"Senior management was probably unaware ..."

February 27, 2009 1:24 PM

"It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again. Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel."
posted by jbickers (65 comments total)

Yeah, great, Ryanair sucks at blogging. You can go all over Europe for like twenty euro a trip. I'd take a little abuse from USAir if I could go somewhere for twenty bucks.
posted by fixedgear at 1:27 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Is this something I'd have to have a cape and form-fitting spandex suit to sympathize with?
posted by Brak at 1:29 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

I want ten-dollar flights.
posted by kldickson at 1:32 PM on February 27, 2009

"fact is!"
posted by HopperFan at 1:32 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Huh. An airline employee demonstrating bad people skills? Who'd a thunk it?
posted by dersins at 1:33 PM on February 27, 2009 [6 favorites]

I'm surprised that Ryan Air can even afford blogging. I mean, we're talkng about a company so close to the brink of financial goatse that they are actually thinking about installing pay toilets on their air donkeys.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 1:33 PM on February 27, 2009 [4 favorites]

Yeah, great, Ryanair sucks at blogging. You can go all over Europe for like twenty euro a trip. I'd take a little abuse from USAir if I could go somewhere for twenty bucks.

Does that include the body cavity search to make sure you aren't bringing outside food or drink onto the plane? (so they can sell you their overpriced food and drink)

Also don't forget the pound it'll cost to use the restroom.
posted by SirOmega at 1:34 PM on February 27, 2009

Online content critical of Ryanair seems to result in new users appearing at the site in question to write positive things about Ryanair and negative things about the person who wrote the negative comment.

I will be curious to see if we have any new users who appear for the first time in this thread to reiterate that Ryanair is awesome and bloggers suck.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:35 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oh come on, what other airline offers Free blowjobs on first class trans Atlantic flights!?
posted by delmoi at 1:36 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Important point: The nasty comment in the FPP is not the obnoxious blogger. It's the official company statement about the obnoxious blogger.
posted by jbickers at 1:38 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

It looks like Ryanair got hit by the cluetrain.
posted by bshort at 1:43 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Ryanair is awesome and bloggers suck.
posted by JeffK at 1:43 PM on February 27, 2009 [5 favorites]

Oh, you meant new users. nevermind.
posted by JeffK at 1:44 PM on February 27, 2009

Here's their whole response (to a situation where someone from RyanAir was flaming a blogger who thought he discovered a flaw in the website but in reality hadn't):

Ryanair can confirm that a Ryanair staff member did engage in a blog discussion. It is Ryanair policy not to waste time and energy corresponding with idiot bloggers and Ryanair can confirm that it won't be happening again.

Lunatic bloggers can have the blog sphere all to themselves as our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel.

I don't really see the problem with it. It's beats the hell out of the usual milquetoast PR-droid garbage that you'd likely get from most companies, including any US airline (the sort of crap that starts off with "Ryanair appreciates hearing our customers talk about our service...").

It's clear they told the staff member to knock it off, but at the same time they're not spending a lot of time overthinking the plate of beans that is the blogosphere.
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:45 PM on February 27, 2009 [5 favorites]

Does it matter what lunatic bloggers think?
posted by jamesonandwater at 1:48 PM on February 27, 2009

I can see why the original ryanair commenter was annoyed - If you read the blog post it gives the impression he found a bug allowing him to book free flights (the title is "Ryanair no credit card fee + 0.00 flight bug" and the first 10ish comments are all from people who tried to use it to get free flights), however the bug was simply a way to make the page display 0.00 cost prices, not to allow you to book them.
posted by JonB at 1:53 PM on February 27, 2009

"fact is!"

That may well become my favourite non-sequitor for use here on the blue.
posted by ob at 1:55 PM on February 27, 2009

I'm a blogger myself, and I like the size of Ryanair's stones for the final reply (though I think the earlier responses to the blogger's post about 0.00 fares were just childish).
posted by misha at 1:55 PM on February 27, 2009

This blog sphere, it vibrates.
posted by fire&wings at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't really see the problem with it. It's beats the hell out of the usual milquetoast PR-droid garbage that you'd likely get from most companies

As far as I can tell it's a normal PR response with random insults thrown in. I wonder what their password reset emails look like, probably something like "Here is your new password, you moron. Now stop wasting our time with your idiotic requests."

Personally, as a programmer I think this kind of sneering attitude coming from someone who is obviously a technical expert in their company is highly unprofessional, and the fact that the official representative backed him up and threw in more insults is just baffling.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:06 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Ryan Air! I heart U!! fact is!
posted by sidr at 2:08 PM on February 27, 2009

"It's clear they told the staff member to knock it off, but at the same time they're not spending a lot of time overthinking the plate of beans that is the blogosphere."

Well, maybe, but it's usually not a good idea to randomly insult people who didn't do anything wrong, and who indeed are customers of the company.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:11 PM on February 27, 2009

*splutter*

You can't talk that way to me! I'm from THE INTERNET.
posted by mph at 2:16 PM on February 27, 2009 [27 favorites]

Kadin2048: "I don't really see the problem with it. It's beats the hell out of the usual milquetoast PR-droid garbage that you'd likely get from most companies, including any US airline (the sort of crap that starts off with "Ryanair appreciates hearing our customers talk about our service...")."

The faceless, soulless pr-speak that we all hate is designed to be non-offensive. It may grate on our nerves with its inauthentic tone, but it's often necessary. Someone reading Ryanair's response years from now and not have the context of the original blog post to correctly interpret their response.

Ryanair's PR team might have been trying to be funny or dismissive or maybe they had some other agenda, but they completely failed at their job. They should get a job they actually like. Maybe something that involves snarking on public message boards like this one.
posted by bshort at 2:21 PM on February 27, 2009

All and all, I'd say Ryan Air comported themselves well, if not exactly honorably, in that exchange.
posted by StickyCarpet at 2:23 PM on February 27, 2009

The obnoxious attitude displayed by the Ryanair commenter in the blog is the downriver effect of the company's CEO, Michael O'Leary. O'Leary is famous for being outrageously crude, even in button-down business situations. Here's a typical press conference: "In business class it will be beds and blowjobs."

I'm surprised that Ryan Air can even afford blogging. I mean, we're talkng about a company so close to the brink of financial goatse that they are actually thinking about installing pay toilets on their air donkeys.

This is false, Ryanair is one of the most successful airlines in the world and they are nowhere near "financial goatse" (though I like that image). One of the reasons they are so successful is because they are constantly concocting new and fresh ways, such as pay toilets, to prise another pound from the tight fists of their passengers.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:23 PM on February 27, 2009

Oops. Just read the thread and saw somebody else posted the same link.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 2:24 PM on February 27, 2009

Cory Doctrow hates RyanAir (Rynr, or sometimes Rnr), and yet RyanAir seems evil.

So, so confused.
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:24 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Is there a blogosylum for lunatic bloggers, who cannot cope living in the blog sphere? Is it time cube shaped?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:32 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm crushing your head!! I'm crushing your head!!
posted by longsleeves at 2:41 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Pay toilets?

I hereby summon the blogger horde to eviscerate this abominable company (which I'd never heard of before today).
posted by mudpuppie at 2:49 PM on February 27, 2009

There's a simple way to fix this. If you don't like it, don't fly them. That's what I do, and the more people who do so, the less of this nonsense will happen. If you think paying a pound to use the lav when you have no other choice is not right, *DON'T GIVE RYAN AIR ANY MORE MONEY*.

Oh, and the example? They often do charge you to use the lavs in train and bus *stations.* Not on the bus or train proper. There's a bit of a difference.

The reason that air travel has become so miserable is that customers made it so. They look at the one-way fare and compare prices based on it. Taxes? Fees? Not important. It's far more important that they only paid five pounds!!!1! (plus 139 in fees, surcharges, taxes, etc.)

Everyone want service, food on planes, as much bags as they can carry, and yet, they will instantly run to the next airline that charges a single dollar less. Result: Air Travel sucks.

Or, if you will -- making Air Travel as common as the bus has made it just as pleasant as the bus as well.

Me? I have a chosen airline. I fly on them a great deal, for business and personal travel. They treat me very well. I reward them with my custom, they reward me with better service, and the cycle repeats. We both win, and I don't have to carry a roll of quarters with me to take a leak.

If I wanted to be treated as freight, I'd be talking to FedEx about travel.

BTW. The cost of flying to London includes getting to where you're going in London from the airport. Stanstead and Luton don't look so smart, now do they? Hahn Air Base is in Frankfurt only if I get to consider Green Bay, WI a Chicago airport. At least Southwest honestly names the city they're flying from (and in a couple of cases, are actually in closer airports -- see Chicago and Dallas.)
posted by eriko at 2:53 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

Wait, so if I fly Ryanair and I'm broke - and I'm always broke when flying, whatever I can scrape together buys me the ticket - and I need to piss, what do I do? Seriously. Do they supply empty bottles, or do I buy that for half a pound?
posted by mannequito at 3:14 PM on February 27, 2009

I'm 100% with eriko on this -- I refuse to fly Ryanair.

If you ever do choose to fly Ryanair, double-check the ground transport options from their destination airport to the city you're actually trying to fly to. Sometimes they're rather a long way apart (IIRC on one occasion they got yelled at on one occasion for advertising a destination as being served by an airport in a different country). Best personal example before I gave up using them: a 90 minute flight to Brussels that was followed by a two hour bus ride into the city itself, from an airport that was apparently on the other side of Belgium.

There are low cost airlines. And then there's Ryanair, who are not so much low cost as low quality.
posted by cstross at 3:14 PM on February 27, 2009

Pay toilets?

Barf bags aren't just for barf anymore.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:17 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

All and all, fact is!
posted by Crabby Appleton at 3:38 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Fat, stupid, self-proclaimed web designer makes ass of himself, gets told to fuck off: film at eleven
posted by Hovercraft Eel at 3:53 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

I saw this a few days ago, but dismissed it as possible linkbait due to "SEO" being in the guy's weblog header. There's something sad about that; I'm not sure what.
posted by brownpau at 3:56 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Cory Doctrow hates RyanAir (Rynr, or sometimes Rnr), and yet RyanAir seems evil.

It's not that the enemy of my enemy is automatically good, such much as the asshole of my asshole is ... still an asshole.
posted by adipocere at 4:01 PM on February 27, 2009

You can go all over Europe for like twenty euro a trip.

I take it you haven't actually been to europe. try them and you'll understand how mistaken you are.
posted by krautland at 4:10 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm loving this discussion and most of all that 'blowjobs in business' youtube clip, and of that most of all the reaction of the interpreter who just refused to translate that into German. I mean, if my German was better, I'd say, get lost biatch and let me do it!

Yes, interpreters are allowed not to translate things which touch upon their personal dignity, but this is low-cost air travel, and there is no room for dignity!
posted by Laotic at 4:27 PM on February 27, 2009

Does that include the body cavity search to make sure you aren't bringing outside food or drink onto the plane? (so they can sell you their overpriced food and drink)


that's spirit airlines - surely the worst budget airline in the world.


Ryanair are great.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:46 PM on February 27, 2009

Yeah, great, Ryanair sucks at blogging. You can go all over Europe for like twenty 0.00 euro a trip. I'd take a little abuse from USAir if I could go somewhere for twenty 0.00 bucks.

FTFY.
posted by Poolio at 4:50 PM on February 27, 2009

Fat, stupid, self-proclaimed web designer

Did someone say my name?
posted by thanotopsis at 4:52 PM on February 27, 2009

Just to make sure I understand this, did a Ryanair employee basically tell every wannabe hacker on the internet, "You don't have what it takes to kill us and sodomize our corpse, uh, digitally. Fact is!" and then have a member of senior management come on and say, "Booyah!" all in response to someone saying, "Wow, the error checking on their web site is kind of crappy"?

Not something I'd do, particularly if the error checking on my website was kind of crappy.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:01 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

Ryanair's rude PR and attention-grabbing obnoxiousness (charging for the toilet - all publicity is good publicity, etc) is all merry fun so far as it goes, but of course the real casualty of super-cheap air travel is safety. Unfortunately we are probably going to have to wait for Michael O'Leary's utter twattishness to kill someone before some parts of the UK media stop treating it as jolly sport.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 5:06 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

Wow, game warden's link is worth a look:

It was the third serious incident in less than a year, and the fourth in two years, involving a Ryanair jet approaching an airport too fast or at the wrong height and being forced to abort landing. All Ryanair staff are under pressure to meet turnaround times of only 25 minutes, the tightest in the industry, and pilot unions say that this can lead to mistakes...

As the aircraft approached Cork, the captain realised that he was too high to make a safe landing. The co-pilot advised him to perform a “go-around”, which would involve the aircraft flying straight ahead and climbing to 3,000ft before beginning a new approach. But the captain decided to fly in a tight circle to lose height and land only minutes later. He banked so hard that he exceeded the normal operating limit for tilting the Boeing 737’s wings. The captain ignored repeated warnings from the co-pilot that he was losing height. The aircraft came within 425ft of the ground as it passed over the suburbs of Cork and the cockpit “ground proximity” alarm sounded twice.

The report said the “serious incident” was caused by the captain failing to comply with standard procedures and ignoring the advice of the co-pilot. It referred to a previous incident, on March 23, 2006, when another Ryanair aircraft only “marginally avoided” crashing during an approach to Knock, in western Ireland. The unit criticised the airline for failing to report the incident for almost two weeks, by which time some evidence had been deleted...

Ryanair, which yesterday announced record quarterly profits, declined to answer questions on the incidents.
posted by mediareport at 5:28 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

Ryanair are complete shit, and I haven't flown with them since the incident during which I discovered how utterly, entirely and totally shit they were. I'll happily pay a higher ticket price to another airline who won't charge me extra for luggage, food, drink, etc etc -- I'll end up paying about the same, with the added bonus that it won't be fucking RyanAir.
posted by Pallas Athena at 5:56 PM on February 27, 2009 [3 favorites]

I don't really see the problem with it. ... they're not spending a lot of time overthinking the plate of beans that is the blogosphere.

I don't have a problem with it either. But I think they will have a problem with it. Because other companies are spending a lot of time thinking about how to interact in a new medium with the customer base of the future. RyanAir hopes to be in business in the place called "the future" right?
posted by DU at 6:35 PM on February 27, 2009

This Ryanair, it seems like a very charming entity.
posted by the cydonian at 7:00 PM on February 27, 2009

That old "all publicity is good publicity" adage doesn't really hold true over the long term. You can get some pretty good mileage out of being the bad boy over the short haul, but in the long run, it catches up with you.

To whit, if you genuinely make people hate your company and your product, they will stop using it regardless of how inexpensive it is.

Yes, there are other companies that do much more hateful things, but if they occasionally give us a cute corporate mascot and a pleasantly worded apology for their hatefulness we'll usually forgive them to continue their hatefulness. I am reminded of Mr. Show's Globo-Chem.

So, in summary. Sucky service with a positive face is ok. Good service with a sucky face is ok. Sucky service with a sucky face will eventually come back to bite you in the tail.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:26 PM on February 27, 2009

"It's not that the enemy of my enemy is automatically good, such much as the asshole of my asshole is ... still an asshole."

And yet, the enemy of my asshole is curry.

So, the story here is that everyone who works at RyanAir seems to be an angry drunk? I suppose, as far as Irish stereotypes go, they could always balance things out with a couple maudlin drunks. Their customer service could go from "I'll cut you!" to "Don't leave me, I love you!"
posted by klangklangston at 7:32 PM on February 27, 2009 [6 favorites]

It was the third serious incident in less than a year, and the fourth in two years, involving a Ryanair jet approaching an airport too fast or at the wrong height and being forced to abort landing.

Another reason I don't fly Ryanair -- or Southwest. This habit of flying the approach fast, and worse, *not* being willing to go around when they're a full 1000' past the touchdown point. Now, landing on Runway 28 at ORD, this isn't a problem. Touchdown down point is 1000' from the threshold, so an extra 1000' puts you 2000' down the runway, leaving you here with, oh, 11,000' to land and stop.

But Southwest doesn't land at ORD. They land at MDW, so instead of Runway 28, you get 31C. So, you're 1000' past the touchdown point, and have exactly 4522 feet left before you run out of runway -- and only about 4900 feet before you run out of airport, and find yourself on the corner of Central and 55th.

This is a *really* bad place to be in bad weather, landing long and fast. Anyone with a clue goes faster, pulls up, and tries again -- or diverts to somewhere with more concrete and less city streets about.

Not Southwest. They put the bird down, laid on the breaks, and, well, Nice landing, pal. Call Streets and San, we've gotta 'nother winner here!

And it's not the first time for them. They seem to have forgotten that 737s use Jet A, not MoGas, so, pulling up to the pumps is a bad idea.

I understand wanting to make quick turns. But take an extra ten minutes and *land at the goddamn airport.*
posted by eriko at 8:31 PM on February 27, 2009 [2 favorites]

Ryanair - if only it was possible to punch an airline in its stupid fat fucking face again and again and again.
posted by so_necessary at 9:45 PM on February 27, 2009 [1 favorite]

Wow. I still don't get the hate for RyanAir. And as long as you use them for what they're for, then they're great.

I don't use them for business or any kind of important travel.

But, well, you can fly them to Tours, France for example. We did. And we paid about £20 roundtrip for each of us. We packed some food to eat onboard the plane. We each packed a carry-on bag. I assure you, those who speak about extra hidden fees, we paid RyanAir £40 to take us to France! Once in Tours, we rented a car and spent three fantastic days in the Loire Valley.

We have done the same to go to various small towns in Italy. Same procedure. Rent a car and drive around the country.

For everything else, I ignore RyanAir. Which is why, I suppose, that I am in the pro Ryan Air camp.
posted by vacapinta at 2:36 AM on February 28, 2009

To be fair, Southwest (WN) does do some things very right, which is why they're doing so well.

1) They do get it about customer service. Even on my one very bad "flight" with them (scare quotes, because we didn't leave,) they were polite, professional, and when I requested a refund because they couldn't meet the conditions of carriage*, they said "sure" and did it.

2) They *really* understand labor. WN has worked with the Unions, and both have a vested interest in success, thus, WN's work rules favor the company while rewarding the workers. Thus, the most unionized airline in the US is also the most profitable. Suck it, UA.

3) They understand cost issues. WN's fuel hedges led them to record profits while rising fuel prices wiped out TWA. They salvaged airports by getting sweet, long term gate leases, which means 20 years later, they're basically getting airport access for free.

4) They're fanatic about on-time, which has lead them to avoid otherwise workable cities. WN's focus city to focus city** system is somewhat flexible, but they tend to avoid turns, running planes in big loops, so delays would cause big knock ons. Thus, they not only avoid expensive airports, they avoid airports that are infamously bad for delays. I'm told they were offered a *very* sweet deal to move to ORD, which they refused, because MDW will be on time when ORD is running a two hour delay.

Why I don't fly them.

1) They seem to have a bit more casual attitude towards safety than I prefer

2) The seats suck, and worse...

3) No seat assignments. This means for a decent seat, I have to get there early. I fly over 100 segments a year. I do *not* want to get to the airport early to get seats. The ideal arrival time at the airport is just enough time to clear security and make the flight. As a friend who flies far more than I do puts it "if you don't miss a flight every so often, you're spending too much time in airports."

4) The funny singing and jokes by the FA is funny once, slightly funny twice, and fucking annoying by segment 40.

5) No internationals. The reason for frequent flyer miles is upgrades, in particular, international upgrades.

6) They often don't go where I want to go, despite the fact that they are at the easier airport in Chicago.

7) I live near the bigger one -- often, the time I'd save on a WN flight, I lose getting to Midway. I can leave my place at 0500, and be beyond security at ORD at 0540. Yes, this takes practice. Yes, I have practice.




* In this case, they couldn't get be there before I was supposed to be back.

** WN used to be point to point, they're not anymore. The best description is "distributed hubs" -- MDW, STL, LAX and LUV being the busiest ones.
posted by eriko at 8:29 AM on February 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

The thing about Ryanair is not that they're cheap; Easyjet are cheap, too.

The thing about Ryanair is that their corporate culture cultivates a bad attitude, from the top down.

Circa 1996-99, I was using Easyjet a lot for EDI-London flights, back when Stelios was running his toy company and had somewhere between 2 and 12 planes. (IIRC their fleet is around the 700 mark these days, and he ain't CEO no more.) More than once, I was at Luton when a flight was delayed. More than once I saw the CEO of the airline personally come out to apologize to the passengers.

Obviously, you ain't going to get that from a continent-spanning operation with a fleet of hundreds of planes. But I've got a gut feeling that under similar circumstances, Michael O'Leary would have been more inclined to sneer at the punters and berate them for expecting decent service on the cheap.

Every company I've worked for had a culture, and an attitude, that leaked from the boardroom down to the shop floor. If the CEO had a good attitude to customer service and a collegiate attitude to co-workers, it was a nice place to work -- and good folks to do business with. But the converse is true. And my take on Ryanair is that their corporate culture is a toxic swamp.
posted by cstross at 9:20 AM on February 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

eriko: I have a problem with your assertions that (a) southwest is anywhere near as bad as ryanair and that (b) those pilots are generally reckless. yes, southwest pilots are known to be asking for shortcuts and flying high-speed approaches* but those are requested and cleared by air traffic control and just as available (and used by) other air crews as well. southwest had two runway overruns, the one you mentioned in MDW and one other in BUR. that safety record stands up pretty well against legacy carriers. AA would be a great example of a carrier that consistently incurs larger loss of life per million passengers than southwest does and it's not even something that shitty feeder operations like mesaba could be blamed for.

They do get it about customer service. Even on my one very bad "flight" with them (scare quotes, because we didn't leave,) they were polite, professional, and when I requested a refund because they couldn't meet the conditions of carriage*, they said "sure" and did it.
agreed. I'd put jet blue into this camp as well and I was one of those people who spent nine hours waiting for takeoff permission on a tarmac, a story you may have heard about. they did right by us and they apologized in no uncertain terms. I haven't gotten treated so honestly and well by any other airline that has screwed up before and since (I'm a super-duper-golden-mega-member with AA and they don't give a flying fuck about me beyond what they have to do) and I haven't forgotten that.

wait, actually I have gotten similar treatment on EOS but they're out of business.

vacapinta: Wow. I still don't get the hate for RyanAir. And as long as you use them for what they're for, then they're great.

ryanair misleads the general public just as many cell phone operators like to do: fifteen bucks really means forty-five and free means free only if you are a unicorn and shit cornflower seeds. major points are buried in twenty pages of legalese.

if ryanair were a student, he'd constantly be handing in his work late, written in ink that only shows up after you expose the page to candle wax and clobbering his essays together from google text ad copy. tell me, professor vacapinta, what grade would he get from you?

cstross: And my take on Ryanair is that their corporate culture is a toxic swamp.
oh man, this is like a great first chapter and then the printer has fucked up the next pages of the book. really, this sounds like an interesting story.

*my understanding is that they often ask to avoid making a wide turn over burbank to catch a certain VOR, instead turn onto the ILS earlier and that they maintain 180knts as opposed to 140 or so until the outer marker. again, just my understanding from reading pprune. I am not a commercial pilot and cannot claim definite authority. they do this after they get permission for this from the tower and are not the only ones to do it.
posted by krautland at 10:41 AM on March 1, 2009

special addendum for eriko:
(...) a contaminated runway usually requires greater stopping distances to be factored in (for landing calculations). With the Southwest 1548 situation at Midway, they basically floated down the runway (partly due to not selecting reverse thrust for so long) to the point where remaining runway was less than the distance required to come to a full stop when braking action (because of snow) was poor. Thus, they went off the end.

if we accept that to be correct for a moment it would mean that 1548 happened because of adverse weather and delayed deployment of spoilers, not a shortcut-high-speed combination.

from here, reply 25.
posted by krautland at 1:48 PM on March 1, 2009

tell me, professor vacapinta, what grade would he get from you?

He'd get an A in my class which is titled "Cheap weekend getaways in Europe."
How he performs in his other classes or his extracurricular activities are not my concern.
posted by vacapinta at 2:37 PM on March 1, 2009

"...our people are far too busy driving down the cost of air travel. "

Nope, their people are fucking around on the internet abusing paying customers instead of fixing their shitty session code.

Jason (the blogger) is a friend of mine, quite the non-goose-booing type. Fuck Ryanair, and ya boo sucks to the commenters above perpetuating the myth that you can still go anywhere on Ryanair for £40. Transporting anything larger than a laptop bag costs £30 off the bat, and that's before you've schlepped out at astronomical expense to Outer Buttfuck Aerodrome to get the plane in the first place and coughed the minimum airport taxes of another £25. So my last "free" tickets to London cost €110 return.

Everybody I've ever met in Ireland is hoping and praying to see the inevitable day Michael O'Leary gets delivered his shit sandwich on a silver platter and is force-fed it on national television. Wanker.
posted by genghis at 5:08 PM on March 1, 2009

No way. The Metafilter consensus is totally middle-class wrong on this. I fly from Reus in Barcelona to Hahn in Germany for 15 euro door to door, and I'm I very happy customer thank you very much. I would even pee into a squeezy bottle for that price.
posted by dydecker at 5:17 PM on March 1, 2009

"The European consumer would crawl naked over broken glass to get low fares."
- Michael O'Leary

I love O'Leary's scrappy attitude. He makes running a business look like so much fun -- just say and do whatever the hell you want, and let the market judge if you're right or wrong.

Some more fun O'Leary quotes:

"I'm disrespectful towards authority. Like I think the prime minister of Ireland is a gobshite."

"We don't fall all over ourselves if they say my granny fell ill. What part of no refund don't you understand? You are not getting a refund so fuck off."

"The best thing we can do with environmentalists is shoot them. These headbangers want to make air travel the preserve of the rich. They are Luddites marching us back to the 18th century."

posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 6:55 PM on March 1, 2009

I would even pee into a squeezy bottle for that price.

Hell, if I could fly around Asia for those kinds of fares, I'd drink the pee.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:13 PM on March 1, 2009

He'd get an A in my class which is titled "Cheap weekend getaways in Europe."
arrive at airport friday noon, arrive at destination sunday evening. you'd get what you deserve.

I would even pee into a squeezy bottle for that price.
you mean all it's gonna take for me to turn you into my personal dance monkey is fifteen bucks? I have forty-five. this is gonna be awesome.
posted by krautland at 12:25 AM on March 3, 2009