Talk:Ryanair

Ryanair DAC and Ryanair Holdings

Hey, some days ago a user changed "Ryanair DAC" to "Ryanair Holdings Plc" in the very first sentence of the article.

Now that sentence is wrong by stating "Ryanair Holdings Plc is an Irish ultra low-cost carrier founded in 1984."

It would be correct this way: "Ryanair Holdings Plc is a multinational ultra low-cost airline group. The transition from the airline Ryanair and its subsidiaries to the airline group began in 2019. The oldest airline of the group Ryanair DAC was founded in 1984."

In the infobox it says "Parent company: Ryanair Holdings plc" which is also not correct anymore.

Is it time to seperate the airline and the airline group into 2 different articles? Or just leave it with replacing the first sentence in the article and in the infobox replacing "parent company" with "subsidiaries"? WikiPate (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We could have two infoboxes, one for the group corporation, and one for the Ryanair DAC airline. But it would probably be best to have a separate article for Ryanair DAC, since we have separate articles for the other subsidiaries. cagliost (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I adjust the article for being an airline group so it looks like the Easyjet article and to prepare it for being split. If somebody knows how to split it into seperate airline and airline group articles following the WP regulations, go ahead. WikiPate (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't think it's necessary to create a separate article for Ryanair DAC. The article could distinguish more clearly between the Group and the DAC, but the History section works well as a single article. cagliost (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion about this topic has been reopened on WP:AIRLINES if somebody likes to participate. 2A01:599:215:4135:9:DE38:A4E2:F58A (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

See my comments at the ongoing discussion, but I feel a split is the most appropriate way forward with this - the DAC is an airline and a separate company with an operational focus on moving people from place to place. The holding company is a separate entity that manages brand strategy and finances across a group of airline subsidiaries. Obviously there will be some overlap in history as the holding company has no reason for existing without the DAC and other subsidiaries, but there is no policy that says two articles cannot have history that overlaps and it would be far clearer to just have a single infobox for each article. Dfadden (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dfadden: @Cagliost: Apologies for no follow ups on my end about this topic, was on an international trip and tried to minimize my Wikipedia usage! Back to this finally, I agree with Dfadden here, think a split is the best course of action. Maybe keep the group infobox and rename the page to Ryanair Holdings PLC? The DAC infobox can be moved to a new page either called Ryanair DAC or just Ryanair, and it would have only information on the DAC operations (i.e., fleet table would only be Ryanair operated aircraft and none of the other group airlines). Rest of the PLC page would then pretty much stay the same. Thoughts? VenFlyer98 (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think it is clearer to have the info spread over two articles. The subsidiary Ryanair DAC predates the holding company, so I think it is clearer to have one article. The history section thus covers the founding, and the change in strategy to a group of airlines. A split into two articles would require excessive duplication of info: the articles would largely be identical.

I don't think it is confusing at all to have two infoboxes on one article. On the contrary, I think it is clearer. Many readers will not be aware, for example, that some of the "Ryanair" branded planes they fly are actually operated by Buzz or Ryanair UK. A single article, explaining the distinction between the companies, makes things clear.

Notice it is not obvious which, if either, of the proposed two articles should be called "Ryanair". I think the COMMONNAME Ryanair applies to the Group run by Michael O'Leary, whereas VenFlyer98 thinks it applies to the DAC (which most people have never heard of). I suggest this implies that a single article, with the COMMONNAME "Ryanair", is the solution. For much of the company's history, "Ryanair" meant the DAC, and since the reorganisation, it means the Group. They belong in a single article, called "Ryanair". cagliost (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. To most of its passengers and most of our readers, "Ryanair" is a single airline. Sure, we can inform them about the corporate structure and the fact that the "airline" actually comprises several separate AOCs, but the COMMONNAME remains that single perceived entity. There would be very little content specific to the DAC, and IMO WP:NOPAGE applies. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The example is how we handle Lufthansa. The main article is about the airline, which is what everybody associates the name Lufthansa with, not Lufthansa Group, which is just a subsection of the main article. We should follow the same pattern here, with no need for a Ryanair DAC infobox. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty: We have two separate but related issues here: whether to split the article, and if not, whether to have two infoboxes. If we don't split the article, what would you think about having two infoboxes? With a single infobox, we end up saying falsehoods, like Ryanair Group has a callsign, or Ryanair DAC has a fleet size of 500+. Two infoboxes avoids this: the two companies have different founding dates, different subsidiaries, etc. The Lufthansa article has this problem: it says the airline has subsidiaries AND a parent Lufthansa Group, which is false. An IP address user raises similar points here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airlines#Ryanair_Page_Setup. cagliost (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that this article has lost its focus. Just to be clear, I don't think we should split the article (just as we don't split Lufthansa and Lufthansa Group), and I think we should have only one infobox relating to Ryanair, the Irish airline with the callsign RYANAIR and the IATA code FR. That is what most people think of when they hear the name Ryanair. The Ryanair DAC box should simply be headed "Ryanair", with relevant items such as bases, fleet size (just for FR) added from the other infobox. The Ryanair Holdings infobox can then be removed, as that is not what the article is about. I don't think we need a separate article for Ryanair Holdings; we can have sections of the article explaining the various other companies that are part of Ryanair Holdings, and for the group as a whole. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I would support @Lard Almighty's proposal if there is no consensus for a split - still my preferred option. I echo their comments that the article focus has been lost and having two different infoboxes only further adds the ambiguity of what this article is about. One infobox should be retained (the DAC on covering RYANAIR/FR). I'm not opposed to covering the information about the holding company in a subsection, so long as it does not overwhelm the article and shift the main focus away from the operational airline. Dfadden (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Dfadden, the example of Lufthansa is a good one. The infobox should summarize the Ryanair airline that readers know and love, regardless of legal entities or corporate structure. I don't think we need an article or infobox about the corporate entity; it can be discussed in detail in this article. Consigned (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems there is no consensus to split the article. I am not sure how getting rid of the Group infobox is supposed to help the reader. I dispute the claim that the article has lost its focus; that the focus of the article should be mainly on the DAC, or mainly on the Group. I think users proposing this are getting overly fixated on the legal structures DAC and Group, which we are not obliged to focus on. Rather, I echo the comments of Rosbif73: the article should focus on "Ryanair", which in the minds of most of its customers is a single perceived entity run by Michael O'Leary (who was previously Ryanair DAC CEO and is now Ryanair Group CEO). I would argue that this single perceived entity is at present represented by the Group, with its 500+ aircraft, therefore we should have a Group infobox. However, I do not think we should get rid of the DAC infobox, which has helpful information like the Callsign, which is most naturally presented in an infobox rather than in the article. cagliost (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A few more examples. The Group infobox has information like "Revenue €10.775 billion (2023)" and "Key people David Bonderman (Chairman)". Is this information really better presented in a subsection of the article? I say no. The DAC infobox has information like "Callsign RYANAIR" and "Key people Eddie Wilson (Ryanair DAC CEO)". Is this information really better presented in a subsection of the article? I say no. cagliost (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, in most people's minds "Ryanair" is the airline based in Ireland with the IATA code FR. It should be treated in the same way as Easyjet, the UK airline with the IATA code U2. Most people typing Ryanair or Easyjet into the search boxes are looking for the specific airlines (FR and U2), not any corporate entity or subsidiaries they might be associated with. That's what I mean when I say the article has lost its focus, opening as it does Ryanair Holdings PLC is an Irish ultra low-cost carrier group headquartered in Swords, Dublin, Ireland. The title of the article is "Ryanair" and therefore people would expect it to be about FR, not the holding company. The holding company can be mentioned, as it is with Lufthansa, but it should not be the focus of the article. There should be no "group" infobox in an article that isn't about the group. Pertinent information from that infobox, including callsign and codes, financials, key people etc. (as they relate specifically to FR) should be copied into the Ryanair DAC infobox which should be renamed as simply "Ryanair". Lard Almighty (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the same with Qantas. The article mentions the Qantas Group and has a corporate affairs section that specifically deals with the corporate level initiatives and structures (equivalent to the holding company here). However, it is clear reading that article that it is primarily about Qantas the airline and not the Qantas Group as a distinct entity. There are some discrepancies between the (single) infobox and article text regarding the fleet - but that is clarified in text as the larger number being all aircraft operated by the group (which includes Jetstar, Freight and regional operations which are covered in their own articles). Its really not confusing at all if you read the article. With that said, i'm yet to see another airline article with two separate infoboxes. I understand WP:BOLD, but shouldn't we look to be consistent across like articles? Dfadden (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"in most people's minds "Ryanair" is the airline based in Ireland with the IATA code FR." Strong disagree. More people are aware of Michael O'Leary than are aware of Ryanair DAC. I think in more people's minds, Ryanair is the company run by Michael O'Leary. The exact legal structure of that company has changed over time. Claims like " Most people typing Ryanair or Easyjet into the search boxes are looking for the specific airlines (FR and U2), not any corporate entity or subsidiaries they might be associated with" are unjustified, and probably wrong.

I'm unconvinced by arguments about consistency - Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. One man's modus ponens is another man's modus tollens - these arguments could be used just as well to argue that the Lufthansa and Qantas articles could have two infoboxes. I prefer to focus on the merits of having two infoboxes in this article, which I think makes the article clearer, better. cagliost (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but this is nonsense. I'm flying with Ryanair, not "Michael O'Leary". He is notable of course, which is why he has his own article, and if people want to know about the companies he runs they will search for him. If they want to know about the airline they are flying with, they will search for Ryanair. That is why the article is not titled Ryanair DAC but Ryanair. And to most people, Ryanair is the airline they fly with, not some other corporate entity. Just like people will say they drive a Skoda, not a "Volkswagen Group Car".

Think for a moment about why the other airline articles are structured the way they are in contrast to this one. Is it perhaps because it makes sense?

With just one person still objecting I do think we've reached consensus to make the changes.

Lard Almighty (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, with user Rosbif73 agreeing with me (you appear to have misunderstood what he/she said), I see no consensus here. cagliost (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They can come back and say if they still agree with you after the further discussions. In any event, I think there is general agreement to remove the Group info box, rename the DAC box as just Ryanair, and move any pertinent information from the Group box there - in common with other articles on companies that are part of groups (not just airlines). Lard Almighty (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

"They can come back and say if they still agree with you". I'm sorry, that's not how consensus works. Unless they come back and say so, you cannot assume they would have been convinced by your arguments. I do not see the "general agreement" you claim. cagliost (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to weigh in, but I haven't followed these discussions closely, and looking back now I'm not sure what precisely I'm supposed to have been convinced by (or not)! Rosbif73 (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Some evidence against your claim: Ryanair has hundreds of aircraft with "Ryanair" painted on the side, but owned and operated by Buzz, Malta Air and Ryanair UK. For example, SP-RKF, 9H-QAC and G-RUKA. This is why your Skoda analogy doesn't work. cagliost (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not about that, it's about people's perceptions and how they regret to it. They say "I'm going on holiday with Ryanair" not "I'm going on holiday with Ryanair Group". They say "I drive a Skoda", not "I drive a Volkswagen Group Car". It's a question of WP:COMMONNAME. That is what we are concerned with, and that is why the other articles are structured the way they are. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is actually evidence against your claim. They say "I'm going on holiday with Ryanair", not "I'm going on holiday with Malta Air". We don't disagree about the article title, so WP:COMMONNAME doesn't help us here. cagliost (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it is about public perception. If I've booked on the Ryanair website, then I believe I'm flying with Ryanair unless given an indication to the contrary (flight operated my Malta Air for example), which I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't even notice. Lots of airlines do this. They paint aircraft flown by partners and subsidiaries in their colours and give them their flight numbers. In two days time I'm flying on an Air Canada flight to Ottawa. Only it's not being flown by Air Canada; it's being flown by Jazz. But I still tell people I'm flying Air Canada. And it doesn't mean I would expect the Wikipedia article about Air Canada to have an info box about its holding company (which like other airline articles or doesn't). Lard Almighty (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

They say "I'm flying Ryanair", not "I'm flying Ryanair DAC" or "I'm flying "Malta Air". Then why your focus on Ryanair DAC? It's unjustified. cagliost (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read my arguments? They are specifically about the infoboxes. I do not think we need to specify "DAC" in the Ryanair infobox, and we don't need to have the Group one at all. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, your proposals involve more substantial changes than just deleting an infobox. cagliost (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Only to what extent we integrate relevant information from the deleted info box into the article. We have other articles that can serve as examples of how to do this as I have pointed out. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cagliost are you familiar with WP:BLUDGEON? I'd encourage you to step back as at this point, your comments may be taken as Badgering which is an impediment to consensus and a form of Disruptive editing. Dfadden (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

What are the proposed changes?

Based on the discussion above there seems to be a lot of interest in consolidating the infoboxes (and some opposition). What would this look like? Would the infobox cover just Ryanair DAC or also subsidiaries Malta Air, Buzz, Lauda Europe and Ryanair UK? I believe Lufthansa's infobox does not include subsidiaries Lufthansa City Airlines and Lufthansa CityLine. Air Canada's infobox does include subsidiaries. Proposing specific changes might help us better arrive at consensus rather than the more broad discussion above. Consigned (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the Ryanair info box would cover just Ryanair as this article is about that airline (FR). The other airlines have their own articles and therefore their own boxes in those articles. If an article was ever created about the Ryanair Group, it too would have its own box. But having it in an article that is about one specific airline in that group makes no sense. That's why other airline articles don't do it. All the revenant information in the group box (CEO, revenue etc.) can be more clearly conveyed in a short section about the group, as it is for example in the Lufthansa article. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, then the lede also would focus on Ryanair DAC specifically (generally referred to simply as "Ryanair") while also mentioning Ryanair Group and its subsidiaries? Consigned (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes the way it does on the Lufthansa article, and the way it did for years prior to this. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

In terms of the single infobox, I'd propose we restore it to the version seen in this previous edit or something very similar. Dfadden (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Built-in gangway

Ryanair Boeing 737-800 or 737-8AS with registration EI-EBA at Eindhoven Airport

Ryanair uses 737-800 with built in gangways, or air stairs, labelled as 737-8AS. 91.6.188.254 (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why this conversation was started?

Disputed anything you said, and it's well published elsewhere.

Also, 737-8AS is the customer label for the aircraft and has no relation to Air Stairs being installed. T9537 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

A Ryanair 737 boarding using built-in forward airstairs and rear mobile boarding stairs

• I've added a sentence about built in airstairs to the Ryanair#Choosing destinations section, maybe there is a better place for it elsewhere in the article. Consigned (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Current group fleet dispute

Two editors are having a dispute about the order in which the MAX 200 (a derivation of the MAX-8) and the MAX 10 should appear in the list.

One wants to list them in numerical order based on 200, the other based on 8.

Generally, manufacturers number aircraft types in chronological order of first production. One interesting exception is the Boeing 717 which post-dates the every Boeing aircraft except the 787. However, it is listed in numerical order in the list of Boeing aircraft rather than date of first flight.

So the question here is which should we do here? Do we list in chronological order of first flight or in strict numerical order (given that the MAX 200, while a derivative of the MAX 8, is a separate model)? Another option would be to list by order of date that Ryanair ordered each model.Lard Almighty (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I have commented about the name of the aircraft here: Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#MAX_8-200_official_name

In addition to that, I think it's preposterous to put the Max 10s before the Max 8s (of which the 8-200 is a variant). We should list all the 737s in chronological order. (It doesn't make a difference whether it's by order of first flight, or first Ryanair order.)

@Lard Almighty:, what do you think? cagliost (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course, if our dispute at Talk:Boeing_737_MAX#MAX_8-200_official_name is resolved as I would prefer, the alphanumeric order will match the chronological order. cagliost (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only airline to refer to it as the MAX 200 (without an 8) is Ryanair in an attempt to pretend that it's not a MAX 8 (same avionics etc., just higher density and extra doors) so it's not "tainted" by the MAX 8's issues. I guess there is an argument for calling it the MAX 200 on this page given that's how the airline refers to it. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ryanair don't call it the 200, they call it the 8200. This Guardian article from 2019 details that name change. Here are some articles from their corporate website calling it the 8200: 2020 2021. And a Reuters article from just a few days ago about Ryanair calling it the 8200. cagliost (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Another consideration is the need to make clear to the reader this is a 737 MAX, not a Boeing 737-200. On the Boeing 737 MAX article, context makes this clear. But on this article, we need to be explicit. cagliost (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I reverted @VenFlyer98: again and invited them to participate in this discussion. I note I am not the only user to have reverted VenFlyer98; T9537 has done so as well. cagliost (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Cagliost: First of all, T9537 has never reverted a single one of my edits. They did move the MAX 10 back down, but it was not a revert. On my talk page, you said “me and other editors keep reverting you,” yet you are the only one to ever directly revert me. This shouldn’t even be a cause for discussion: since the “MAX 200” name is being used, it goes under the 10. The tables go in numerical order. The table was like this for a while, as well. Additionally, it has been like this on other pages, see VietJet Air. In a similar case it’s the same reason why for airlines that operate the A321LR, it’s listed above the A321neo despite the LR being a variant of the neo (examples of this can be seen at JetBlue and TAP Air Portugal). Additionally, remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not made for aviation enthusiasts (WP:NOT), there is no reason it shouldn’t be in numerical/alphabetical order. VenFlyer98 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t Ryanair operate a few Learjet 45’s?

I’ve seen photo’s and read articles about it and supposedly it operates about four Learjet’s in its fleet. It’s also supposedly transport Maintenance crew and parts and well after a while of reading on the Simple Flying Page the Four aircraft are M-ABEU,M-AGBV,M-ABJA,and M-ABRB with ages around 11-20 years But one thing is that it usually has a Ryanair Callsign(FR) as FR1,FR2,And FR3. I’m not sure if it’s important or not but in my opinion it is.

Source:[1]https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-learjets/#:~:text=Ryanair's%20four%20Learjets,typical%20passenger%20capacity%20of%20nine. Heyymann21 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned:

"The company also owns four Learjet 45 business jets, based at London Stansted Airport and Bergamo Airport but registered in the Isle of Man, which are mainly used for the quick transportation of maintenance personnel and small aircraft parts around the network." Lard Almighty (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I didn’t see that lol sorry. Heyymann21 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)