tinyurl.com/b3229c6
Seat belts are very useful in turbulence. Will also help in emergency landings - to stop you being catapulted around the cabin.
I think there is potentially a real issue with an organisation that continually strives to cut corners. One wonders if maintenance etc is kept to the absolute legal minimum?
I wouldn't want someone flying down the cabin and potentially injuring me because they were too tight to pay for a seat!
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 10:32
|
O'Leary makes a very valid point, and as always talks sense. He knows his stuff. I wish he was in the UK, running UK businesses.
The risks are exaggerated, probably a legacy from early flying machines.
As he says, not needed today, and as he asks, why not have seat belts on trains?
Ryanair is according to you "organisation that continually strives to cut corners".
Ryanair in truth, as at November 2012:
"Ryanair, Europe's only ultra-low cost airline today (Nov 5) announced strong H1 profits up 10% to €596m as revenues increased 15% to €3.11bn, traffic grew 7% to 48m passengers, while ave. fares rose 6%. Unit costs were up 8% mainly due to a 24% (€218m) increase in fuel. Excluding fuel adjusted unit costs rose by 2%."
"Ryanair is already Europe’s biggest airline ahead of Lufthansa and easyJet, with a market share of 12pc."
"Ryanair was sitting on a record cash pile of €3.9bn at the half-year stage, which ended on September 30".
|
>> O'Leary makes a very valid point, and as always talks sense. He knows his stuff.
>> I wish he was in the UK, running UK businesses.
Fat lot of good he's done for the overall Irish economy.
|
...He knows his stuff. I wish he was in the UK, running UK businesses.
He only spouts this rubbish for attention, Vic; we shouldn't encourage him by rising to it. And O'Leary isn't much better.
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243
Would you want a seat belt here!? I think they probably saved some lives!
|
"From 1981 through 1997 there were 342 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers. Three passengers died, two of these fatalities were not wearing their seat belt while the sign was on. 80 suffered serious injuries, 73 of these passengers were also not wearing their seat belts."
www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91477
|
>> "From 1981 through 1997 there were 342 reports of turbulence affecting major air carriers.
>>
How many over Europe?
Note that the Ryanair chief says "“We're not talking about areas of huge turbulence around Europe."
|
Part of O'Leary's success is down to his gift for generating publicity. Like charging for the lavs this is just headline generation.
Simply no way the regulators will allow removal of seatbelts. The Aloha flight Z hi-lights is merely one of many where belts have saved lives or prevented injury.
Surprised if Ryanair have never had a cabin crew injury due unexpected turbulence.
|
Hilarious.
He knows he's talking rubbish as usual. It may be a flying bus, but the perception of safety is critical to the industry and he knows that. The last thing he wants is somebody banging their head in turbulence and dying, or fatalities in a minor incident like the Ciampino landing birdstrike when the (Ryanair) plane left the runway and the gear collapsed.
In reality it's unfair I think to suggest Ryanair cuts corners with safety. Luck comes into it, but Ryanair hasn't had a fatal accident at all in its 27 years.
You don't generally get severe turbulence on trains.
|
>> You don't generally get severe turbulence on trains.
>>
There is only one conclusion to draw from that sort of risk analysis.
Ban all road transport - too dangerous, too many deaths and injuries to drivers, passengers and innocent passers-by.
Ban all flying - risk of turbulence. And in the first place, who gave the H&S clearance to tonnes of metal flying in the air with humans on board?
Ban all transport by sea - too many people drown. (Why don't they have seat belts to wear in turbulent waters?).
The only safe form of transport is in carriage on rails, preferably with seat belts for those occasions when it does go off the rails or hits another carriage on rails that shouldn't be there.
Laugh at O'Leary as much as you want, but he is the one laughing all the way to the bank! :)
|
He is a nutter. "If a train crashes at 120mph you're all dead" erm as far as I know, in the past ten years only one person has died in a passenger train in the UK!
I would rather be in a modern train in a crash than in the air where it can fall 35,000 feet!.
As for standing in a plane, I would never even considering. It would be down right scary during landing and take off.
|
Was doubtful about Rattles figures but in apart from Ufton Nervet caused by suicide on a level crossing (7 dead including the initiating suicide) the only other in timeframe is Grayrigg - track fault.
The Colwich accident in 1986 was 100mph plus and only death was one of the drivers.
An on runway accident with aircraft at that speed would have multiple fatalities
Full list of rail accidens here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom
Motoring related fact; light jumpin, barrier dodging etc at level crossings is very dangerous. Moreton on Lugg is the exception where the railway's systems failed.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 12:40
|
>> He is a nutter. "If a train crashes at 120mph you're all dead" erm as
>> far as I know, in the past ten years only one person has died in
>> a passenger train in the UK!
>>
Watch what happens to a train crash at 100mph:
www.britishrailways.tv/british-railways?task=viewvideo&video_id=1190
|
>>Watch what happens to a train crash at 100mph:
>> www.britishrailways.tv/british-railways?task=viewvideo&video_id=1190
Old coaches and an atttempt to demonstrate the structural integrity of another item.
Outcome of a real crash with coaches still in service today:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colwich_rail_crash
|
>> Outcome of a real crash with coaches still in service today:
>>
No mention of the most relevant bit of data - actual speed at time of impact.
|
This one was said to be at 30-40mph before being slowed slightly by the sand drag and the buffer:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moorgate_tube_crash
|
>> No mention of the most relevant bit of data - actual speed at time of
>> impact.
The Manchester train was stationary, the Euston bound train was under an emergency brake application from 100mph. The estimated speed at impact would have been in the accident report but I've not got time to look for a copy on the net. I'd say 60+ as a minimum.
Ufton Nervet & Great Heck both involved derailment by a vehicle worsened by hitting facing points and at GH impact by another train. Seven and ten fatalities respectively including drivers.
However you paint it trains have a structural intregrity incompatible with flight and a much lower risk of fire than an aircraft. And yes I know there have been train fires including at least one on the GW main line out of Paddington.
|
They're talking about building a bridge at Ufton Nervet now.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-20169287#
|
|
Meant to add that trains at GH and UN were both travelling at line speeds of 90-120mph.
|
>> Meant to add that trains at GH and UN were both travelling at line speeds
>> of 90-120mph.
>>
O'Leary said everyone in a train crash at 120mph would die.
120mph is the terminal velocity of a 12 stone human body in freefall:
www.greenharbor.com/fffolder/math.html
|
Ryanair has a successful business model, I have flown with them once (in 2006 IIRC) and vowed never to do so again as I didn't like their business model / service.
They have done me a huge favour in driving down the prices of full-service carriers to levels which better Ryanair's if you pay for simple luxuries (sic) like luggage, an allocated seat and food.
An unfortunate corollary is that many full service airlines have been driven out of business or chosen to exit the market which reduces my choice and makes the Ryanair way something of an emerging standard.
I'd suggest that this has a parallel with the PC market - look at Dell, lauded for many years for the way they drove efficiency in their supply chain. Prices fell (great) but also the ability for the industry to spend on R&D went with many of their rivals also choosing to exit the market. Another parallel might be with the big supermarkets and milk etc etc
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 12:22
|
John H, I accept your analysis on turbulence on trains, it was a light hearted comment.
You are taking MOL far too seriously. He is a clever bloke right enough, but he knows this is a loopy idea, and will probably even cause his more gullible passengers to start arguing when told to belt up.
However his point is that
- the story is reported
- he gets the publicity
- all resultant discussion and links created on t'internet will result in lots of contextual advertising - I assume ticket sales are a bit slow this week. This is probably the main reason for his comedy act.
I admire his business skills and find him very entertaining. I have done a lot of trips with Ryanair, though I admit I became irritated by the baggage rules in the end. Happily I haven't had to do much travelling for the last three years so it's fairly academic at the moment.
|
"I admire his business skills and find him very entertaining. I have done a lot of trips with Ryanair, though I admit I became irritated by the baggage rules in the end."
I agree, though I've never flown with them and intend never to do so, having seen their treatment at Pisa of a colleague who had had her passport stolen and had meticulously followed FCO procedure, obtaining an emergency travel document which Ryanair would not accept.
|
|
Is John H (normally the voice of all things sane and wise) seriously supporting O'Leary's idea that it's acceptable to have people standing during take-off and landing? Including the elderly and mothers holding infants? Standing for the duration of the flight - several hours? And where do they stand? There's no point in ripping seats out - there's only room to stand in the centre of most aircraft - so a mass of standing people in the aisle? It's totally bonkers.
|
>> Is John H (normally the voice of all things sane and wise) seriously supporting O'Leary's
>> idea that it's acceptable to have people standing during take-off and landing? Including the elderly
>> and mothers holding infants? Standing for the duration of the flight - several hours? And
>> where do they stand? There's no point in ripping seats out - there's only room
>> to stand in the centre of most aircraft - so a mass of standing people
>> in the aisle? It's totally bonkers.
Not to take this at all seriously...but it would create some interesting technical difficulties.
On the face of it if you remove some seats (and weight) you could carry more passengers and luggage. But you'd have to distribute them and keep them more or less so distributed so as not to upset the trim. If they all wander down to one end you could have a problem!
Would there be a test to ensure that the standers can hold on well enough? Actually I've just had a brainwave - there's no need for free standing, they could be leaned against "walls" erected across the cabin at a closer pitch than seats and strapped to those. Preferably facing backwards too.
To really exploit this needs a redesign of the aircraft so it can carry more weight. Just think how many could be carried in hammocks, using the full cabin height.
But the really serious question is, how would it affect sales of expensive sarnies, drinks and scratch cards?
|
>
>> Would there be a test to ensure that the standers can hold on well enough?
>>
>> To really exploit this needs a redesign of the aircraft
>>
designs here:
www.google.co.uk/search?q=ryanair+%22standing+seats%22+images
|
I'm always inventing things that somebody else has already thought of.
Maybe his outrageous free standing suggestion is designed to make the 'standing seats' sound acceptable?
I still think it's about contextual ads and google ranking.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 13:37
|
>> Is John H (normally the voice of all things sane and wise)
>>
Flattery will not get you an easy ride. ;-)
>> seriously supporting O'Leary's
>> idea that it's acceptable to have people standing during take-off and landing? Including the elderly
>> and mothers holding infants? Standing for the duration of the flight - several hours? And
>> where do they stand? There's no point in ripping seats out - there's only room
>> to stand in the centre of most aircraft - so a mass of standing people
>> in the aisle? It's totally bonkers.
>>
O'Leary is proposing a particular solution for his airline.
If those who want to fly with him in the standing only class for £1 want to do so, let them. He says he will continue to offer the £25 seats for those who want them.
>> It's totally bonkers. >>
Why not let O'Leary try it and prove you right. He is driven by results, and if his consumers don't buy the standing room tickets, he will soon change to a full BA style service at £200 a seat because after all no one likes to fly on his no-frills airline.
|
|
Yet another reason not to give this obnoxious little capitalist turd any of my hard earned cash.
|
>>obnoxious little capitalist turd
Do you know him then? Or is this just the standard; "he must be horrible because he's got more money than me"?
|
>> Do you know him then? Or is this just the standard; "he must be horrible
>> because he's got more money than me"?
Maybe that, or perhaps something to do with MO'L's public persona?
Just a guess mind you.
|
>> Maybe that, or perhaps something to do with MO'L's public persona?
>>
>> Just a guess mind you.
>>
Whenever I have seen him on TV (so that I can make up my mind based on what I see rather than what is reported with possible bias), and even when he is aggressively interviewed, I have found his responses and his attitude very reasonable and hard to argue against.
YMMV
Last edited by: John H on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 13:43
|
|
His public persona is an aggresive one - I can't take to him personally. I'd fly with anyone else if it meant standing. I'm sure he's kind to dumb animals and children though. He cultivates an image - seems to have an anti-British Establishment edge to it - which is fair enough I suppose - I flew with the airline once - Compared to Thomas Cook to the same destination it was pretty good.
|
I've flown with Ryanair a few times and it seems basic but ok, with knee-room for someone over 6ft. The best was a return flight from Dublin one Christmas years ago in a chartered BAC 1-11 - that was a nice old bit of kit and a lot quieter than a 737.
I get a bit tired of people in this part of the world forever boasting about their £1 or £9.99 flights while slagging off the firm for trying to turn an honest quid. I quite admire MOL - but then, we may have the same ancestors.
For what it's worth, I spend a fair amount of time on buses on the Cote d'Azur in the winter and among their quite up-market fittings have always been seat belts, in my experience, together with big notices ordering people to use them. But no-one ever did that I saw and the latest buses don't have them any more.
|
Don't fall for it guys, its a publicity stunt.
I was in the back of a Nimrod about to land at RAF Kiloss, (with a four point seatbelt on) while a member of the crew was wandering around doing the final tidying up. One of his colleges said to me, "That is the sign of someone who has been flying too long and has become complacent, if various XXX happen he will be a pink smear up the front of the cabin". I have also experienced heavy turbulence when people have been injured. No way I would use an aircraft without seatbelts, nor would it be allowed.
|
>> Don't fall for it guys, its a publicity stunt.
>>
>> I was in the back of a Nimrod about to land at RAF Kiloss, (with
>> a four point seatbelt on) while a member of the crew was wandering around doing
>> the final tidying up. One of his colleges said to me, "That is the sign
>> of someone who has been flying too long and has become complacent, if various XXX
>> happen he will be a pink smear up the front of the cabin".
A Loady usually, although on bigger stuff they have to, not to clean rubbish up though!
|
>> A Loady usually, although on bigger stuff they have to, not to clean rubbish up
>> though!
>>
Nimrods didn't have Loadmasters, all the crew have "operational" duties and took turns in the final clean up during the return transit and before landing. There may have been a hint of "Impress the matlot" in the above statement as I rarely flew with the same crew.
|
|
I know, I didn't word that very well... Ah right I think there was 2 'seats' for non RAF aircrew (mission dependant) in the last few years, they must have been there a while then.
|
>> I know, I didn't word that very well... Ah right I think there was 2
>> 'seats' for non RAF aircrew (mission dependant) in the last few years, they must have
>> been there a while then.
>>
The version I flew in (206 Squadron) had four seats, two each side of the rest area table on the port side aft, opposite the "galley". There may have been two additional seats to the rear of these but I can't be sure.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 15:34
|
|
I never had anything to do with Nimrod and missed out on them before they were crushed, happy days?
|
>> I never had anything to do with Nimrod and missed out on them before they
>> were crushed, happy days?
>>
I found this picture of the rest area seats, there are two more facing these on the other side of the table.
www.flickr.com/photos/aaron-sneddon/4420998945/
|
|
Window and a table, they give you the posh seats ;)
|
|
He knows who to get some publicity, as to standing seats it's pretty unlikely. It's not really a case of Ryan air offering them at half price £10 or even a penny, it's what the CAA will let him do. I'm not aware that they have cleared them for use.
|
>> >>obnoxious little capitalist turd
>>
>> Do you know him then? Or is this just the standard; "he must be horrible
>> because he's got more money than me"?
>>
I dislike him and people like him who feel because they are 'something big in business' they can brashley flaunt rules and laws whilst making huge profits at the expense of anyone who flies this cheap cattle class service.
He would tax the air in the cabin or find a way of getting passengers to pedal to keep the plane in the air if he could find a way.
Perhaps Capitalist was a bit strong. Afterall, Richard Branson is in the same trade but certainly seems to have a more pleasant persona.
|
So, you dislike him because he is doing what he wants and you're not? So therefore you call him a obnoxious turd, or whatever it was.
Mm, well I can quite see why you think Branson has a more pleasant persona. Or did you mean more pleasant than O'Leary?
Have you missed the point that he's partly responsible for the market environment that has driven air fares down? So is charging you LESS?
Let me repeat, you pay LESS for an airfare than you would have done if he, and others like him, had not built their companies.
Which laws has he ignored or contravened?
Are you sure this isn't just because he's got more money than you? Which seems to be an increasingly common motivator for abuse in the UK.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 14:54
|
>> Are you sure this isn't just because he's got more money than you? Which seems
>> to be an increasingly common motivator for abuse in the UK.
It could be for some people. But laying that accusation is an easy way to try and close of criticism of big business.
Anybody here criticising Murdoch is immediately accused of jealousy of his money.
|
I don't understand how someone can "hate" someone they have never met.
I don't really understand how someone can call a man they have never met an "obnoxious turd".
Those two states appear to me to be emotional. As in related to an emotion.
It would appear to me to be driven by resentment. Now, unless he trod on your guinea pig or slept with your wife, or even the other way around, I can only think of a resentment driven by jealousy and envy.
Now, I may be wrong. So which emotion do you believe it is? Or do you believe that hating someone you don't know, and calling someone you've never met an obnoxious turd is a rational and objective assertion resulting from careful study?
Seems to me that tearing others down may be easier, and indeed more possible, than either following their example, or being content with your own lot.
Have you noticed how the knee jerk reactions to people in the news is always negative around here? Its never a baseless compliment.
NB: "you", "your" and stuff from careless english, rather than actually meaning you.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 15:21
|
>>
>> Those two states appear to me to be emotional. As in related to an emotion.
>>
>> It would appear to me to be driven by resentment. Now, unless he trod on
>> your guinea pig or slept with your wife, or even the other way around, I
>> can only think of a resentment driven by jealousy and envy.
>>
I guess people can dislike people, from a distance, for all sorts of reasons. I don't think with the wealthly it can only be 2 possible emotions.
|
>> can dislike people
Oh absolutely. But "hate" and insult?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 15:28
|
|
Yes to some it's a mere nudge from dislike to hate. Plus it's the internet I think it easier to say such things. Less so in real life although still there.
|
>> It would appear to me to be driven by resentment. Now, unless he trod on
>> your guinea pig or slept with your wife, or even the other way around, I
>> can only think of a resentment driven by jealousy and envy.
Or a sense of social injustice. Or many other things. I "hate" it when people are too keen to scream "jealousy". You've never met the person who wrote the "obnoxious turd" comment either, but you're jumping to conclusions about his character just as much.
|
>> I "hate" it when people are too keen to scream "jealousy".
But I doubt that you do. I'm sure you dislike it, I'm sure you disagree with it, but I doubt you "hate" it. And in the unlikely event that you do, I'd find it difficult to believe that you "hate" the person who said it.
Don;t you think that it all gets too personal and emotional these days? Whether it is hating Murdoch or O' Leary, whether its the witch-hunt for anything related to Jimmy Savile, or the price that Amazon charge for an e-book.
I take the point about its easy to spout off on the internet, but I still think this world, and in particular this country, could do with a whole lot more tolerance, live and let live, and "good luck to whoever".
Rather than this bitter, resentful and emotional approach to pretty much everything.
|
And as an aside, I bet its hilarous as a moderator here to watch who puts "thumbs up" or "frowny faces" on which replies. Because of course there will be notifications, and maybe even a few tables to entertain themselves with.
I just bet there are trends; i.e. I blindly support everything by that author, I blindly disagree with everything by that author, etc. etc.
Of course some will be honest opinions and reactions.
Now hands up everybody who thought it was anonymous.....
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 17:04
|
>>
>> Now hands up everybody who thought it was anonymous.....
I can't honestly say that I've thought about. As an aside, I can't be sure but I'm not sure people use them as the tags suggest 'helpful' and 'offensive' more like/don't like. An interesting point I would thumbs up, I don't think I've ever seen anything on here I would call offensive, but plenty of people click the sad face.
|
>> Now hands up everybody who thought it was anonymous.....
Zero (IIRC) found that you can thumb-up a post multiple times just by deleting cookies, which you might think would be prohibited if the site software took much notice of who added it.
But I don't do web software so only guessing.
|
>>the site software took much notice of who added it.
Mm, knowing Dave, who doesn't miss much; I bet he does take an interest and does watch it. And probably laughs up his own sleeve a fair bit.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 17:21
|
>>you can thumb-up a post multiple times just by deleting cookies
I can't.
|
>> >>you can thumb-up a post multiple times just by deleting cookies
>>
>> I can't.
Ok, sorry - must have got that wrong. Never tried it myself.
|
|
And actually I tend to assume 'they' do know... :)
Last edited by: Focusless on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 17:29
|
>> I tend to assume 'they' do know...
Always a good position to adopt.
|
>> and in particular this country
Which country. Where most of us are or where you are living at the moment? :-)
|
Well Chile has a whole different set of problems. The majority here don't have the luxury of sitting idly in front of a computer arguing about things that don't matter much.
But reality television has taken a major bite here. A million times more so than the UK. Even the hourly news programs indulge.
But then they have things like about a week ago a man looked out over his balcony into the street below to see what all the ruckus was, just as a policeman fired his gun into the air to warn off a bunch of hooligans.
Of all the reactions, not one of them has discussed that firing your gun into the air to scare people is a dumb idea, whether or not someone is on a balcony above you.
However the media here, I guess as a reflection of the people, doesn't have a fraction of the desire to tear people down that the UK media does. It happens, but nothing like as much.
I think they're still in the realms of trying to haul themselves up, not dragging others down.
Vandalism is different here too. Generalising, of course, but they'll steal something, sell it, borrow it, and take any advantage they can, but it wouldn't occur to them to wreck it just because.
Fascinating differences, actually.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 17:12
|
"Rather than this bitter, resentful and emotional approach to pretty much everything."
I agree. I think its disgusting and I hate it
|
>> Don;t you think that it all gets too personal and emotional these days? Whether it
>> is hating Murdoch or O' Leary, whether its the witch-hunt for anything related to Jimmy
>> Savile, or the price that Amazon charge for an e-book.
Yes. Not just anger either. I first noticed what I call this "emotional incontinence" when Princess Diana died. Missing their favourite TV programme is a "nightmare" for some people.
I don't think "social media" help - attention seeking reinforces it as a behaviour to the point where it is now normal.
>> I...still think this world, and in particular this country, could do with a whole lot
>> more tolerance, live and let live, and "good luck to whoever".
>>
>> Rather than this bitter, resentful and emotional approach to pretty much everything.
Hear him.
Few things are all bad anyway. My mother would have said "count your blessings". Probably going to school everyday with a gas mask during WW2 helped her take subsequent minor irritations in her stride. I try to follow her example, even if I'm not always successful.
|
>>but I still think this world, and in particular this country, could do with a whole lot more tolerance, live and let live, and "good luck to whoever".
<<
How about we practice what we preach?
Pat
|
>>How about we practice what we preach?
Does that have any bearing on whether or not its a valid point?
|
One persons valid is another persons trivial....it's all down to tolerance.
Pat
|
>>One persons valid is another persons trivial
Valid and trivial are not mutually exclusive.
|
Maybe not, but tolerance is a virtue few people have these days.
Pat
|
>> Maybe not, but tolerance is a virtue few people have these days...
... especially when one is a delightful fat communist turd, and the topic involves mention of obnoxious little capitalist turds such as Murdoch, Branson, O'Leary, Jobs, Ballmer, Zuckerberg, or any such other self-made multi-millionaire.
|
>> self-made multi-millionaire.
Short of speculating in property or shares there ain't no such thing.
|
>> >> self-made multi-millionaire.
>>
>> Short of speculating in property or shares there ain't no such thing.
>>
I forgot. Money grows on trees for the tall rich people to pick off before the downtrodden short poor can get at it.
|
|
I think he means the term 'self made' is thought of doing it all on their own which isn't really accurate. It's pretty unlikely anyone could do it all on their own. Everyone needs help of some sort to get the top.
|
>> I forgot. Money grows on trees for the tall rich people to pick off before
>> the downtrodden short poor can get at it.
A statement that's not entirely free of irony. Being in right place, with right attributes and right time is a massive part of business success.
|
>> Being in right place, with right attributes and right time is a massive part of business success.
Or, more commonly, being willing to take risks others are uncomfortable with, and put in 100+ hour weeks to get the goal you are aiming for.
Doesn't make them nice people, or necessarily even happy with their lot, but there are very few 'lazy' top-flight businessmen/women.
|
>>being willing to take risks others are uncomfortable with, and put in 100+ hour weeks to get the goal you are aiming for.
Damn right.
|
>> >>being willing to take risks others are uncomfortable with, and put in 100+ hour weeks
>> to get the goal you are aiming for.
>>
>> Damn right.
No argument with that. But you still need to be in right place and time to see the goal.
|
>> But you still need to be in right place and time to see the goal.
>>
All to do with chance. Starting from your parents getting it together and the right sperm meeting up with the right egg. Or even before that the right cosmic soup getting formed on Earth for life to begin.
|
>> But you still need to be in right place and time to see the goal.
Yes, you do.
But the reason that happens is not simply because someone is out of the blue lucky. It is because they've put themselves in loads of places at loads of times, most of them wrong. But because one keeps hammering then sometimes one ends up in the right place at the right time.
|
>> But the reason that happens is not simply because someone is out of the blue
>> lucky. It is because they've put themselves in loads of places at loads of times,
>> most of them wrong. But because one keeps hammering then sometimes one ends up in
>> the right place at the right time.
O'Leary's case looks like a one off opportunity.
He was a high flyer in a Dublin accounting firm and came to attention of one Tony Ryan. At time Ryan was heading up a big aircraft leasing co, Guinness Peat, which had spawned a non too successful regional airline, Ryanair.
MoL, who'd initially been engaged as Ryan's tax adviser, was offered opportunity to reform the loss making regional carrier with a reputation for lateness. He took the US carrier Southwestern as a model, got rid of a mixed fleet of jets and turbo props buying in secondhand 737-200's and a focus on low cost - sweetheart deals with airports, regional governments etc. A high frequency and high utilisation model.
It succeeded. The rest is history.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 9 Nov 12 at 22:23
|
>> I forgot. Money grows on trees for the tall rich people to pick off before
>> the downtrodden short poor can get at it.
That's pretty much true when you think about it.
The facts that humanity has such capacity for foulness, and that market economics is dominant, are two sides of the same coin.
Capitalism is really about the mass of people creating wealth and the few accumulating it to themselves. Successful capitalists are just the ones who are best, or work hardest at, elbowing people out of the way and sticking on to more of the money that's flying about than the majority do.
Property is theft. But while that is the system I suppose I'll just have to grub after it.
|
>> >> I forgot. Money grows on trees for the tall rich people to pick off
>> before
>> >> the downtrodden short poor can get at it.
>>
>> That's pretty much true when you think about it.
>>
I should have said "the rich treading on the poor under them to get to the rich pickings above". One man's profit is made at the expense of another man's loss.
So yes, the self-made ubermensch millionaires do it by having the non-communist trait of exploiting the less able untermensch.
|
>> the self-made ubermensch millionaires do it by having the non-communist trait of exploiting the less able untermensch.
Or by providing a product or service that the untermensch feel it benefits them to have, thus 'benefitting' everyone.
(whether it actually does or doesn't is irrelevant to the process)
Any social system, whether capitalist, feudalist or communist, inevitably leads to haves and have-nots: it's not just a condition of capitalism - capitalism can express it more obviously through the abstract concept that is monetary value.
|
>> Any social system, whether capitalist, feudalist or communist, inevitably leads to haves and have-nots:
Not inevitably - at least not until you bring the nature of man into the equation. Other species manage to cooperate. Some of them anyway.
I'm speaking theoretically of course, only a fool would wait for the day to arrive. Meanwhile, grub away!
|
>>Other species manage to cooperate
Generally on a hierarchical basis.
= haves and have-nots.
|
>> >>Other species manage to cooperate
>>
>> Generally on a hierarchical basis.
>>
>> = haves and have-nots.
I was hoping you wouldn't spot that. I think the point stands though.
|
>>tolerance is a virtue few people have these days.
Didn't I say that?
|
>> >>tolerance is a virtue few people have these days.
>>
>> Didn't I say that?
but don't do as I do?
|
|
If I wasn't tolerant I couldn't possibly put up with all your mistakes.
|
>I don't understand how someone can "hate" someone they have never met.
I hate Richard Branson.
tinyurl.com/btbdvpl
|
>> >I don't understand how someone can "hate" someone they have never met.
>>
>> I hate Richard Branson.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/btbdvpl
>>
How about Savile? ;-)
weknowmemes.com/2012/08/can-you-spot-the-millionaire/
Last edited by: John H on Thu 8 Nov 12 at 22:22
|
Suggestion on a pilot's forum:
Remove seats and stand Mr O'Leary at back of aircraft. Take off and then land with full autobrake.
An enhancement would be to engineer a lod bang & abandon the take off at decision speed.
See if he still thinks seat belts not needed!!!!
|
|
Would the effect be substantially different from an emergency stop or a violent swerve in a bus crowded with standing passengers?
|
>>Would the effect be substantially different from an emergency stop at 150mph compared to 45mph?
Hell ya.
|
Not necessarily surely. Depends on the rate of deceleration rather than the speed when braking commences. How efficient are aircraft brakes?
|
>> Not necessarily surely. Depends on the rate of deceleration rather than the speed when braking
>> commences. How efficient are aircraft brakes?
Whatever the rate of decel, it will either be higher and/or go on for longer.
To effectiveness of brakes you can add reverse thrust.
|
>> Not necessarily surely. Depends on the rate of deceleration rather than the speed when
>> braking
>> >> commences. How efficient are aircraft brakes?
>>
>> Whatever the rate of decel, it will either be higher and/or go on for longer.
>>
>> To effectiveness of brakes you can add reverse thrust.
You can add on Lift dump as well.
>>
|
I wonder if while doing away with seatbelts for the passengers, he would do away with them in the cockpit as well? Whats next, Oxygen masks?
This will come over as very poor taste, but what MoL and Ryanair need is a crash. They have not had a total or partial loss to date with the subsequent loss of life, and thats not down to anything MoL has done better than anyone else, its just luck. He will soon start acting like a proper grown up when that happens.
|
|
I see what you're saying Zero, I always remember this from a lecture on human factors, 'If you think flight safety is expensive, try having an accident.'
|
>> I wonder if while doing away with seatbelts for the passengers, he would do away with them in the cockpit as well? Whats next, Oxygen masks? >.
Don't you know? - his pilots fly standing up.
>> 'If you think flight safety is expensive, try having an accident.'
>>
One word - Insurance.
|
>> >> I wonder if while doing away with seatbelts for the passengers, he would do
>> away with them in the cockpit as well? Whats next, Oxygen masks? >.
>>
>> Don't you know? - his pilots fly standing up.
>>
>>
>> >> 'If you think flight safety is expensive, try having an accident.'
>> >>
>>
>> One word - Insurance.
>>
>>
It covers some things but not all. Anyway the saying is more to get across an idea/thought process/culture than indepth look at aircraft accident costs.
|
Ryanair's training is, allegedly, very good. Doesn't mean I'd ever fly with them though, and despite the training they've recruited some known dodgy characters in the past.
He'll never, ever, ever, get approval for standing flights. He's just a very clever manipulator of the media, which is no bad thing in itself. Seat belts on aeroplanes aren't to protect you in a crash, they're to stop you injuring other people during turbulence and keep you on your seat in an RTO. Brakes on a modern aeroplane are carbon, huge, and applied by computer. They are ferociously strong and 99% of people will only experience them at a low or medium setting.
|
FF,
RTO is a rejected take off?
|
Seat belts are also another means of getting SLF ( Self loading frieght ) to sit down and keep out of the way while the flight attendants can secure everything without trampling on little Jessica of her yummy mummy. :-)
So its -sit down, shut up and belt up!
|
>> One word - Insurance.
One reason I wouldn't buy airline shares is the reputational risk of a nasty accident.
I wish I'd applied the same principle to BP :-(
I'm sure they had insurance too. Still cost them billions.
Remember Townsend Thoresen, whose name had to be expunged?
|
>> How efficient are aircraft brakes?
Most of the deceleration for a plane surely comes from putting the engines into reverse thrust (maybe not the smaller planes).
The danger to passengers if not seated and also not belted up is turbulence. On rare occasions a plane can lose altitude very quickly. And if you're not belted in you're likely to get injured.
In rare circumstances, events lead to loss of aircraft like Air France flight 447. Okay it crashed because of pilot error in the end but their actions caused the plane to lose altitude rapidly. The sensors had frozen up but the but it should not have crashed. Had they recovered it (preventing stall) then those not belted in would have probably been seriously injured.
|
>> Would the effect be substantially different from an emergency stop or a violent swerve in
>> a bus crowded with standing passengers?
I don't know, but like others must have I have experienced some fairly rapid deceleration on landing - not least with MOL's airline, who probably want to take the first taxiway to get to the terminal asap for the turn round;-)
Certainly a lot more decel. than I would want to be strap hanging for.
Academic though, as he isn't serious.
But if enough opinion formers are daft enough to take him seriously, and suggest he confine himself to developing the standing seats...he might smile to himself.
|
|
The flying experience is very similar between Ryanair & Easyjet. BMI Baby was somewhat better, in its day, as were the very few times we were able to use Monarch.
|
Never mind braking, seatbelts or anything else; the next time O'Leary's stunt machine churns out something about cramming in more passengers, remember one number: 189. This is the maximum passenger load for a 737-800, determined not by the number of seats but by the number of emergency exits. And how many passengers do Ryanair's -800s already carry?
Exactly. So any new plans of O'Leary's will - literally - never fly because the CAA won't allow it. And do you imagine he doesn't know that? Just ignore him; he won't go away but he might stop wasting our time.
|
>> Just ignore him; he won't go away but he might stop wasting our time.
I imagine he's bored. He's an aggressive man who built an airline with a different business model which impacted pretty much all of european aviation and received untold attention from the world's media.
One would imagine that's exciting, flattering and rewarding.
Now he runs one of Europe's incumbent airlines and he's done all the revolutionary stuff he can or that there is to be done. These days its a never ending grind of efficiency, cost cutting, surcharges and politics - sterling stuff but hardly material for a Boy's Own comic.
He doesn't say stading room, charge for toilets, and all the rest of it because he's actually going to do it. Its attention seeking. Partly as company publicity but mostly as self-promotion.
I should think its not unlike a pop star who no longer has No. 1 Singles. He'll probably show up soon in whatever the airline's equivalent of "I'm a Celebrity...." in an attempt to resurrect his stardom.
|
|
I love his interviews on PM/Today - he gives Humphreys et al a good kicking, and they need it sometimes.
|
Michael O'Leary has made enough from Ryanair that he could retire tomorrow if he was bored of it. The tall tales about standing room, coin op toilets and all the rest are nothing more than clever (and free) marketing.
I've always suspected the primary aim is not even to get free press, but to reinforce the idea among passengers that Ryanair is cheap...conditioning them to expect even less in return for the fare they pay. Which isn't always as cheap as Ryanair's reputation would have us believe!
|
MoL needs to be careful, the notion that any publicity is good publicity is entirely wrong and that belief has been the downfall of many a character / business. I am sure I don't need to give you any Ratneresque examples.
There are plenty of other aviation industry things he could rant publicly about and get attention, London's third airport for example, rather than make him self look foolish and make people wonder if he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, and doubt the efficiency and safety of his product.
|
A reasonably close acquaintance of mine was, before he retired around 5 years ago, a pilot with BMI.
He told me that he would never fly on Ryanair.
Not through professional jealousy or loyalty, (he said!) but because he was convinced that maintenance on the Ryanair fleet was minimal.
OTH, as has been said, Ryanair have a good safety record.
|
I thought maintenance was going to be minimal for most of the Ryanair fleet considering it's age. It's got to be one of the youngest fleets. If anyone saw the programme about the Jumbo Jet being serviced with a lot of it being dismantled then some of that would not be needed yet.
I doubt any airline will do any more aircraft maintenance than is necessary. Monarch are flying planes over 25 years old and they break down sometimes causing delays of over 24 hours... but they still flying them.
|
>> I doubt any airline will do any more aircraft maintenance than is necessary. Monarch are
>> flying planes over 25 years old and they break down sometimes causing delays of over
>> 24 hours... but they still flying them.
I doubt the breakdowns have much to do with age. Engines and pretty much every other critical part on those 757's will have been changed several times.
|
|
The lifed parts will have been changed its all the on condition parts that will cause more problems.
|
All major parts, including avionics get swapped out regularly.
There are companies that specialise in holding second hand stock.
The old parts get refurbished by the original manufacturer or specialists then get stored by the company until another airline needs to swap out the part. The parts all come with a certificate of authenticity.
They rent the part out sent to the airline.
Quite sensible when a flight computer costs $300k a pop when you can rent one for $5k per month.
|
|
They won't need that level of servicing yet but minimal is still a fair bit to mess up.
|
|
I would guess that Ryan Air contract out most of their servicing and overhauls on a fixed price basis.
|
|
I know someone who went to work for them they do all their own line stuff and some levels of servicing . But all the majors (or equivalent ) get sent out not sure who to though.
|
|
.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 10 Nov 12 at 12:10
|
They certainly have their own substantial facilities. How much more is outsourced I don't know.
Their maintenance will be cost effective for sure, because they operate one type for that reason.
I really don't set much store by the view that Ryanair somehow skimps on maintenance, safety, training, etc. and the readiness of people to believe that because it is efficient, cheap, and low-service it must be unsafe. That's utter rubbish when you think about it. By being efficient and offering zero (apologies) frills they can be profitable and afford proper safety. Airlines burdened with the costs of a better service have just as much pressure on maintenance costs. There's more logic in worrying that an airline losing money hand over fist will cut corners.
The way that stories are reported confirms this prejudice. Recent diversions for low fuel spawned stories that Ryanair captains were under pressure to carry the minimum amount of fuel required by European regulations. That may or may not be true, but surely if that is seen as a problem then the story should be that the regulations are inadequate?
For me it's simple. If they go where I want to at the time I want, and cost matters, or alternatives are less convenient, I'll use them. If I want luxury and I'm prepared to pay for it, I won't. I have no more concerns about safety than with any other airline - not because I know everything about their procedures and controls, but because I have no reason to think they are less than adequate.
MOL does not run the airline operationally. I agree with Zero that he is dangerously Ratneresque and I think he adds to the reputational problem.
|
|
The Ferret knows what needs to be known.
|
Ryan Air Again - John H
