because we don't know what happened at CIA. I can't be much clearer than that. There is evidence of what may have happened, but no prima facie case that it is notable, as there would be if the plane had burst into flames or there were deaths. Because of that, we should wait until the investigation is complete before we decide if it is the worst incident, if that is the basis on which we are including it. We simply cannot know that for sure until the incident is fully investigated and any recommendations are made. As to 296, it is not a question of whether the recommendations relate to the airline or not. The guideline specifically says that it can be industry or aircraft related. Harry the Dog WOOF 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Ryanair_Flight_296 article is already voted for deletion" No it's not. Please do not say things that are untrue. It really doesn't help your credibility. Harry the Dog WOOF 22:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the guideline. Every accident has a list of recommendations that is why the report is done. The dash 8 article I listed above is a good example of industry wide impact, another is American Eagle Flight 4184 which is a good example of an event that changes procedure/industry. The easiest way to explain the guideline is:

Airplane has inflight engine failure. They send the engine out for inspection and it reveals that the material used for a certain part is flawed. They inspect more engines and find out that it is affecting them. They issue a industry wide directive calling for the part to be replaced. It affects all airlines that operate that engine.

another good example is 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision which helped bring about better ATC and radar in the airspace system. --24.128.62.176 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry wrote: Again we don't know that because we don't know what happened at CIA. I can't be much clearer than that. Multiple bird strikes, a broken undercarriage on landing and closed the airport for a day and a half. That's enough evidence for a prima facie case that this is more serious than the previously most serious incident surely? Or are you just in deep denial about the whole incident? 84.9.32.138 (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, no I am not. There is a big difference from preliminary reports in the media and a definitive finding of what happened. It is a matter of the standards which Wikipedia maintains. It's about Wikipedia policy, and right now, we cannot say for sure that this is the worst incident. I am not misunderstanding the guideline. 296 led to majors changes in ATC procedure. If I am wrong, then most of the aviation community here is. As I said, why not take this to the Aviation Project if you think I am wrong. But the fact that 296 is not only mentioned here but has its own, unchallenged article, shows that for the moment it is considered the worst. That could change, but right now it hasn't, so trying to argue for inclusion on that basis is a non-starter for now. 79.68.188.52 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, take it to the Aviation Project. If they say that 296 is more serious than this current incident I will never use Wiki as a valid encyclopedia again--24.128.62.176 (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. There were no major changes to ATC proceedure, they were minor recommendations the like of which come out of any investigation. Major changes are ones like those after Linate_Airport_disaster#Causes. 84.9.32.138 (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The point you are both missing is the only point I am making. We do not yet know if this is the most serious accident that Ryanair has suffered. It ispossibly the most serious, but we won't know that for sure until the investigation is concluded. It is not the most serious just because you think it is.Possibly is not good enough for Wikipedia. Therefore we need to wait and see what the investigation discovers. There is no rush. Rushing to add things that subsequently are found to be inaccurate is what brings Wikipedia into disrepute. So if you want to include it as the most serious accident (which it possibly is) we need to wait for the full facts before we make that determination. May I also suggest that you test your theory by putting a notice of deletion on the grounds on non-notability on the 296 article. That would solve the issue of its notability once and for all. Harry the Dog WOOF 10:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that this is clearly more serious than 296 and you don't need to wait two years for a report to tell you that. If this was another suspected fire which turned out not to be, like it was in 296, then we would have to wait for the report to compare which event was more serious. If 296 had its landing gear collapse and veer off the runway, then we would have to wait for the report to compare which event is more serious. If 296 had hit a flock of birds and experienced engine trouble, then we would have to wait for the report to compare which event was more serious. If 296 had shut down a major airport for 2 days then we would have to wait for the report to compare. But none of that happened to 296, because 296 was a suspected engine fire which turned out not to be.--24.128.62.176 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, who are you to make the decision that it is clearly more serious than 296? Wikipedia has procedures, which I urged you to follow. Since you haven't, I have put an RFC at Talk:Ryanair_Flight_296 to get comments as to whether or not it meets notability. When the incident first happened, the reaction was exactly like your reaction to this incident, ie "This is really serious, we have to include it right away." As time passes, and with hindsight, perhaps that wasn't the right decision. As I have said before, there is no rush to include something on Wikipedia. It is better not to add something in the heat of the moment and then have to remove it later. In any event, let's see if the community agrees with you on 296. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

296 Happened in February 27, 2002, that page was not created until August 14, 2004. 296 was not mentioned in the Ryanair article until August 17,2004. I am really starting to think that maybe you are just trying to have a laugh by continuing to say that it is to be seen if this incident is more serious than 296. Just using simply questions you should be able to figure out that 296 is less serious.

Flight 296

• inflight emergency = no (pilots were unaware of any situation had to be told by ATC about smoke)
• emergency landing = no (they had already landed when became aware of the situation)
• injuries = 0
• damage = engine bearing

Flight 4102

• inflight emergency = yes (Bird strike/possible engine trouble)
• emergency landing = yes
• injuries = 10
• damage = engine, wing, undercarriage, rear fuselage, and various other parts of the fuselage from the impact of birds

--24.128.62.176 (talk) 20:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, you have finally got the point. It took a long time for the article to be created. It wasn't the right decision to create it right away, or to include it in the article right away, so it wasn't. The debate was had, and it wasn't included.

What you are ignoring in the list is that 296 led to three AAIB recommendations to the CAA. That is why the Wikipedia community eventually decided it was notable. We work as a community here. Please try to understand that. Why haven't you commented on the RFC if you feel that strongly about it? Harry the Dog WOOF 20:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki was not even popular in 2002. The Ryanair article was only a few lines long. The report was released in July 2004. It was most likely mentioned in the press again and then somebody added it to the article in August. I checked the talk page from both articles back then and it was not discussed. So the idea that the the Wikipedia community eventually decided to add 296 is incorrect.

I have already commented on the deletion of that article about 2 months ago when I corrected all the misinformation that was in that article and in the Ryanair article concerning the 296 incident. My IP address was 76.19.222.40 but it changed a few days ago to this IP address I have now. I believe it is against wiki policy for me to comment again on that article using a different IP address and that I why I have not. --24.128.62.176 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't discussed? You didn't look very well. Talk:Ryanair#Flight_296. Yes of course it wasn't discussed in 2002. What I meant was when it first came up.

No, it is not against Wiki policy to respond again if a formal RFC is made. You can identify yourself as having been the anon who contributed before, but you can comment. In any event, there was no formal AfD. If there had been, it would certainly have failed, but you are welcome to try an AfD if you want. I wonder why you don't? I predict the result would be a massive "keep". Harry the Dog WOOF 20:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion you listed happened one year after it was added. I have never done a Afd before, I will read about it. --24.128.62.176(talk) 20:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I was thinking about another discussion. There have been so many about whether incidents are notable or not. But the point is, the Wikipedia community has not seen fit to remove the article, or even nominate it for deletion. I suppose you know better. Well put it to the test. It's easy to do.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion Harry the Dog WOOF 20:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to do the AfD for you BTW. Harry the Dog WOOF21:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but after reading I would expect it to get denied because four years of existence would be considered consensus. I think merge is better option. It repeats the same information as in this article. --24.128.62.176 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I will refrain from commenting on the merger proposal and see what others say. I have however moved the "investigation" para from that article to this because it better reflects the investigation outcome, so now they are even more similar. Harry the Dog WOOF 21:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

From discussion with engineers involved with this aircraft: the aircraft will probably be repaired, due to being only a couple months old. The landing gear failure was not surprising and was due to a hard impact - the landing gear are intentionally designed with a weak point so that when they fail they will do so in a predictable fashion that minimises damage to the aircraft. The portion of the wing pierced lacks vital systems. The airframe may have sustained damage from the stresses of impact, so despite being nearly new it may not be repairable. The flock of starlings was extremely large and dense, as starlings do sometimes, and whilst bird strikes are common a multiple strike of this scale is not. Look at the frontal photo that was originally on the ryanair website and count the blood splatters; each one was a bird. And no, I cannot cite references for any of the above. Word of mouth only. 89.167.221.3 (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I originally wrote the above. Airframe has since been written off entirely.87.114.169.184 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No Landing Slots Required for EU-US Transatlantic Service

I removed a claim that the failure to purchase Aer Lingus was seen as a setback to establishing EU-US service as it would mean a failure to obtain Aer Lingus landing slots. In fact, there is no slot control at any US international airport and there is now complete "open skies" between the EU and the USA, meaning all flights between all cities are available for any airline without slots needed.67.173.77.79 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete text causes misleading impression of Ryanair fuel policy

Hello everyone! I was reading through the article when I discovered that a part of the text is not correct. The author(s) is(are) confusing different principles. This gives a misleading impression concerning Ryanair's fuel policy. The text in bold below is the problem:

Under European aviation legislation, aircraft must carry contingency fuel, of around 5% of a trip's fuel requirement and enough to divert to an alternative airport, if required. It is standard practice in the airline industry for captains to anticipate delays from headwinds, storms and rerouting and to request extra fuel, as required, to cope with it. An internal Ryanair memo sent to pilots in May 2008 and seen by the Sunday Times, insisted that any request by an aircraft captain for extra fuel should be the "exception" and referred to a 300kg maximum. In the case of a Boeing 737, 300kg of extra fuel would provide about 5 minutes additional flying time.
I will refer to the following outlining of fuel types

TAXI - Usually 150 kg. This contains taxi fuel and APU burn

TRIP - Fuel for 1 take-off, the initial climb via longest SID to planned TOC. Cruise from TOC to TOD including stepclimbs. Descent from TOD via planned STAR to the IAF. Fuel for 1 approach including landing.

CONTINGENCY 5% of the planned TRIP fuel or 3 minutes flight time at cruise regime whichever is more OR 5% or 3 minutes flight time from the point from which an inflight diversion is executed to the new destination

ALTERNATE - Fuel for the execution of a Go-around at the original destination, including the longest published missed approach procedure and climb-out to new cruising altitude. TOC to TOD and complete arrival and approach procedure including landing at the alternate field. Fuel consumption is calculated for 1-engine operation from the moment the Go-around is initiated at DH/MDA.

FINAL RESERVE - Fuel to hold for 30 minutes after arriving at the alternate airfield, standard holding speeds at 1500 ftAAL.

TANKER - Whenever fuel at the origin airfield is cheaper than at the destination airfield, TANKERING procedures come into affect. This means that the aircraft will carry all the above fuel and will than fill up its' fueltanks with extra fuel (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH 'EXTRA - Commander's decision'). This way less, more expensive, fuel uplift is required at destination. TANKERING fuel causes the aircraft to consume more fuel because of the added weight. The decision to tanker fuel is based on mathematical models produced by the airline's performance department.

EXTRA - CD - The commander can decide to carry extra fuel on top of all the above.

The text in bold implies that somehow Ryanair pilots are forced to reign in on the required fuel type quantities. This is not true. The limitation for Ryanair commanders is 300 kg. of EXTRA-CD. All the above mentioned fuel types are legal requirements, except for EXTRA-CD and TANKER. if either the JAA or IAA discover that Ryanair would dispatch flights with less fuel they would immediatly destroy Ryanair's Air Operator Certificate, banning Ryanair from operating flights. It is thus in the company's best interest to abide by all legal requirements.
Moreover, internal regulations within the company forbid aircraft from being dispatched with a total block fuel quantity that would cause the aircraft to arrive at the alternate airfield with less than 1000 kg. of fuel. That amounts to 25 minutes flight time on the 737-800 on 2 engine operation.
I would greatly appreciate any feedback from you guys and hope we can work to clarify the article in this respect. D10655063 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi and welcome! It's an interesting table and I agree that the article does need clarifying. You sound like a very credible source, but what we need to find is a reference to some, published source for the information (maybe there is some JAA or IAA guideline published on the web) then go right ahead and clarify the article to say that the 300kg extra is in addition to the 5% contingency fuel, diversion fuel and an additional 30 minutes final reserve. While you're at it, feel free to add a bit of balance to the rest of the Ryanair bashing if you see fit. 84.9.33.218 (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've read through the initial documentation provided for new Wikipedia users and thus fully understand the need to provide credible, independent sources of reference material. As it is impossible for me to publish internal Ryanair documentation or manuals I will research the ICAO, CAA and IAA website archives for the relevant bits and pieces. I will post my findings here when I am finished. Kind regards! D10655063 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Spanish pilots Union denounces that Ryanair forces the pilots to fly low on fuel http://www.sepla.es/website/seplacms/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=281 I think that in the main article these allegations should be present. —Preceding unsigned comment added byOalfonso (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the Spanish article really adds anything that isn't covered in the main article, it is just hearsay quoting the Sunday Times article which isn't especially strongly sourced in the first place. 84.9.37.158 (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

£1 charge for using toilet

An editor has removed a section large section of text from the In-flight services section re the proposed £1 charge to use the loo.

This is the removed text:- On 27 February 2009, Ryanair announced that it is considering charging passengers for using the lavatory.<ref>BBC [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7914542.stm Ryanair mulls charge for toilets] 27 February 2009</ref> The Civil Aviation Authority have stated that as an aircraft is not legally required to have a toilet on board, the charge would be legal. The Air Transport Users Council are investigating whether such a charge would be legal, labelling it as "unfair and impractical".<ref name=Charge>{{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article5815088.ece |title=Pilots aghast at Ryanair toilet charge |publisher=Times Online |accessdate=28 February 2009}}</ref>

The editor claimed that it was already covered in the 2009 section, which states:- During a live BBC News interview on 27 February 2009 Michael O'Leary showed his talent for creating free publicity by commenting that Ryanair was considering charging passengers £1 ($1.40) to use the lavatory on their flights. The story subsequently made headlines in other media throughout the day but a spokesperson for Ryanair later played down the idea, saying: "I don't think it's going to happen in the foreseeable future".<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7914542.stm</ref>

Note that the removed text has two references, both correctly formatted. It also shows both sides of the story, as Ryanair received a lot of criticism over this. The text in the 2009 section is more POV as it doesn't mention any criticism, and the reference isn't formatted correctly.

I'd like to see the removed text restored to the article. It may be better suited in the 2009 section though. What do others think? Mjroots (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Dont think we need any more than a mention in the 2009 section it is was just O'Leary getting some free publicity and was intended as a joke.MilborneOne (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A joke is one way to look at it. Another way is that he was serious about it until he realised how big the backlash from the public and Ppruners was.Mjroots (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael O'Leary is a colourful character with a long and well documented history of winding up journalists, the ASA and pretty much anyone else he comes across. Any publicity (so long as it's not safety related) is good publicity even if it's negative. Perhaps we should have a better section in the article pointing this out because it seems that many people (including those at the Air Transport Users Council who are "investigating") don't get the joke. For goodness sake, let's not give his publicity stunts more attention than they deserve which is a one liner at best. 84.9.35.236 (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And now he has admitted that it was all a wind up for some free publicity.84.9.35.236 (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Environmental concerns

I've deleted this section from the article. Really, the only critism here was that Ryanair were a successful business. Ryanair's general stance on environmental matters has led a UK government minister to label the airline the "irresponsible face of capitalism". The same government went on to approve the expansion of Stanstead and a third runway at Heathrow making a nonsense of the former climate change minister's comments about aircraft travel. 84.9.32.51(talk) 21:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your logic is completely flawed. You seem to say the UK government is hypocritical therefore it is impossible that Ryanair is environmentally irresponsible. It is entirely possible that both statements are true. Furthermore, it's bad form to simply delete something that is obviously true. That a UK minister said that is not disputed. You also misrepresent what was said, at no point did anyone criticize Ryanair's success. Olyus (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism template

I see that someone has slapped on a {{criticism section}} template on the "Criticism" section. After reading the content on the template, I felt it was a rather wishy washy alert, which does not give a clear direction of what we should do: "may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject" and "It may be better to integrate the material in such sections into the article as a whole." There is a lot of "may" here, and I think some input on what should be done is in order, lest the maintenance template be on the article forever.

My opinion is that since no policy forbids criticism sections, and since media of all sorts contain a lot of criticism against Ryanair, a criticism section is in order for this airline. The section should of course contain rebuttals to some of the criticism, and include points in Ryanair's favor, which the section does to some degree (though things can always be improved), this is after all a "criticism" not a "free disparage" section.

I am interested in what other people think though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There are very valid points raised in the section but the way they are raised is sometimes quite biased. I think the section should be integrated, as the tag suggests. There are plenty of junk statements, like the "least favourite airline" survey result. They are certainly not my favourite airline, but they are popular and expanding rapidly because they offer rock bottom prices and a reliable service. They the "least favourite" airline in the same way as taking the bus or train to work is the least favourite choice for millions of commuters who would much rather be chauffer driven in a limo.

The Ryanair#Controversial_advertising goes some way towards adding balance with it's explanation of RyanAir's attitude that "no publicity is bad publicity" (unless it's safety related) and discussion of their deliberate courting of controversy and outlandish statements made by the flamboyant O'Leary.

Ryanair#Hidden charges raises some fair points as the airline charges for many services (not all of them optional) that have long been considered to be part of the ticket price. These should probably be written up into a section about their business model and their income from what they call "ancillary revenues" to better describe how, why and where the charges are leavied.

Ryanair#Dispatches programme on safety Reasonably balanced, I think it should stay.

Ryanair#Allegations of constructive dismissal How many companies have been taken to tribunals at one time or another? Unless the tribunal finds evidence of systematic bullying involving a large number of cases then it's just Not Notable. Delete.

84.9.33.175 (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on this! I think your perspective of the coverage here is most insightful, and I have virtually no disagreements with what you are writing here. It may take some time before I (or someone else) gets around to rewriting the material here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a challange indeed. Go ahead - as they say: be bold! 84.9.33.175 (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have gone ahead and restructured the article and removed the "criticism" heading, although most of the content which was in there remains in the article. "Allegations of constructive dismissal" is the main thing which has been removed. I have added content on further cost-cutting measures and further fees (such as the check-in fee) which have been enacted. I'm not sure how good this was, I hope I made the article better, not worse. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankfurt-Hahn Airport

I noticed that at Wikipedia's airport articles "airline and destinations" lists, the abovementioned airport is just called "Hahn", though its official name is Frankfurt Hahn Airport [1] (as is its Wikiepdia title). IMO this should also be done in the dest-lists, like for Milan-Bergamo, London-Stansted or Stockholm-Skavsta. I don't think the argument, the airport would be too far off from Frankfurt, is a good one: 1) its name is its name 2) Stansted and Skavsta are similarly far off 3) at the Ryanair article's list of bases, its called Frankfurt-Hahn -- so something must change!

If there are no objections, I will change Hahn to Frankfurt-Hahn in one week from now.

Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

changed it Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The following paragraph is rather subjective: " Ryanair's advertising is deliberately controversial, in order to generate additional free publicity for the airline. This has led to a number of complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and occasionally court action being taken against the airline.[59][60][61][62]"

While certainly this is true based on fact to some extent, the beginning of the statement precludes other possibilities, and strikes me as more of a personal opinion than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by86.43.209.181 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for public inquiry into Ryanair's first Aircraft Accident causing serious injury,that was not reported for 2 years.

A notice calling for a public inquiry into AAIU report 2002/002 File 2000/031 have been printed in Ireland's best-selling daily newspaper this year.The the most recent being on the 30 Oct 2009..On page 24 of the broad sheet and page 50 of the (Dublin) edition. Albeit confined to the events that prevented the Aircraft accident of 21/02/1998 being report until April 2000.(Dr Xavier Wexlers (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

The incident is not notable per WP:AIRLINES guidelines. You have not stated what the accusations of the article are, they may or may not be notable. The incident itself is not. SempreVolando (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Having read the report at http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/3489-0.pdf I don't think this was a notable incident. Perhaps there is some other report which provides more detailed information that I have missed but here is my reasoning:

Not notable under WP:AIRCRASH guidelines

The AAIU report says it was the ground handler's own fault that he got injured.

The suggestion of "serious injury" is not backed up by the AAIU investigation report.

87.74.14.138 (talk) 11:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The accident did result in "serious injury" as defined S.I 205 OF 1997 (page 6) , PART 1 (a)(iii) and serious injury (b),(c),page 9 of S.I205 of 1997. On page 5 of the AAIU REPORT 2002/002 File 2000/0031 . CONCLUSIONS (a) FINDINGS 3.3 The aircraft should have returned to the stand in order to have the fault rectified. Is it notable that this accident was not reported for over 2 years.This accident is of course omitted from the Prospectus of June 8 1999, 25,371,073 Ordinary Shares being sold by the Selling Stockholders named in the Prospectus.Price to Public 219,003,102 U.S. Dollars (Dr Xavier Wexlers (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC))

No need to quote legisltation it means nothing on wikipedia we have our own guidelines on notability. Having just read the report it is not notable, man walks behind plane gets blown down by jet blast and hurt wrist not that serious injury as he waited until he had returned to the UK before seeking medical help. You say it wasnt reported for two years but it was reported at the time in the Operators Accident Report Book, man falling over was not deemed to be notable at the time. 3.3 says the aircraft should have returned to the stand, it didnt and the operative fixed the problem still a non notable procedural error. What any of this has to do with a prospectus escapes me but in wikipedia terms non of it is notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Incident at Prestwick proposed to be deleted.

The incident at Prestwick on 23 December is not a major one, the airport was not closed for more than 2 hours, no injuries. If no objections I will delete it after a week. Thanks. Michalpro (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)michalpro

No injuries, no aircraft written off (Ryanair claim no damage at all), it's just not notable so I've deleted it. If someone can esablish notability them please make the case here before re-adding the piece. 118.90.4.185 (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion does not appear to be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Destinations

I updated Ryanair's 5 top bases hope it's all roght —Preceding unsigned comment added by93.107.150.206 (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Gratuitous photos?

I don't know about the rest of you, but it seems to me that a lot of the pictures in this article are pointless, not showing something important to the article. I can see having a pic of a plane showing the paint scheme, possibly one of an old paint scheme, and possibly one of a different plane model, but really, all these pics of (pretty much the same) planes flying or standing on the pavement just because? It seems that we have a case of my-photo-too going on here. This isn't a photo gallery, it's an encyclopedia. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are a lot of images. However, I can only identify two worth removing which are the ones in the 2007 and New Long Haul Airline sections. All others are, in my opinion, sufficiently different to be included (i.e. different angles/models/slogans) but maybe some of the more generic images that are not tied into any specific part of the text could be shifted towards the bottom of the article where there is a distinct lack of images? raseaC^{talk to me} 01:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Safety section

Deleted the section on 'safety' as it was purely based on a three year old tv show 'Dispatches', and Ryanair itself hasn't had major safety incidences. BA and Easyjet don't have this category so it adds to consistency across airlines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.87 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually the bot keeps on undeleting this - how can it be deleted without the bot changing it back? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 193.61.255.87 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Blanking a section that points to reliable sources without saying anything in the edit summary raises a red flag to many editors. You have done the right thing by raising the issue on this talk page, and you might have had more success if you'd added "See talk page 'Safety section'" in the WP:edit summary so everyone would know to look here. After reading this I no longer think you're a vandal. Ash (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree that the section needs cleanup, and has been duly tagged; however, I don't see how deleting content is beneficial. If other articles are lacking,be bold and add to them. If there is consensus for the safety section in the Ryanair article to go, then so be it. But at the moment, removing the section without giving a reason in the edit summary on an IP address which has been blocked several times doesn't look good for people patrolling the recent changes section. Ash sums it up better than I do. Cheers! Jared Preston(talk) 16:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ash. Have made changes to this page before (from an Irish IP address) but it was about a year ago and didn't realise the changes to the editing process that have taken place since then. Will read up on it before making more changes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.87 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of bias against Ryanair generally in this article. I guess this prejudice spills over into the thinking that low cost must surely mean that the airline cuts corners on safety.

The Dispatches program plays to this prejudice, though they found nothing of any real substance and Channel 4 isn't exactly what you would call a "reliable source". No action was taken by the aviation authorities in any of the 20 or so countries they fly to - you can't provide a citation to an investigation that didn't even happen because the "evidence" was tabloid TV nonsense. The "long hours for pilots" quote is nonsense too. The maximum number of hours pilots can work is strictly regulated.

There simply isn't any evidence that Ryanair is an unsafe airline, they are one of Europes biggest and they have an excellent safety record. They have carried hundreds of millions of passengers without a death or serious injury. According to Wikipedia, the only aircraft they ever wrote off was in a hard landing after a massive birdstrike. Delete the whole bogus "safety" section and be done with it. 84.9.37.158 (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is probably WP:UNDUE. If the article is placing emphasis on an old TV programme that resulted in no investigation or official recommendations (by the CAA or BAA) then this is a valid issue. However the programme is a useful source and I would not support blanking the section but trimming the fat and adding balancing sources (such as referring to Ryanair's annual reports which would include something about safety and passenger satisfaction) would result in a better article. Presumably a dig through newspaper reports of the time would show a response by Ryanair. I note for example that several responses are shown in a Google News search:responses in 2006. Ash(talk) 10:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you can find Ryanair's response in the press releases on their website. As you say, maybe it can be trimmed down to say that Dispatches ran a program with a series of allegations but none of them were found to have any substance. There seems to be a reverse burden of proof here - Channel 4 alleges that there are safety issues with Ryanair and the airline are guilty until proven innocent. They certainly don't deserve a section on safety - they are probably one of the world's safest airlines.84.9.37.158 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made bunch of changes. The Safety section is gone, Dispatches is integrated into the main piece and cut down to size. The "concerns over long hours for pilots affecting safety" has been deleted as it's nearly 8 years old and based on some anonymous conversations in pubs/coffee shops. 84.9.37.158 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No Frills/POV

"From time to time, Ryanair suggests outlandish ideas to further reduce costs. Generally these ideas are designed to generate free publicity for the airline and they would be impractical to implement" This strikes me as violating NPOV rules. The individual no-frills proposals are cited, but the preceeding summary text doesn't seem objective to me. Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

250th 737-800 delivery

I've had a look around before reverting this but I can't see any reliable source for the statement "On 26 February 2010 Ryanair took delivery of the 250th Boeing 737-800 aircraft, registration EI-EKN." only loads of blogs (which copy off eachother anyway and I don't think they are a wikipedia reliable source). Can anyone help?87.74.14.212 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

does this count as reliable?? http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Ryanair IRISHwiki15 23:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the planespotters link seems to be based on the airline register or something so I guess it's reliable? It might be better to find reference the original source directly. However, it doesn't add up to 250 aircraft though or am I missing something? :-/ 87.74.14.212 (talk)

Folks, a blog is NOT a reliable source. A comment against a photo in FLIKR is NOT a reliable source. Can anyone hunt down the aircraft register or something to back up this milestone? I would have thought that there would have been a press release from the airline at least. 87.74.14.212 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that either Boeing or Ryanair would probably make a song and dance over but I could find no mention from either (though, admittedly, I didn't look too hard) and so assume it's BS. raseaC^{talk to me} 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the aircraft register, it looks like it might be true. Sounds like a bit of a plane spotterish fact to me though. Sure, the airline have apparently brought and sold 250 aircraft, but it's not even a significant percentage of the total 737s built [[2]] so who really cares? I don't think that this fact belongs here, what really matters is the number of aircraft they currently operate. 87.74.14.212 (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I still think that the links to the blog and flickr have to be deleted.... 87.74.14.212 (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entry according to WP:SOURCES. As soon as “Boeing or Ryanair make a song and dance” we can reinsert it. Best regards,--R.Schuster (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it. Flightglobal is a reliable source of aircraft registrations, and clearly shows that EI-EKN is the 250th 747-800 delivered to Ryanair (although of course they don't currently operate that many). We don't need Boeing or Ryanair to make a "song and dance" about it. It is verifiable fact based on the total number of 737-800s that have been registered to Ryanair. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the bit you have linked to at Flightglobal is a blog and is not reliable neither are the other two references. So it still needs a reliable reference.MilborneOne (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Beside the fact, that a blog is not a reliable source according to WP:SOURCES, the statement is original research and does not meet the requirements of WP:PSTS:“All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.”. Further I have doubts about the coverage at all. --R.Schuster (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm getting confused. Is this relating to the 250th 737-800 ever made by Boeing or the 250th 737-800 purchased by Ryanair? I thought it was the former and therefore notable if we can find a reliable source. If it's the latter I don't even see why it's getting a mention. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand it is the 250th delivered to Ryanair its about the 3187th new generation 737! so as you say is not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Bollocks to this then. There's no notability here. raseaC^{talk to me} 16:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be the 250th B738 for Ryanair. Boeing delivered some 1800738's so far. Well, I would not oppose the entry if “Boeing or Ryanair make a song and dance” about it, as you said. But neither Boeing nor Ryanair found it worth to mention it even with a single word. --16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we going to get a concensus on this or just edit war? raseaC^{talk to me} 17:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What edit-war? The one who inserted the paragraph lately made a self-revert yesterday, so from my point of view the case is already closed. --R.Schuster (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the consensus seems to be for removal. The discussion does raise an interesting question (though not one for here). Why is a reporter a reliable source when he publishes an article in a newspaper, but he/she ceases to be reliable when the same information is contained in a blog hosted by that same newspaper? Harry the Dog WOOF 09:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably because it lacks the notability and reliable sources required for an article on the flightglobal website... 87.74.14.212(talk) 18:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Flightglobal in particular. But we have this blanket "no blogs" policy, and perhaps we need to rethink this idea that a blog can never be a reliable source. But as I said, this isn't the place for that debate. Harry the Dog WOOF 09:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really the place but an article in a journal/newspaper would have been through an editing and managerial approval and vetting process before publishing but a blog is just raw opinion. MilborneOne (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, as WP:SOURCE makes clear. Blogs can be under the editorial control of the host newspaper. Harry the DogWOOF 21:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cabotage

Is it neccessary to highlight the fact that cabotage is possible because of EU regulations? —Precedingunsigned comment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. This article is about Ryanair. Not EU aviation rules. raseaC^{talk to me} 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point. Normally an airline company cannot have routes entirely within another country. E.g., Air Canada cannot fly between New York City and Los Angeles. Ryanair's success is based upon EU rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by210.177.66.30 (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a valid point. Without the EU relaxing airline regulations, Ryanair would not have become as successful as it is, and certainly would not have been able to offer domestic services in countries like the UK and Italy. But that point is made in the second paragraph of the article! Harry the Dog WOOF 12:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But the point isn't adequately elaborated in the article. —Preceding unsignedcomment added by 210.177.66.30 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Further down the article: "In 1992, the European Union's (EU) deregulation of the air industry in Europe gave carriers from one EU country the right to operate scheduled services between other EU states and represented a major opportunity for Ryanair. After a successful flotation on the Dublin Stock Exchange and the NASDAQ Stock exchanges, the airline launched services to Stockholm, Oslo (Sandefjord Airport, Torp, 110 km south of Oslo), Paris-Beauvais and Charleroi near Brussels. In 1998, flush with new capital, the airline placed a massive $2 billion order for 45 new Boeing 737-800 series aircraft." Is further elaboration really needed? It's a simple statement of fact- deregulation was one of the factors (but not the only one) that allowed Ryanair to expand. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

[[Category:Ireland articles needing images]]

Redirect

Hi, I'm not sure how to fix it, but if you put in "Ryan air" (with the space it automaticly directs to faces. could someone possibly sort this out?81.149.82.243 (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, plus the other 20 Ryanair-related articles the same bot redirected. Thanks. raseaC^{talk to me} 17:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancillary revenue and in-flight service

Tried to tidy up some subjective words used in the article (and have reported the small changes and the reasons individually). Actually it mainly involved removing negative words and replacing them with more objective terms. However, maybe something should be added to the ancillary revenue section on Ryanair charging a payment card fee unless you use the reasonably obscure prepaid Mastercard? Thus this is an optional charge that is very hard to avoid. Got to go now, so might pop in tomorrow to add this.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3