Have been fortunate enough to avoid redundancy in my 16 year aviation career (although a very close call after 911) but also in full support of Skymonsters post.

I would love to know what the shareholders make of MOL’s happiness to squander a million quid in damages and costs after the fiasco he pulled trying to persecute the pilots on the REPA website. The Judge was very public stating how horrified he was with MOL and Ryanairs management principles.

What worries me most is how some people can be happy with the prospect of the Ryanair principle of setting the standard at the lowest common denominator. Standards-wise, the only way is down. I understand the low cost model is here to stay but dare I say it, even easyJet seems to have some morals rather than solely being interested in making a cheap buck.

You talk of morals? Maybe the problem started when we stopped caring about our fellows in the industry? Hell even I wonder about our own management principles, never mind Ryanair but I would not want to see junior staff members unemployed because of it??

OK, so to reitterate. I don’t want to see Ryanair have an accident, I don’t want to see anyway hurt. But I would like to see the demise of Ryanair and whilst I doubt that will happen, I firmly believe that at some time in the future their style will have to change or their business will turn down – its just a matter of time, which IMHO can’t come too soon.

Andy

So you are quite happy to see loads of people, with families and youngsters with dreams, all unemployed? You obviously haven’t experienced this yourself.
Having experienced this myself, I think your comments are a disgrace.

from http://www.vectorsite.net/avmirf1.html

“One of the interesting footnotes of the Mirage F1 story was that in the 1970s one was built with the SNECMA M53 afterburning bypass turbojet, with 83.4 kN (8,500 kgp / 18,740 lbf) afterburning thrust. Fit of the M53 demanded structural changes, larger inlets, and heftier landing gear. The external appearance was generally the same, though the fuselage was stretched by 23 centimeters (9 inches) and empty weight increased by a little over 8%. It was originally designated “Mirage F1E” until that designation was passed off to the export multirole variant (discussed below) and then “Mirage F1.M53”. Initial flight of the one-off machine was on 22 December 1974.

The Mirage F1.M53 may have originally been simply an engine testbed, but it seen as a possible contender for a requirement that had been issued by a number of Western European nations to obtain a replacement for the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter, then in widespread service but facing obsolescence. However, this “deal of the century” was snagged by the General Dynamics F-16, and work on a second Mirage F1.M53 prototype, which was to be fitted with full multirole combat avionics kit, was abandoned. The M53 was used in the Dassault Mirage 2000 second-generation delta fighter series.”

Apologies for a rather dusty slide, but here is a pic of the Mirage F1E, later becoming M53.