Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sledgehead

Ryanair Issues 7 Day Ultimatum To Government

Recommended Posts

Michael O'Leary, forever the showman seems to be going at little OTT this am. He has held a press conference with look-alike Winnie Churchil, and taken the rise out of current uk security measures. Not only that, he is threatening legal action if the gov don't produce more sensible (ryanair friendly) counter terrorism measurers.

Sounds to me as tho he is well worried about the bottom line impact - or worse!

Budget airline Ryanair is set to outline possible legal action against the government, over disruption caused by the "bomb plot" security alert.

"Why is the government allowing large briefcases to be carried on board as 'safe', but ruling that the normal size carry-on case is still unsafe? This rule is nonsensical and should be rescinded," Ryanair says on its website"

Ryanair's 'bomb plot' legal move

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I flew a couple of times this week. Tuesday everyone checked in as per the govt guidelines. Very smooth - made boarding very quick too.

Yesterday all sorts of stuff was carried on as hand luggage. Most business fliers seem to have decided they are above the law. Typically fat sweating business flyers overloaded with carry on bag, laptop bag, overcoat pockets stuffed with books etc.

Inevitably we missed the slot whilst hand baggage was squeezed into every nook and cranny.

Arrived home midnight, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why is the government allowing large briefcases to be carried on board as 'safe', but ruling that the normal size carry-on case is still unsafe? This rule is nonsensical and should be rescinded," Ryanair says on its website"[/color][/font]

Ryanair's 'bomb plot' legal move

This occurred to me as well, and is a good point. Also, why are there no security measures for boats, trains, tubes and buses?

O'Leary is a straight talker, and showing the "anti-terrorist" measures up for what they are - a pile of crap designed for maximum government PR value (which is probably what the whole investigation will amount to as well).

No doubt the suspects will be charged with dropping litter in the woods or some such.

Edited by Smell the Fear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about time the airlines grew some balls. I guess they can finally see the writing on the wall if they allow the government to continue treating their customers like cattle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this panning out 2 ways.

Option 1: You want a quick no hassle, i should be able to take whatever I want onboard with me type flight.

Option 2: I fully appreciate the risks we currently face and am willing to co-operate fully.

Those who choose option 1 aren't covered by any insurance by either the travel company or the government. If you get blown up, tough sh*t, your selfish.

Those on option 2 arrive safely at their destination, without having been annoyed by selfish people.

Route 2 all the way for me.

The government should not be held to ransom by the terrorists or the airlines.

My safety is the issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My safety is the issue!

How does treating passengers like cattle improve your safety? The vast majority of passengers are not terrorists, so any system which treats all passengers as though they are is broken from the start.

In addition, more people are killed on the roads in a month than have been killed by terrorists in the UK in the last decade. I hope you don't travel by road, or, God forbid!, ever walk across one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this panning out 2 ways.

Option 1: You want a quick no hassle, i should be able to take whatever I want onboard with me type flight.

Option 2: I fully appreciate the risks we currently face and am willing to co-operate fully.

Those who choose option 1 aren't covered by any insurance by either the travel company or the government. If you get blown up, tough sh*t, your selfish.

Those on option 2 arrive safely at their destination, without having been annoyed by selfish people.

Route 2 all the way for me.

The government should not be held to ransom by the terrorists or the airlines.

My safety is the issue!

The problem is plane number 1 is flying over your house !

And another thing The media keep saying the plot was to blow up the planes mid atlantic which is silly there would be no ground damage and no photo opportunity to see the reckage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The media keep saying the plot was to blow up the planes mid atlantic which is silly there would be no ground damage and no photo opportunity to see the reckage

And another report said that they hadn't bought airline tickets and some didn't even have passports. Sounds like the kind of thing a few nutters talk about down the pub (or whatever Muslims do instead of going out boozing), not a serious international terrorist conspiracy.

Either way, there are so many ways that someone can take down an airliner that the only way to be 'safe' is to not fly. Even if we were all forced to board naked and knocked out with tranquilisers for the entire flight, some nutter would still get explosives surgically implanted and detonated on a timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does treating passengers like cattle improve your safety? The vast majority of passengers are not terrorists, so any system which treats all passengers as though they are is broken from the start.

In addition, more people are killed on the roads in a month than have been killed by terrorists in the UK in the last decade. I hope you don't travel by road, or, God forbid!, ever walk across one.

I don't recall mentioning anything about treating passengers like cattle or presuming we are terrorists.

Bringing in the more people are killed on roads debate is plain daft. Should we also compare how many people choke to death on cornflakes every year too?

I think the whole air travel experience needs a rethink. Do chavs really need to take their portable Hi-Fis on as hand luggage? No

What I've never understood is why we don't board and disembark in order of seat row. That would speed the whole procedure 10 fold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should do is allow a truly free-market, every man for himself approach.

Just imagine on 9/11 if those hijackers had got up with their stanley knives, only for john doe from utah to pull out his mini-uzi and mow those suckas down. A very different story. John Doe would still be being sued now, I expect.

The key principle is: don't delegate your personal safety to someone else. Except maybe the UK armed services, who sadly aren't going to be deployed on your average boeing 747 anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flying is already the safest form of transport - if you want to risk imminent death try crossing the road or driving.

Basically people are scared of the KIND of death you get from a blown up plane, lack of control etc, and of course not wanting to give terrorists credence. I'd also suggest that Labour are still (justifiably) enamoured with environmental principles and - by hook or by crook - they have no intention of helping the airline industry expand further when environmental considerations would suggest that we should be getting the train for even medium distance hauls now.

I've only just realised that insetad of getting the train from Leeds to see my cousin in Exeter (can get £40 return booking in advance and perhaps having to go via london on at least one of the legs) I can fly for £20. My conscience says flying is envioronmentally unfriendly but all the same at that price and speed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should do is allow a truly free-market, every man for himself approach.

Just imagine on 9/11 if those hijackers had got up with their stanley knives, only for john doe from utah to pull out his mini-uzi and mow those suckas down. A very different story. John Doe would still be being sued now, I expect.

The key principle is: don't delegate your personal safety to someone else. Except maybe the UK armed services, who sadly aren't going to be deployed on your average boeing 747 anytime soon.

Great idea Rich, lets give vigilantess the power to carry small arms so they can stop a Muslim itching it's feet, and at the same time pepper the aircraft with bullets instead. that would stop a large catastrophy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea Rich, lets give vigilantess the power to carry small arms so they can stop a Muslim itching it's feet, and at the same time pepper the aircraft with bullets instead. that would stop a large catastrophy!

I think you mean "vigilantesses", certainly women are underrepresented in the gun-carrying department.

Edited by RichM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see this panning out 2 ways.

Option 1: You want a quick no hassle, i should be able to take whatever I want onboard with me type flight.

Option 2: I fully appreciate the risks we currently face and am willing to co-operate fully.

Those who choose option 1 aren't covered by any insurance by either the travel company or the government. If you get blown up, tough sh*t, your selfish.

Those on option 2 arrive safely at their destination, without having been annoyed by selfish people.

Route 2 all the way for me.

The government should not be held to ransom by the terrorists or the airlines.

My safety is the issue!

I agree, we should have an option 1 of having the same security that we've always had and the same insurance etc. and an option 2 for the more wary with more security checks, no hand luggage and perhaps a discount on their insurance.

I'd take option 1 any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flying is already the safest form of transport - if you want to risk imminent death try crossing the road or driving.

Basically people are scared of the KIND of death you get from a blown up plane, lack of control etc, and of course not wanting to give terrorists credence. I'd also suggest that Labour are still (justifiably) enamoured with environmental principles and - by hook or by crook - they have no intention of helping the airline industry expand further when environmental considerations would suggest that we should be getting the train for even medium distance hauls now.

I've only just realised that insetad of getting the train from Leeds to see my cousin in Exeter (can get £40 return booking in advance and perhaps having to go via london on at least one of the legs) I can fly for £20. My conscience says flying is envioronmentally unfriendly but all the same at that price and speed....

Again, why bring the "car is more dangerous" argument up? We aren't discussing which is safer. We are discussing which will kill more.

A plane blowing up or a car crashing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, why bring the "car is more dangerous" argument up? We aren't discussing which is safer. We are discussing which will kill more.

A plane blowing up or a car crashing?

Cram a plane full of people into a car and you'd get one hell of a messy crash...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they should do is allow a truly free-market, every man for himself approach.

Just imagine on 9/11 if those hijackers had got up with their stanley knives, only for john doe from utah to pull out his mini-uzi and mow those suckas down. A very different story. John Doe would still be being sued now, I expect.

The key principle is: don't delegate your personal safety to someone else. Except maybe the UK armed services, who sadly aren't going to be deployed on your average boeing 747 anytime soon.

LOL.

The free market approach should be extended to giving passengers the choice:

"Sir, we can offer you the full terrorist upgrade, bypassing all the tedious queues and body checks, and you'll be airborne 2 hours sooner on Air Jihadi. We can't guarantee what time, if ever, you'll reach your destination, however."

JY

PS. house prices don't appear to be falling, BTL seems to be on the up and Gordo seems to have an economy. Strange times indeed!

Edited by JustYield

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sir, we can offer you the full terrorist upgrade, bypassing all the tedious queues and body checks, and you'll be airborne 2 hours sooner on Air Jihadi. We can't guarantee what time, if ever, you'll reach your destination, however."

Hopefully you'd get complimentary nun-chucks (?spelling).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't recall mentioning anything about treating passengers like cattle or presuming we are terrorists.

But that's exactly what you're arguing for. And it will provide no benefit, because smart terrorists will just use whatever holes are open to them: like, say, becoming airline pilots... a security 'hole' you'll never be able to close so long as humans fly planes.

Bringing in the more people are killed on roads debate is plain daft. Should we also compare how many people choke to death on cornflakes every year too?

Again, you're the one demanding 'safety', yet airliners are vastly safer than cars. How can you whine about airline safety if you're willing to travel on the roads?

Only morons demand absolute 'safety' because it's impossible. Rational people look at costs and benefits, and the 'airline security' nonsense has far greater costs than benefits.

Do chavs really need to take their portable Hi-Fis on as hand luggage? No

Why the ****** shouldn't they? When has a chav ever tried to blow up a plane with a portable hi-fi?

How can you claim you 'don't recall mentioning anything about treating passengers like cattle' when you're demanding exactly that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does treating passengers like cattle improve your safety?

It doesn't and Ryanair do just this. They treat their passengers like cattle and cut safety procedures to the bone and sometimes deeper. It is not the government who treat the passengers like cattle. Ryanair's responsibility is to the bottom line of the financial statement and their shareholders. They don't give a stuff about anything else. This legal move is not designed for the benefit of the passangers, it is designed for the benefit of Ryanair's business. Recently they moved to encourage people to bring only carry on luggage and started surcharging for checked in luggage. The reason they did this is to cut costs and increase turnaround times (another way they increase turnaround times at airports is landing too close to the plane in front - in breach of SAFETY rules). The governments move to reduce carry on luggage represents a set back for Ryanair's business plan. If you still think that Ryanair cares about passengers maybe I can remind you about them offloading 7 blind people from a flight because it "exceeded their disabled passenger quota", or perhaps the disabled passenger at Stansted who they tried to surcharge for an assisted transfer from check-in to departures.

I'm not having a go at you MarkG, just taking the opportunity to make a point that I think needs to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't and Ryanair do just this. They treat their passengers like cattle and cut safety procedures to the bone and sometimes deeper. It is not the government who treat the passengers like cattle. Ryanair's responsibility is to the bottom line of the financial statement and their shareholders. They don't give a stuff about anything else. This legal move is not designed for the benefit of the passangers, it is designed for the benefit of Ryanair's business. Recently they moved to encourage people to bring only carry on luggage and started surcharging for checked in luggage. The reason they did this is to cut costs and increase turnaround times (another way they increase turnaround times at airports is landing too close to the plane in front - in breach of SAFETY rules). The governments move to reduce carry on luggage represents a set back for Ryanair's business plan. If you still think that Ryanair cares about passengers maybe I can remind you about them offloading 7 blind people from a flight because it "exceeded their disabled passenger quota", or perhaps the disabled passenger at Stansted who they tried to surcharge for an assisted transfer from check-in to departures.

All the above is true Ryanair couldn't give a dam about anyone of anything including their passengers safety.

I also don't understand why they (airlines) don't sue organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain and their ilk who indirectly condone terrorism and deny Muslim responsibilty in this matter. The fact is that if there were no radical muslims in this country then flying wound be safer, easier, quicker, cheaper for the consumer and more profitable for the airlines thanks to all the security checks we are now having to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's exactly what you're arguing for. And it will provide no benefit, because smart terrorists will just use whatever holes are open to them: like, say, becoming airline pilots... a security 'hole' you'll never be able to close so long as humans fly planes.

Again, you're the one demanding 'safety', yet airliners are vastly safer than cars. How can you whine about airline safety if you're willing to travel on the roads?

Only morons demand absolute 'safety' because it's impossible. Rational people look at costs and benefits, and the 'airline security' nonsense has far greater costs than benefits.

Why the ****** shouldn't they? When has a chav ever tried to blow up a plane with a portable hi-fi?

How can you claim you 'don't recall mentioning anything about treating passengers like cattle' when you're demanding exactly that?

Nobody is demanding absolute safety, but that's not to say we shouldn't make it as safe as possible.

I don't know if a chav has ever tried to blow up a plane with a hifi. I know someone has tried to blow one up with his shoe and I reckon it would be easier with a hi-fi. That's beside the point though. The chav and hi-fi were a side issue, they just annoy the crap out of me as I'm trying to get to my seat.

I hope you run for prime minister. You clearly have an answer for everything.

Edited by Jimothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pot calling the kettle black, IMO. Anyone flown with Ryanair when things go wrong? You never want to experience it. Learnt the hard way and I stick to the proper airlines and you don't gt the full on scum dog feeling that is associated with Ryanair. Well what do you expect for the cheapo fares I say to myself?

:rolleyes:

I came back from hols on Sunday, no problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.