egafd.com

BREAKING NEWS

Ryanair sues Government
By SUN ONLINE REPORTER

BUDGET airline Ryanair is to sue the Government for more than ?3million compensation for delays and cancellations caused by anti-terror measures at airports.

Security was stepped up after the alleged plot to blow up transatlantic jets that was foiled by security services earlier this month.

The no-frills carrier said any proceeds from the claim would go to charity and urged the Government to ease security restrictions to "normal" levels.

Last week Ryanair said it would sue if the restrictions were not eased within a week, with the airline?s chief executive Michael O?Leary calling the new measures "insane".

Mr O?Leary said today: "The value of the claim is just over ?3million. and reflects Ryanair?s losses from cancellations and lost bookings over the week of August 10-16 only."

Is this muppet for real, he,s the only one bitchin and moaning about airline security and demanding compensation, apparantly he,s as tight as a ducks arse anyway! surely the money he,s making he should employ his own securty staff, how is it all the BAA,s fault!, I notice Branson isn,t bitchin and he stands more to loose due to the transatlantic stuff, o leary should take some of the responsibilty as a carrier and shell out some of his own cash on security, he also has a duty of care, what good does it do anyone who just wants compensation in a time of crisis.....cunt!

If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have posted your rant.

Ryanair has a far more intensive operation in and out of the UK than Virgin Atlantic and has much more to lose. Ryanair, along with other low cost carriers are basing their pricing on persuading passengers against hold baggage, in order to reduce turn round times and fuel costs.

O'Leary might be many things but he's an excellent publicist, his airline will, by 2008, be the biggest in Europe and will carry more passengers than many of the traditional European carriers combined. It will also have the youngest fleet.

The current hand baggage regulations go against all previously understood airline security norms, built up painstakingly after Lockerbie.

It has always been a given that examining hand baggage with the passenger present, is more effective and quicker than x-raying hold baggage (which is routinely done) but forcing passengers to put batteries and other electrical items in checked baggage slows up the whole process and has led to, not only massive delays, but thousands of bags going astray. Passengers are extremely nervous about putting high value items in checked baggage as the incidence of theft and damage is high.

The current hand luggage size regulations are a nonsense. A bag which is 4 inches less in height but one quarter of an inch wider than the dimensions in force cannot be carried, even though the volume and the linear inches are smaller than the volume and linear inches of the published maximum.

No-one at the DoT can, or will, explain why. The TSA in the USA allow bags of any dimension up to the volume/linear inches maximum.

Also, apart from flights departing the US, there are no new hand baggage limitations on flights (including on UK registered aircraft) coming to the UK in the light of the current situation.

If you had checked your facts you would have realised that, El Al apart, airlines don't organise their own security screening of passengers in the UK. Under DoT regulations that is up to the airports, backed by the police.

O'Leary might be a pain in the neck. I use his airline regularly, I've met him and a number of his managers in the past have been both speakers and delegates at aviation security events I've organised, sponsored by governments, airlines and airports, but he isn't the only one up in arms over this.

Virgin, BMI and BA have all made serious representations - he's just the only one who has decided to take a very public route. That's his choice, you are at liberty to criticise but, before you do, get your facts right.

I didn,t post any 'facts' merely stated my opinion, no one else is moaning like he is, he does it every time, he,s tight wad, trust me! he takes a public route as you call it, because he a self publicitist, and at a time when all airports and travellers are under pressure all he can think about is compensation and promotion, like it,s only the fault of BAA or the government that terrorists try to slip aboard planes.
You take your stance I,ll take mine, he,s still a cunt in my book facts or not!

Well if you want to ignore the facts you can continue in your ignorance and therefore I, and others with sense or real experience of the industry, won't bother trusting you.

Once again you state a total falsehood, that no-one else is moaning like him. Believe me, EVERY airline operating out of the UK is moaning just as much as they are not being made aware of exactly why the restrictions are as they are - they are as much in the dark as you and me and the industry as a whole has lost millions in the last two weeks. The only difference is that O'Leary, for better or worse, won't be shut up.

Whilst he may be interested in his bottom line and his own shares, in making his money he is providing work and income for thousands of people in his airline, the ground handlers and airports that his airline uses, the companies that maintain his aircraft and provides massive income to governments through air navigation (ATC) charges.

In addition, his order for B737 aircraft, post 2001, kept the production line alive at the time Boeing saw a massive drop in orders - and Ryanair, unlike most airlines - owns its aircraft.

I suppose you would have equally called Cobden, Bright, Hunt and activists of the 19th century who helped rid the UK of laws that were brought in to "protect" the public in the 19th century, cunts had you been alive at the time.

Funny how history sees them differently.

Good for him - he knows that the extra "security" was little about security and mostly about incompetence, mixed with the Blair government's desire to strike fear into the British people.

Those of us with any memory will know that the only successful terrorist plane hijack in recent times happened almost 5 years ago, and only happened because appalling US airport security allowed 19 men with sharp knives to board 4 separate planes.

I had to fly the day after the recent "terror" arrests and the measures were a joke. I even had to check in a newspaper I was carrying. The airport staff knew it was a joke, and so did the passengers. But it did the job of perpetuating the myth that we're under attack by a massive, shadowy terrorist threat.

strictlybroadband wrote:

>.......the only successful terrorist plane hijack in recent times happened >almost 5 years ago............


Probably even further back, in truth.

The terrorist threat is/has been no different for many years now. There are plenty of people out there who, for various reasons, wish to make a spectacular point.

As strictlybroadband makesout, this also, unfortunately, suits the current US/UK governments who have agendas which help feed the vicious circle of the so called War on Terror.

Keeping the people scared is a great tactic for governments and they are ably abbetted by the media. Remember the Sun had everyone believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could be ready to fire at 45 minutes notice with the implication - if not the actual statement - that they could reach London. The same is now true of the latest "enemy", Iran. The BBC keeps stressing how big their army is and how they have a strong air force.

No-one knows how the army will behave if faced by US/UK fire power. They may stand and fight, they may, as the Iraqis did, give up. As for air power, the capabilities are the source of much confusion. The bulk of the air force is made up of US supplied equipment for which spares have been hard to come by for many years. Some Russian and French aircraft fell into Iranian hands as a result of the first Gulf war when the Iraqi pilots fled but the status of these is unknown. The Iranians say they are manufacturing helicopters and fighters based on US designs in their hands but the technologies will be very 1970s if they are doing as they say.

What is certain is that, as the "West" builds up the rhetoric on Iran there are crazies out there who will exploit this with threats and attempts at terrorism, which will suit Bush and Blair as they point to greater justification of their own actions.

All this will impact on our freedom to travel, the price we pay for oil and how "safe" we feel as the terrorists don't need to kill anyone to cause maximum disruption as the last 2 weeks have demonstrated.

There is no doubt the the world would be better without the current Iranian leadership - but they were elected democratically. The countries from which most terrorists have come in recent years are Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan - shining lights of totalitarian regimes and great and trusted allies of the US and UK who do nothing to change the status quo.

So, all this leads us to the chaos we see, an airline chief dabbling in politics and, at a personal level, when I fly into the UK next Thursday I will quite legally carry on board my camera, lenses, flash and ancillary equipment in its bag which is just 2 inches in one dimension too large for the current UK regulations but only half the volume and linear inches of the maximum permitted size.

On my flight back out of the UK on the same airline, I will have to pack my camera bag in the hold and use an unpadded bag I have, which is within the dimensions in all respects, to be able to keep my gear safe, on board, with me - and no-one at the DoT will tell me, or anyone else, what difference the 2 inches makes.

I don't want a penny of my tax money to go to an industry that doesn't pay a penny in fuel tax.

I think the suit should go ahead, and that the Ryanair team should have to leave home at 3:30 AM for an exceptionally early court date, and when they arrive at the court house at 5 AM they will be told that the court house is closed today and there will be no court today and if they still want to press their case they have to file an all new lawsuit at their own expense. The expenses for the first case will not be reimbursible.

They can dish it out, but they can't take it...

O'Leary is out of touch with the real world, since things are never going to be the same again so far as airport security is concerned.

He is only seeking to preserve his profit margin for his squalid airline which cares not a toss for its passengers when they are stranded at obscure airports for lengthy periods because his aircraft suffer technical problems.

Any legal action which he takes is doomed to failure - and rightly so. Let O'Leary get back to Dublin and stay there.

O'leary should realize that it is not the government he is suing it is the people of the uk who pay their taxes, I resent him suing me ,just so that he can put profits before passenger safety.
I would rather be delayed getting onto my flight than being blown up in the sky

All comments by frequent travellers, as I said, he,s still a cunt!

I'm with you Lizard, I'm a frequent flier and use a number of airlines and RyanAir is the only airline I won't use.

Their treatment of customers brings the phrase "cattle-class" to life, and their concept of "customer relations" is arrogant almost to the point of disbelief (their stock response to almost any issue seems to be something that trnslates into "we charge low fares therefore you should expect low quality service and you have also given up any rights that you would normally expect to have as a customer (barring ones enshrined in law, and we don't like those either)")

Also I think O'Leary is a cunt, but that's more a gut response and it's a bit more difficult to turn that into a logical argument!

I'm a frequentflyer also, have been for 44 years on airlines of all types all over the world.

I fly Ryanair when it suits me because it is a cheap, fast, on time, efficient aerial bus service with fares cheaper than any other form of transport if you use their system correctly. In 9 years of flying with them I've never been delayed nor had a piece of luggage lost/damaged.

I HAVE read their terms and conditions and know they are non-IATA, and, when I book, I enter a contract which I understand where my rights are limited- but then I wouldn't expect to pay for a Proton and get a Jaguar.

I also can read a map and know that a small number of their destinations are some distance from the major centres, but their web site explains all that if people took the trouble to read what is in front of their eyes.

As for O'Leary packing up and going home to Dublin, just ask the few thousand people employed directly by Ryanair and indirectly because they are there, what they think of that idea.

There is a great deal of angst in some quarters because Ryanair has been so successful but 37.5 million passengers in the last twelve months with a consistent month on month growth rate in excess of 20% proves the product is attractive to and suits an ever growing number of people.

So, Cream Bun, you can continue to pay top fares for traditional service - that's your privilege. I'm happy you can afford to do so.

Just to give you an example of what you are being asked to pay, a quote for 2 passengers, Shannon - Manchester return on Aer Lingus was referred, on line, through their One World partner in rip off, BA because Aer Lingus doesn't want Shannon - Dublin passengers in the summer.

BA doesn't fly Shannon - Manchester, or London but they quoted Aer Lingus to Heathrow then BA to Manchester. Total return cost ?1,205 ECONOMY.

For the same dates, Ryanair Shannon to Manchester return x2 ?32 plus taxes, charges etc, total cost ?75.

Now who is the bigger fool, you or me, Ryanair or One World?

BTW, in case anyone thinks I am employed by or have other connections with Ryanair, I don't. I'm a retired CEO that worked closely with the industry and still has very close contacts. My last few flights have been with easyJet, Ryanair, Thomson, FlyBe, Aer Lingus, Virgin, LIAT, United.....

As for Lizard, instead of ranting about something you clearly have little knowledge of, why not ask your MP why the tax payer is now being hauled into court by Ryanair. Ask why the perceived effective and carefully built set of security procedures were overturned at a moment's notice. Demand to know why what all the experts agree is a purely arbitrary size limit on hand baggage has been imposed and see if he or she can find out just why the new limit is so cosily close to the maximum size of a lap top, rather than other high value equipment items that passengers carry.

Those are the questions being asked by O'Leary, the industry and most experienced travellers. Add into your questioning the fraught issues of having to place items in checked baggage which are better seen at security.

The airlines have lost millions. They, the travelling public and the public at large have, at least, the right to some answers.