Ryanair undercover

[Macy]

Highly competent? Not so sure about that... However, the programme at least raise concerns about the operations of Ryanair. I'd be interested to know whether the IAA inspections are spot checks or on documentation and well telegraphed visits (no indication on their websites). As the incidents in the programme weren't followed up by the senior cabin crew then I'd hardly expect the IAA or the UK equivalent to be aware of them. imo you're just buying the Ryanair propaganda, when this is just the latest of a series of revelations. I suppose it's the Celtic Tiger attitude that puts cost savings and money making above everything including safety...

[Clifford]

Highly competent? Not so sure about that... However, the programme at least raise concerns about the operations of Ryanair. I'd be interested to know whether the IAA inspections are spot checks or on documentation and well telegraphed visits (no indication on their websites). As the incidents in the programme weren't followed up by the senior cabin crew then I'd hardly expect the IAA or the UK equivalent to be aware of them. imo you're just buying the Ryanair propaganda, when this is just the latest of a series of revelations. I suppose it's the Celtic Tiger attitude that puts cost savings and money making above everything including safety...

There you go again, admitting you haven't a clue what way the Authorities operate, yet question their competency. Sun culture in the extreme that is.

I've certainly not bought into the Ryanair machine at all, but simply understand that there are two sides to a story and simply because a couple of girls film for 5 months and use selective clips from that I won't be shouting about it from the roof tops as I know all the other airlines are exactly the same.

[dahamsta]

imo you're just buying the Ryanair propaganda

I agree. I'd be interested to know whether the people pointing to the Dispatches correspondence have actually read it. I have, and O'Leary's responses are typical O'Leary/Ryanair: Answer the small stuff, gloss over or downright ignore the big stuff.

I'm often disappointed at the admiration of the Irish for O'Leary. It strikes me as very naive, no-one seems to want to dig under the surface; and when someone does, it's somehow wrong to out the cowboy, the chancer.

Haughey-cool, I think we should call it. They belong in the same category, after all.

adam

[FarBeag]

I really don't care how cheap Ryanair is,they have no right to put passengers safety at risk with their tatty security,healty and safety issues,insensitive attitudes to customers complaints etc etc .Most people travel with the company because their prices are competitive, and the assumption that they are travelling safely.I think they are entitled to know if their safety is compromised in any way.I am glad that this programme was shown,at least it gives us some insight into what Ryanair really think of us as customers and also gives us the chance to see what we are actually paying for even if its considered a small amount.

[strangeirish]

I have not seen the programme, but it all sounds like you get what you pay for. Sadly, when you offer major discounts, you have to cut corners somewhere.

[monutdfc]

Haughey-cool, I think we should call it.

Excellent!!!

[ColinR]

i think it says a lot about the poor quality of the documentary that it would appear that nobody on this thread has changed their opinion of ryanair based on viewing it.

Those against ryanair, have (obviously) remained against it, whilst those of us who travel with ryanair, appear to have seen nothing to warrant a change.

[Clifford]

I agree. I'd be interested to know whether the people pointing to the Dispatches correspondence have actually read it. I have, and O'Leary's responses are typical O'Leary/Ryanair: Answer the small stuff, gloss over or downright ignore the big stuff.

I'm often disappointed at the admiration of the Irish for O'Leary. It strikes me as very naive, no-one seems to want to dig under the surface; and when someone does, it's somehow wrong to out the cowboy, the chancer.

Haughey-cool, I think we should call it. They belong in the same category, after all.

adam

The guy is an absolute a r s e and is thoroughly hated in all my local establishments. No doubts about that.

But I can't believe the hypocrisy in what you are saying. You don't believe a word out of the succesful "cowboy" airline owner, but do believe the underhand, sorry undercover novice journo agents that brought you the "Exclusive" (despite the fact we all knew what goes on there, it's no secret)

So you are saying not to believe or trust the Authorities who give out licenses because Channel 4 propoganda rules?

[dahamsta]

Video camera, chancer; video camera, chancer. Hmmmm.

[Clifford]

Video camera, chancer; video camera, chancer. Hmmmm.

I admire your blindness.

[anto1208]

they spent 5 month investigating this and all they found was a bit of puke , 1 stewardess asleep ( maybe on a break??) and thats it , the security stuff is nonsence the passports have been checked 3 times allready by the time you get to the ryanair guys .

i could have done a more damming report on bus eirann in one trip not to mind 5 months .

[dahamsta]

I admire your blindness.

I admire your ability to read between the lines in my post; or write between them, to be more precise. Sorry, I only discuss matters seriously when people don't try to put words in my mouth. Refer to my post accurately if you'd like to try again.

adam

[Clifford]

I'm often disappointed at the admiration of the Irish for O'Leary. It strikes me as very naive, no-one seems to want to dig under the surface; and when someone does, it's somehow wrong to out the cowboy, the chancer.

adam

Ryanair are licensed and have to meet rigoruous standards before they are allowed into the airport, let alone the air. Their surface is dug under every six weeks in order to ensure the standards are being maintained - but by the proper authorities. No one is saying that is wrong surely.

How am I getting on oh great one?

[dfx-]

I have not seen the documentary, but much like the Danish cartoons, I need not. My experience with Ryanair is such that I do not trust them to get me from a to anywhere near b.

If anyone tries to claim that a 25 minute turnaround is in the best safety interests of either the plane or its cargo, I might as well be talking to the wall.

I am nowhere near going to excoriate Aer Lingus and other similar airlines as I have had my fair share of sullen attitudes from flight staff at Aer Lingus et al, but nothing goes close to the incompetency and unprofessional/inconsiderate/not bothered attitude that I get from a significant majority of Ryanair staff.

That is not considering how the passengers are *released* onto the plane in order to get seats, treating them almost like animals - something I have never experienced on any other flights.

It will come back to haunt O'Leary, but I suppose people, backing Ryanair and doubting the documentary on the basis that there's nothing special in it that other airlines don't do, will say that it's only one crash and up until then they had a great safety record according this authority or that authority etc. etc.

[Clifford]

Perhaps I should say at this point that I do not, nor have I ever, worked at Ryanair, so I shall leave the questions to be answered by those who have or do.

Suffice it to say, if there was something wrong at ANY airline, wouldn't the aviation authorities be better judges than "tabloid style" journalists?

My only real point on this thread was that I hate to see trial by television. Whether Ryanair and/or Michael O'Leary have a case to answer wasn't my point.

[pineapple stu]

they spent 5 month investigating this and all they found was a bit of puke , 1 stewardess asleep ( maybe on a break??) and thats it , the security stuff is nonsence the passports have been checked 3 times allready by the time you get to the ryanair guys.

Whether or not you believe the findings to be true, it's nonsense that that's all the programme presented. Claims by staff that they would be fired if they went even slightly against company policy - including giving out free drinks during delays, taking longer than 25 minutes to turn around, etc - an accusation that part of the aeroplane was unsafe before the flight which the pilot was happy to ignore, evidence that lifejackets were never checked, evidence of staff writing reciprocal references on a regular basis, very poor toilet conditions, claims they took a court case against someone who'd won free flights for life from Ryanair and other items. Again, whether or not it's true is up for discussion, but they certainly presented more than what you've made out.

at one stage, an air hostess claimed that sometimes she had to get up at 4, and was not back home til half five in the evening (for 4 days a week). she was so knackered, she could do nothing at all. ffs thats about normal hours for anybody that commutes to work (albeit two hours earlier than i would be used to, but home two hours earlier too!).

In fairness, that's a 13½ hour day. Normal work days are 8½ hours, say. Do you really commute (or work that much overtime) five hours every day?! It certainly isn't normal, as you claim. I know my boss commutes from Monaghan to Dublin most days and it only takes 3 or 4 hours a day. I can't see how "normal" commute time involves a distance much further than Monaghan to Dublin.

Cunni lingus

Do you really think you're being smart and/or funny by continually using that term?

The correspondence makes for interesting reading for a stage before it devolves into flame wars. Ryanair quite clearly ducked some of the issues though, such as the claim that the pilot would be fired had he given out free drink, or that their google search on cabin crew training schools was anything other than utterly irrelevant. They repeatedly note the claims are unsubstantiated even though Dispatches quite clearly noted that Dispatches were under no obligation to show the video evidence - i.e. the substantiation - before the programme was screened. And of course, they then note they've made a complaint against the show on the basis of unsubstantiated evidence. The letters would make me lean much more towards the programme's point of view than Ryanair's.

Members of staff were caught on camera moaning about their employer but none raised any questions about security or safety.

That's not true either - one staff member described the passport check system as "a bad system" (again, whether it's true or not isn't an issue here - they quite clearly raised a question about security), while the attitude towards life-jacket checks quite clearly raised another security issue (it's irrelevant whether or not the staff raised it formally - the important point is it was raised).

It set out with an agenda

Of course it did. All programmes do. Shock horror as programme doesn't waffle aimlessly for 60 minutes. In particular, this programme's agenda was to investigate the inner workings of Ryanair. Let's be honest - a programme saying "Ryanair are great" (to get the balance you're looking for) wouldn't really be a particularly interesting show. People are more interested - and rightly so - in areas where there are deficiencies of the sort the programme claimed. That's just the way. To suggest though that certain incidents were staged purely on your belief that the programme shouldn't have an agenda is nonsense though.

I should point out I've never had a problem when flying with Ryanair before. There are also some good points from the pro-Ryanair side, in particular, the lack of comment from the authorities (though do we know why they didn't comment? Is it because they had nothing to comment on or because they declined the chance to comment?) and the lack of any prior action in this area from authorities.

[pete]

I haven't seen anything in the claims here that safety was ever put in jeapardy. Failure to check lifejackets every hour of the day (most flights would be very short) makes no difference to me. Interesting that people always use Aer Lingus as the ling to Ryanairs yang - i don't see much difference in the airlines.

Air stewards/hostesses whatever they called these days are glorified waitresses whose only safety role is to close the doors. As long as the pilots are awake suits me fine. All anti-ryanair people are just bitter about non unionisation.

[pineapple stu]

All anti-ryanair people are just bitter about non unionisation.

A curious comment. Care to back it up with anything?

[pete]

A curious comment. Care to back it up with anything?

I;m sure i could be stereotyped as Gordon Gekko type but as previously said no one is changing their opinions of Ryanair based on the ch4 documentary - Macy & Adam don't like Ryanair for refusing unions.

[dahamsta]

(For the record, I haven't seen the documentary yet - just got it on VHS this minute - but I have read the accusations and responses on the Ryanair website.)

Ryanair are licensed and have to meet rigoruous standards before they are allowed into the airport, let alone the air. Their surface is dug under every six weeks in order to ensure the standards are being maintained - but by the proper authorities. No one is saying that is wrong surely.

So you're saying that Dispatches made up the accusations, and faked /all/ of the video evidence? And you think these authorities are utterly infallible?

Macy & Adam don't like Ryanair for refusing unions.

Now you're doing it pete. Did I say that? Sure, that's one reason; but believe me, I have plenty more. Mostly, I wouldn't trust them as far as I'd throw them. If you cut corners like Ryanair cuts corners, something's got to give. And I won't be able to rub everyone's nose in it when it happens, because people will die as a result.

I wonder how many people will back Ryanair then?

adam