Ryanair lands on taxiway

Words fail me sometimes….

Anyway, I see at as good news because the more bad news and f**kups this airline makes, the more the public will become cautious about using them.

Andy

100% Agree with you. Anyway i think this is just funny. No one was hurt, not plane got injured and no pilot got sacked. Not only that the passengers who were that desperate to get out of the cheap looking jet, got a shorter taxi time, soo all is good all round.

RDC, I don’t think this is the right thread to continue a debate about the wider issues of low-fare carriers. Happy to do this in another topic if you wish, as I do have views about the issues in your response. Maybe I will start another topic when I get a few moments!

Andy

I think the claim that LCCs are generally less safe does not have any evidence.
In terms of pilot’s quality, well, they make a couple of cycles a day and sometimes fly into funny airports, so I guess many Ryanair pilots have more proficiency than their much higher paid colleges at British Airways.

Compared to OY-registered aircraft the paradise of safety.

Lookout Ryanair is finished again 😀

And how many have already lost their jobs in the industry (or are now subject to substantially diminished salary and working conditions) as a result of O’Riley managing to con the stupid into believing he always offers the cheapest product? Don’t get me wrong – I am no socialist (and indeed I do believe that the low-fare sector did some good in bringing down historically too-high air fares) and I think O’Riley has been very clever in what he’s done, but as I said, in the longer term I believe that the industry as a whole would be better off without one or two of the sharks that inhabit the bottom end of the market, and IMHO Ryanair is at the bottom of the bottom.

Andy

I’m not sure he has done all that much harm to the industry. The problem with aviation is that is has for a long time been very antiquated, and indeed one of the least competitive industries in the world, especially when you consider it should be one of the most contestable because of course aircraft can be moved from one location to another very easily. High salaries and luxurious working conditions were the excess fat of the industry, and a legacy of protectionism and grandour. Whilst in SOME cases, the salaries are lower for certain areas of work, in others they have taken little pounding at all. As for overall employment, I am fairly certain that this has increased over the years in the industry. Many pilots like working for LCCs because although they had to pay for type ratings etc in the first place, they like many of the social aspects associated with the job, for example almost all of these airlines operate a back to base policy, where aircraft do not nightstop, and therefore crews also do not nightstop. For those with families this has become a major selling point.

Where I think I don’t understand your argument Andy is that I’m sure you wouldn’t want to be overcharged for other products and services you buy because of wastage and lack of efficieny in an industry, so why does aviation differ?

If you would like the socialist view then I can help you a little as I work for one of the worlds leading consultancies in considering the economic benefits derived from aviation (it’s not my specialism, I’m more of business strategy specialist, but I know enough about the topic to be writing a report for a Government at the moment on the issue). Aviation is one of a basket of strong economic drivers, although can very rarely be singled out as THE main cause of economic development. I am sure I would be patronising you to explain the links between historic government owenership/protectionism/bilaterals and economic wellbeing, but for anyone who doesn’t know, these were forms of ensuring strong aviation links in lower ‘the days’ when demand wasn’t strong enough to support all of the airline industry commercially. But those times have changed and the scale of demand is such that airlines should be able to wash their face commercially. Where low fares carriers have brought advantages is to areas that major airlines are just not interested in serving, bringing tourism and links to key business centres to the local communities. Some areas have really prospered from this. In the past their only aviation link (if they were lucky) was a high fare, low capcity link to their capital city, which did little to attract tourism and inward investment, and certainly didn’t put it on the map. Basically I’m saying that if you’re counting heads of employment then you also need to consider the unmeasurable catalytic effects of onward employment.

Furthermore, socially and economically you can see other benefits brought about by these airlines in serving the points they do, not least journey time savings. We’re all so quick to discuss fares and savings which can or cannot be made there, but remember that the UK currently values a business traveller’s time at nearly £1.20 per minute, and the provision of airline services from regional points to a wider selection of destinations has driven greater efficiency in the economy overall. These airports are ones which the incumbents did not, and would not have any interest in serving.

I like your renewed statement regarding the historically high fares because this is absolutely right, but I can’t understand why you don’t think other airlines should be put under commercial pressure from airliens such as RYR or EZY. In other deregulated industries it is absolute survival of the fittest. If the low fares model was so flawed then the airlines wouldn’t be doing so well.

I will concede that I do not necessarily believe that the RYR model in particular is sustainable in the long term without being adapted, and the key will be to see how the airline changes over time to survive, but it’s survival will be driven by market demand and acceptance, which is absolutely the right position to bring consumer benefits.

And how many have already lost their jobs in the industry (or are now subject to substantially diminished salary and working conditions) as a result of O’Riley managing to con the stupid into believing he always offers the cheapest product? Don’t get me wrong – I am no socialist (and indeed I do believe that the low-fare sector did some good in bringing down historically too-high air fares) and I think O’Riley has been very clever in what he’s done, but as I said, in the longer term I believe that the industry as a whole would be better off without one or two of the sharks that inhabit the bottom end of the market, and IMHO Ryanair is at the bottom of the bottom.

Andy

That literally has to be the most retarded comment I have read on this very forum! 🙁

Not retarded at all, merely an opinion. Whilst I have no desire to see anyone hurt or worse, the demise of that airline will be both something I would be pleased to see and ultimately something that I genuinely believe will be better for the industry in the long term.

Andy

That literally has to be the most retarded comment I have read on this very forum! 🙁

LOL, you must be used to that attitude on this topic by now? 😉

You sure you’re not mistaking Ryanair for Eirjet?!

Paul

Fair point!

That literally has to be the most retarded comment I have read on this very forum! 🙁

Surely you jest?! Theres plenty more hereabouts…

-Dazza;)

Looking on the bright side, at least they got the right airport this time

You sure you’re not mistaking Ryanair for Eirjet?!

Paul

One arguement is that it could have happened to anybody…

But it didn’t happen to anybody, it happened to Ryanair. And I don’t doubt that had this crew been fully prepared they wouldn’t have had this problem.

If CAG is such a dangerous airport, as many on pprune seem to be suggesting, then why do Ryanair fly there? And if it is so notoriously bad, the pilots really should be on their guard!

I don’t think the precedent stands for much. If a Ryanair aircraft took off without flaps, we certainly wouldn’t say “oh, it’s ok, Spanair did it first”.

Looking on the bright side, at least they got the right airport this time

Not me spinnig at all RDC – just calling it like I see it.

YOU can try spin it as legitimate because it has happened elsewhere or because the runway has just reopened, but whether you like it not the change would have been NOTAMed and thus the pilots if they had been properly prepared have no excuse. I presume/hope that the drivers wil be well and truely hauled over the coals by their chief pilot.

Anyway, I see at as good news because the more bad news and f**kups this airline makes, the more the public will become cautious about using them.

Andy

I’m not saying by a long shot that it happens all the time, but it does happen for a variety of reasons as pointed out by ATR42. In 2006, a Continental 757 landed on the taxiway at EWR. It’s all about the spin you put on it to make it sound like an unbelievable incident isn’t it Andy?? I haven’t read the pprune topic on it, but if it’s not mentioned in there, then it should be noted that the runway has only just re-opened after work and that the taxiway was being used as the runway during those works.

Read further on Prune and see a pilots perspective of this particular airport

O.K., there are some extenuating circumstances, condolences to the crew!;)

In fairness to both the airport and the crews we used to have the same problem at LGW. IIRC two incidents of aircraft landing on the taxiway rather than 26R when 26L was non op.
Solution was just to rewrite the approach plates to emphasise the potential for a mistake and to turn off all the lights when 26L was not in use.
Not really anyones fault, human error anyone could make if you look at the circumstances.
The key of course is to ensure everyone accepts all the concepts of human factors and learns the lessons.
You don’t realise until you work outside of the aviation business how far advanced aviation is regarding human factors training and thinking.:(

O’Riley? Dont you meen O’Leary?

Read further on Prune and see a pilots perspective of this particular airport

Weather?:confused: How do two pilots, they still use two don’t they, no economy there, and presumably at least one has landed there before, land on a taxiway instead of the runway?