Jump to content

Talk:Ryanair/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Having clicked through to 'CrynAir.com' I am not at all sure that this is a privately motivated 'site'. One has to wonder about links to sites for which the domain registrant gives a bogus name. This 12 Arthur Road, BH23 1PU, Christchurch, GB registered site is of questionable relevance within the overall article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.91.240 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it - it's not NPOV and it doesn't add anything to this article beyond promotion of the website. 84.9.38.22 (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Same goes for the I Hate Ranair link. 84.9.36.62 (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Addition for the article...

Anyone want to take the time to add this to the article? Furious Ryanair passengers protest in plane... - Pmedema (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly as it is not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't "easYjeT?" Or maybe it's "EASYjet."

"In September 2004, Ryanair's biggest competitor, EasyJet, announced routes to the Republic of Ireland for the first time, beginning with the Cork to London Gatwick route. Until then, easyJet had never competed directly with Ryanair on its home ground. Easyjet announced in July 2006, that it was withdrawing its Gatwick-Cork, Gatwick-Shannon and Gatwick-Knock services; within two weeks, Ryanair also announced it would withdraw its own service on the Gatwick-Knock and Luton-Shannon routes." 174.99.62.107 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I changed them all to camel case as this appears to be the (largely) consistent approach taken on EasyJet. raseaCtalk to me 20:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This section seems to lend undue weight to a minor story. What do others think? --John (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, not notable. I remove the section since there is no oppose. Best regards, --R.Schuster (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Partly Disagree - it was a high profile example of organised opposition to their business model, and I think is worthy of a couple of the lines added. However, I accept that it may be more suited to being included under 'Customer Service', rather than warranting a subsection of it's own. Any thoughts - is that more suitable?(Marty jar (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
Agrre with Marty jar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Degen Earthfast (talk • contribs) 11:29 GMT, 25 June 2011

Their logo looks a lot like the Scottish Clan Rose emblem. Coincidence or is there a reason? 98.220.211.83 (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is based on a harp, a common symbol of Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.148.198.156 (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Publicity stunt to discredit British CAA on Icelandic volcano

Can you help me improve this text:

  • Today, May 24, 2011, Ryanair deliberately flew a 'verification' flight into the Icelandic ash cloud, a publicity stunt to discredit the British Civil Aviation Authority's restriction on air transport flights.ref1ref2ref3

I posted it under Accidents/Incidents but it was reverted. Thanks! --Inetpuppy (talk) 04:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Ryanair starts 28 destinations from Paphos International airport in Cyprus!!!

Please someone add it to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.228.183.50 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Canary Is "student mutiny"

User:MilborneOne has reverted an item I added about an incident in which 104 students were kicked off a flight from the Canary's to Belgium, considering it non-notable. I would appreciate the opinions of other editors on this point, and have restored it temporarily. At the moment Google News shows 290 hits on "Ryanair 104", here. Wwheaton (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Restored temporarily is not the right way, I have removed it again the onus is on editors adding new material that has been challenged to gain consensus not the other way round. It is not notable just todays news story, a group of students didnt read the rules and didnt fly after causing disruption on the aircraft - no big deal and not really notable to the airline. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yesterday's news, tomorrows chip wrappers - not a notable incident as it didn't involve substantial damage to aircraft or airport, preciptate a change in regulations or operations, or lead to the dismissal of Ryanair staff. Mjroots (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No notability. raseaCtalk to me 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree it dosn't need to be listed. Jamie2k9 (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus IS NOT a requirement on WikiPedia.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Image of HQ

I've taken a pic and added it to commons; [[File:Ryanair HQ.jpg|thumb|Add caption here]] if anyone wants to use it. I've placed at the start of the business model section but if anyone wants to change it, please feel free. GainLine ♠ ♥ 11:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Cardiac Arrest incident

There's this incident being described all over the news regarding a passenger who was going into cardiac arrest and was charged for a sandwich instead of given immediate medical assistance. Worthy of inclusion? 96.18.238.19 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably not - like all these stories it is difficult to known the truth when somebody is trying to gain publicity to get compensation and/or an apology. But whatever the true story it is still not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Outdated order discussion removed

Order discussion was removed since it was completely outdated: text claimed there will be no new orders from Boeing due to failed negotiations, fact is there are new orders. Past chatter about future negotiations is not enzyclopedic contents. Lumialover2 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is encyclopedic. Wikipedia should include historical information as well as current information. Content should never be delete just because it is "outdated." Please restore what you removed. —Compdude123 20:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I restored the info. It's perfectly fine to be on this page—why don't you consider adding more up-to-date infomation? Don't continue your edit-warring, even if you think you are right. It is always better to discuss on talk pages rather than edit war. —Compdude123 20:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I moved it to the historical section above where it can make sense. Past discussions of the future are now history. Lumialover2 (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this part of the article is not that well written. There was already an order for 112 aircraft and Ryanair was considering ordering ANOTHER 200, which didn't happen after all. Instead, the started talking with Comac and another Russian company the name of which I cannot recall to design a new aircraft, which they are going to place those 200 (more or less) orders on. Talks failed whit that Russian company so now they "help" Comac design the C-919. Thakaran 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

Many of the references at the page are currently unreliable, for example many links to company's own website. Also some of these are overly promotional, e.g. "On 21 February 2011 Ryanair announced that it will start flights from Vilnius to 5 destinations in May 2011: Barcelona-Girona, Dublin, London-Stansted, Milan-Bergamo, Rome-Ciampino.[58]"

There are also currently 12 dead links. There are also 13 places where citations are missing. Cloudz679 15:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this article could sure use a lot of work, especially we should take the chopper to overly long sections which go into way too much detail on everything. —Compdude123 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There was 0 Orders a week or two ago and now 25??? seems unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.196.71 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I got rid of a lot of the excess info in the history section. I will do the same with the Criticism section—is the airline really this bad? —Compdude123 04:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy 2

"In 1989, a Short Sandringham was operated with Ryanair sponsorship titles". I think someone's having a laugh. The WP page for the Sandringham notes that it was withdrawn from service in the 1970s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.255.115 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but Sunderland G-BJHS did refer http://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair/Short-S-25-Sunderland/1101411/L/&sid=4a3da3bc557ad74bc7a0169f7b9d9bc6 MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

How about some disclosure, MilburnOne

You edit consistently in favour of RyanAir. Do you fly for them? Own stocks in them?89.168.188.106 (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed part of opening description of airline

I deleted part of opening description of the airline, namely:

"Ryanair has been subject to criticism of, among other things, its employment relations, its charging policies, its advertisements, and its customer service, in particular its treatment of disabled customers."

Why is this included in the opening description of the airline, when it isn't included for any other major European airline wiki, which mainly also have 'controversy' sections? These are just opinions. The statement 'in particular its treatment of...' is an opinion; 'among other things' is very vague. Other airlines have more strikes suggesting poor employment relations, yet this isn't noted on their wikis. E.g. the BA wiki. These are all valid points to include in the overall wiki, but prioritising opinions to the opening description of the airline is not NPOV.

I've posted this here as you may very well disagree with me and wish to revert the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.237.211.241 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, the reason this is in the lead section of the article is that the purpose of the lead section is to provide a concise summary of the major topics covered in the article(see WP:LEDE) and you can see from the article that a major part of its content is about criticism of Ryanair. Do the articles on other airlines which you refer to also have substantial content covering criticism? If so, then this should be reflected in their lead sections too. If not, then that explains why this content is included here. If you are able to add referenced content about criticism of those other airlines to their articles, they can/should have that summarised in the lead. If you don't want to see material criticising Ryanair in the lead, then you need to argue why it shouldn't be in the article at all, first, and then if your view carries, deletion from the lead follows that. Hope this helps. I'll reinstate the content in the lead for now, but if you still feel strongly about it, having read this explanation, let me know, and I'll delete it and we can discuss further. SP-KP (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a reference to back up the claim about the airline's alleged "poor treatment of disabled customers"? All I see is a decade old story about wheelchair and special assistance (which is now and and has always been provided by airports, not airlines) along with a single incident of a passenger having a disagreement with the airline. Certainly incidents will happen but I don't see that this airline is systemically worse than any other one. 86.136.152.17 (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism takes up nearly all the page ... agenda anyone?

Reading through this it struck me that practically anything on Wikipedia could be portrayed with just as much emphasis on critics, but isn't. Anyone know why that might be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.125.53.141 (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

2010s Readability

The 2010s section doesn't read well: "On 15 May 2013 Michael O’Leary announced plans to target European-USA flights (probably East Coast of the United States and Europe) - with prices starting from 10 pounds. Despite in opposition to his claims it's not the first news about low cost over-the-Atlantic (e.g. Julian Cook, Baboo founder);[54] Ryanair is probably the biggest airline, with enough funds to start it: in words of CEO, the cost would be about 50 000 000 GBP without airplanes.[55] As an example the airline bought in March 2013 175 new 737-800s in a deal worth nearly $15.6 billion at list prices.[56]"

Substantial rewording aside, some context about (or linking for) "Julian Cook" and "Baboo" might be required, and if one is going to bring up low-cost transatlantic services, one might refer as far back as Laker Airways or even mention contemporary low-cost operators like Norwegian. Generally, the text reads like punditry ("probably the biggest airline, with enough funds to start it") and although I usually let minor quality issues go, this is just too severe to pass without comment. PaulBoddie (talk) 10:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Michael O'Leary

User:BoycottRyanair has been adding unneeded statements on this article. I left a warning when I undid the edit on their talk page only of being accused of non neutrality and threatening them. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ryanair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Ryanair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

is this reliable

http://corporate.ryanair.com/about-us/history-of-ryanair/ gives different date for founding. It also gives refs for number of staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.74 (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

"[...] busiest international airline by passenger numbers" statement is misleading.

The last line in the first paragraph is misleading:

"In 2016, Ryanair was both the largest European airline by scheduled passengers carried, and the busiest international airline by passenger numbers."

It reads like it carries the most passengers of all international carriers. When the stat in the reference is that it carried the most passengers over borders. The cited stat excludes domestic flights made by international carriers. Ryan is actually #6 in the world for passengers carried.[1]

Philippe23 (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The listed reference is also a 2013 HuffPo article, that should probably be updated, or at leat replaced with citation needed for the moment. Patmorgan235 (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "World's largest airlines by passengers carried (thousands)". Wikipedia. Retrieved 11 April 2017.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ryanair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Ryanair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ryanair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ryanair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposing to add new content to 3.5.1 Controversial Advertising concerning flight attendants

Hi. I propose to cite a few cases of advertising campaigns run by Ryanair depicting flight attendants in beachwear and underwear that have been reviewed and banned by national advertising watchdogs and courts. This subject is currently not covered in the article, there is a paragraph with regard to the ″provocative schoolgirl″ advert but no mentioning of any repetitive ads portraying cabin crew members run by the airline at least from 2008 to 2014. It doesn't sound like a minor issue not worth of appearing on the page to me since it specifically deals with cabin crew members who are a major part of any airline's business. So, I would mention: one case that was petitioned by over 11 000 people in the UK; a calendar run by Ryanair from 2008 to 2015 which also helped raise money for charity; and add a link to a 2013 court ruling in Spain in the introductory sentence. This is what I came up with after a few attempts - feel free to suggest improvements if you agree with the proposal:

″From 2008 to 2014 Ryanair ran advertising campaigns featuring cabin crew members in beachwear and underwear accompanied with various headlines that led to several complaints to national advertising watchdogs as well as court rulings. The Advertising Standards Authority of UK (ASA) banned in 2012 Ryanair adverts printed in two national newspapers depicting flight attendants in bra and pants under the headline ″Red hot fares & crew″ after receiving 17 complaints from readers and being challenged by an online petition campaign signed by over 11, 000 people. The ASA said, ″Although we acknowledged that the women in the ads had consented to appear in the calendar, we considered that the ads were likely to cause widespread offence, when displayed in a national newspaper, and therefore concluded that they breached the [advertising] code.″ Ryanair responded that, "Unlike heavily advertised calendars by famous glamour models, the entire sales proceeds of the Ryanair cabin crew charity calendar goes to charity.″ The airline published an annual calendar from 2008 to 2014 featuring cabin crew members in bikinis. The Girls of Ryanair calendar was sold at a cost of £10/€10 and raised over €600,000 for various charities from 2008 to 2014 according to the airline.″

What would you say? Would appreciate to hear feedback from you. Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What are your sources? That's essentially the sole determinant of whether this should be included: has it attracted substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources? TSP (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Arman.mchitaryan, thanks for your question. Yes, as TSP says, you would need to cite a reliable source such as a published newspaper or trade magazine. Also, bear in mind WP:NPOV and WP:NOCRIT - I reckon the words you suggest above are too detailed and come across as a critical essay about Ryanair. If you do add this content, you would be better off simply mentioning the issue very briefly in one sentence, and allow the reader to follow the link to your source.Cnbrb (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi TSP and Cnbrb, thanks for your feedback and the wiki links. Here's an updated, shorter version with sources:

"From 2008 to 2014, Ryanair ran advertising campaigns and a charity calendar featuring cabin crew members in underwear[1][2] that led to complaints to national advertising watchdogs and court rulings.[3][4] In 2012, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned Ryanair adverts titled ″Red hot fares & crew″ printed in two UK newspapers after 17 complaints from readers were submitted to the ASA as well as a petition signed by 11 000 people was initiated. Ryanair responded that, "Unlike heavily advertised calendars by famous glamour models, the entire sales proceeds of the Ryanair cabin crew charity calendar goes to charity," and that the 2012 edition alone helped raise €100,000 for charity.[5]

The degree of details looks in line with other sections under Controversial advertising to me with this edit. Let me know if it still reads undue to you. (using a youtube video should be fine as per Wikipedia:Videos_as_references - it's from the airline's official channel)Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ryanair-calls-time-on-its-calendar-of-cabin-crew-in-bikinis-1.1949216
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0maf6c0zdw
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17036830
  4. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/girls-of-ryanair-calendar-spain-court
  5. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/15/asa-bans-sexist-ryanair-ad
Oppose inclusion. as somebody that originally reverted the addition of this I still think that its inclusion is not warranted. Yes we do need to mention problems with Ryanair practices but just to pile on every complaint that is made undue weight in my opinion. I cant see any evidence that is was a widely reported criticism of Ryanair or that charity calendars of this type are not unusual particularly from 2008 and the Spanish court case was five years ago. These sort of calendars would not be condoned in 2019 but this is an old story. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I will have to reply in greater detail to challenge MilborneOne's comment. This has indeed been widely reported, I included just some of the arguably most popular English language sources in Europe in my last text. Please consider more down below. It does look to me as a good case of wide, even world-wide reporting. I also do think that an event initiated a petition signed by 11 000 people in the business industry as opposed to say some government affair of national importance is a major enough event in and of itself deserving serious consideration.

Spiegel - ″With a weekly circulation of 840,000 copies, it is the largest such publication in Europe,″ wiki - [1]. some articles on the topic - [2]

FoxNews - 4th most popular news website and number 1 cable news channel in the US as per feedspot.com/adweek.com and other sources, also wiki [3] [4] some articles on the topic - [5] [6] [7] [8]

USA Today - ′With a weekly circulation of 1,021,638 and an approximate daily reach of seven million readers as of 2016, USA Today shares the position of having the widest circulation of any newspaper in the United States with The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.′ - wiki [9] some articles on the topic - [10]

CNN - [11]

The Australian - ″the country's most circulated nationally distributed newspaper, available in each state and territory." as per wiki [12] some articles on the topic - [13] [14]

Business Insider ″The New York Times reported that Business Insider's web traffic was comparable to that of The Wall Street Journal″, wiki - [15] some articles on the topic - [16]

The Huffington Post ″In July 2012, The Huffington Post was ranked No. 1 on the 15 Most Popular Political Sites list by eBizMBA Rank″, wiki - [17] some articles on the topic - [18] [19]

Daily Mail, ″it is the United Kingdom's second-biggest-selling daily newspaper after The Sun.″, wiki [20] some articles on the topic - [21] [22] [23]

Daily Mirror - ″It had an average daily print circulation of 716,923 in December 2016,″ wiki [24] some articles on the topic - [25] [26]

The Sun - ″The Sun previously had the largest circulation of any daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, but it was overtaken by rival Metro in March 2018,″ wiki [27] some articles on the topic - [28] [29] this one seems to have a title and update dates but is missing the actual content, half-broken

Metro - currently largest UK newspaper as per the previous section, was one of the largest back then some articles on the topic - [30]

Sky News - won't refer to publication size from this point on. some articles on the topic - [31] [32]

the BBC some articles on the topic cles - [33] [34]

the Guardian some articles on the topic - [35] [36] [37] [38]

The Daily Telegraph some articles on the topic - [39] [40] [41] [42]

The Irish Sun, The Irish Independent some articles on the topic - [43] [44]

AOL Articles - some articles on the topic - [45] [46]

IrishTimes some articles on the topic - [47] [48]

As well as major regional and industry press - to refer to just a few:

NY Daily News (the ninth-most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States) Articles on the topic - [49] (might not be available in Europe temporarily)

BelfastTelegraph - [50] [51]

just A few notable business industry outlets

[52] [53] [54] [55] might've cited this one before

a couple of non-English speaking countries, the articles are in English though:

Portugal - [56]

Sweden - [57]

Also sharing the rulings of the Swedish advertising watchdog with regard to ads featuring content from the Girls of Ryanair calendar (English text available), similar bans were imposed in the UK, Ireland and Spain at least. [58] [59] [60] [61]

Last but not least: just some of the Girls of Ryanair calendar official videos:

[62] - 2013 calendar shooting, half a million views [63] - 2014, more than a million views

Few things might've have garnered so much media attention (one can only imagine the scope of it in local news, challenging group websites and social media) in the recent history of airlines and it, ironically, should've played a significant role in publicizing the carrier in my assessment - it's not even clearr at this point if sharing this information on the company's wiki page would constitute more criticism than advertising. But, some reference to factual information of such scope must be covered anyway, I believe; as a previous editor replied let the reader to check out the sources and make their judgments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman.mchitaryan (talk • contribs) 18:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

So "piling on every complaint" clearly doesn't seem to be the case looking at what I proposed with the last review version to me. Chances are the coverage of these news involving flight attendants was, larger than or at least not less than anything else currently present under the Misleading advertising section. That's why I initially thought it justified to dedicate a separate section to the topic, but then backed away, probably wrongly. These incidents also included backlashes between Ryanair and Swedish as well as Australian members of parliament which also were covered by the media.

"calendars of this type are not unusual particularly from 2008" - Calendars of this type from 2008 are not only unusual in the airline industry in Western countries but they are in fact abscent (at least to my knowledge), except for cases such as this where some crew members of a bankrupt Spanish airline have to pose in underwear independently to fight for their wages cut for over 6 months. [64]

There is a long history of substantial flight attendants popular action challenging and eventually putting an end to this kind of practices in the 60s and 70s in the West and you come across advertising and PR campaigns portraying cabin crew members in underwear in Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico, Russia and China nowadays (but, still arguably not as extensive as Ryanair's) but nowhere in the West. The attitude is being challenged in all of those countries too. Ryanair is in fact the only Western airline (notable one at least, I can't speak of every single airline there is) having run such campaigns in the 21st century or ever since the end the 70s (this last bit I'm not 100% sure about but I haven't come across such content published after the 70s in Western countries).

I don't see how the fact that the Spanish court case was held five years ago is relevant in case of an online encyclopedia as long as the importance of the event is established. These sort of calendars would not be condoned in 2019 but this is an old story - I think I've already shared my knowledge to covered that.

I'm not trying to criticize anyone for not being well-informed on the subject (that's why I put so much effort in sharing these links), but, nevertheless, my opinion is that ignoring the burden of evidence provided would constitute a major bias and an attempt to shield the airline from due commentary - cabin crew members are an important part of any airline's business and crucial for securing safety onboard. Please consider the latest revision I proposed in my previous comment and let me know what you think? Would also appreciate to hear from others. Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Spiegel
  2. ^ https://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/miss-runway-miss-cockpit-and-miss-hostess-critics-accuse-ryanair-of-sexism-for-charity-calendar-a-590288.html
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cable_news)
  4. ^ https://blog.feedspot.com/usa_news_websites/
  5. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/travel/ryanair-selling-racy-2013-calendar-featuring-scantily-clad-crew-members
  6. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/ryanairs-flight-attendant-calendar-has-too-many-sexual-connotations-for-spain
  7. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/travel/ryanair-aims-to-be-more-family-friendly-releases-its-sexy-flight-attendant-calendar
  8. ^ https://www.foxnews.com/travel/ryanair-forced-to-scrap-controversial-sexist-ads
  9. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Today
  10. ^ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2013/10/25/attendants-bare-all-for-charity-amid-ryanair-image-revamp/3192563/
  11. ^ http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/ryanair-busts-out-2012-cabin-girls-calendar-934841/
  12. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian
  13. ^ https://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/travel-2015-pre-life/take-two-ryanairs-racy-calendar-for-sale/news-story/aa1261b686cbb20d2234b381b9d6f52e
  14. ^ http://www.traveller.com.au/ryanair-flight-attendants-strip-off-for-charity-1nkmm
  15. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Insider
  16. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/ryanair-calendar-charity-2011-10
  17. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HuffPost
  18. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ryanairs-cabin-crew-calendar_n_1072484
  19. ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ryanair-2013-calendar-photos_n_1973536
  20. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail
  21. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1226984/No-frills-flying-Ryanair-cabin-crew-strip-charity-calendar.html
  22. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073488/7-000-ban-sexist-Ryanair-advert-shows-scantily-clad-crew.html
  23. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101386/Ryanair-advert-Red-Hot-Fares--Crew-banned-watchdog-online-petition-success.html
  24. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mirror
  25. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ryanairs-sexist-stewardess-ads-are-banned-684885
  26. ^ https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ryanair-calendar-2014-sexy-pictures-2483307
  27. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun_(United_Kingdom)
  28. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/991221/ryanair-cabin-crew-charity-calendar-2013/
  29. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/991379/ryanair-cabin-crew-beauties-look-first-class-as-they-strip-for-2013-calendar/
  30. ^ https://metro.co.uk/2012/02/15/sexist-ryanair-adverts-banned-by-asa-following-online-campaign-319133/
  31. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/ryanairs-sexy-ads-shot-down-10480990
  32. ^ https://news.sky.com/story/in-red-hot-water-ryanair-forced-to-scrap-ad-10480985
  33. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17036830
  34. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wlddm
  35. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/girls-of-ryanair-calendar-spain-court
  36. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/15/asa-bans-sexist-ryanair-ad
  37. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/21/ryanair-advertising
  38. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2017/feb/15/vile-high-club-why-is-sexism-so-prevalent-at-40000ft
  39. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3440656/Ryanair-crew-strip-off-for-charity-calendar.html
  40. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8122608/Ryanair-cabin-crew-strip-off-for-charity-calendar.html
  41. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/6544874/Ryanair-cabin-crew-strip-off-for-charity-calendar.html
  42. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/ryanair/Ryanair-scraps-its-bikini-clad-cabin-crew-calendar/
  43. ^ https://www.thesun.ie/money/1555221/ryanairs-boss-micheal-olearys-history-of-gaffes-and-how-he-always-comes-out-on-top/
  44. ^ https://www.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/ryanair-axes-cabin-crew-calendar-30631762.html
  45. ^ https://www.aol.co.uk/2011/11/04/ryanair-cabin-crew-girls-strip-off-for-charity-calendar/
  46. ^ https://www.aol.co.uk/2014/09/30/ryanair-scraps-saucy-calendar/
  47. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ryanair-criticised-over-sexist-ads-1.698523
  48. ^ https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ryanair-calls-time-on-its-calendar-of-cabin-crew-in-bikinis-1.1949216
  49. ^ https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/fashion/cheap-airline-ryanair-issues-annual-cabin-crew-bikini-calendar-benefit-skin-ailment-article-1.971773
  50. ^ https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ryanair-crew-strip-for-charity-calendar-28539246.html
  51. ^ https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/ryanair-axes-cabin-crew-calendar-30631821.html
  52. ^ https://skift.com/2012/10/20/airlines-shameless-pr-stunts/
  53. ^ http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/intelligence/2012/02/sexist_ryanair_ads_banned_afte.php
  54. ^ https://www.tntmagazine.com/news/travel/ryanair-airlines-sexist-adverts-banned
  55. ^ https://www.businessinsider.com/ryanair-calendar-charity-2011-10
  56. ^ https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/ryanair-cabin-crew-calendar-raises-100000-for-charity/30356
  57. ^ https://www.thelocal.se/20081114/15704
  58. ^ https://reklamombudsmannen.org/eng/uttalande/ryanairwebb
  59. ^ https://reklamombudsmannen.org/eng/uttalande/ryanair-kalender
  60. ^ https://reklamombudsmannen.org/eng/uttalande/ryanair-3
  61. ^ https://reklamombudsmannen.org/eng/uttalande/ryanair-banner
  62. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs10Ynz6W30
  63. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0maf6c0zdw
  64. ^ https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/travel/travel-news/cabin-crew-in-raunchy-nude-calendar/news-story/50319ed50aa01f50b9b417743eed70bf
The fact that you have posted this extraordinary quantity of research about what is a very minor issue rather suggests you have an axe to grind with Ryanair. Please familiarise yourself with WP:SOAPBOX. As I stated earlier, a single sentence would have been ample. This is an article about an airline - a passing mention of controversies is fine, but this level of detail is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Can I suggest you start a blog to further your concerns? Cnbrb (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Also with concern to balance in the article, 15 million passengers and only 17 actual complaints, its an old story and really doesnt have a place in this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cnbrb. There's probably some misunderstanding because of the length of the previous reply. I shared the links to address MilborneOne's comment ″I cant see any evidence that is was a widely reported criticism of Ryanair or that charity calendars of this type are not unusual particularly from 2008″ showing clearly that neither of these is true. In fact it's quite shocking that an editor with thousands of updates on Wikipedia doesn't bother doing basic, cursory research on the topic repetitively (we have discussed the subject with MilborneOne before) still telling that this got actually only 17 complaints ignoring the 11 000 strong petition on the same case time after time and the sheer amount of coverage. And I never proposed to put the research on the page - I proposed for the article only the last revision of my last update or something like it:

″From 2008 to 2014, Ryanair ran advertising campaigns and a charity calendar featuring cabin crew members in underwear[1][2] that led to complaints to national advertising watchdogs and court rulings.[3][4] In 2012, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned Ryanair adverts titled ″Red hot fares & crew″ printed in two UK newspapers after 17 complaints from readers were submitted to the ASA as well as a petition signed by 11 000 people was initiated. Ryanair responded that, "Unlike heavily advertised calendars by famous glamour models, the entire sales proceeds of the Ryanair cabin crew charity calendar goes to charity," and that the 2012 edition alone helped raise €100,000 for charity.[5]″

This shouldn't sound like one is trying to go after Ryanair. Even though I don't see why one of the arguably most widely reported events in the passenger airline industry of the last decades wouldn't deserve three sentences on the page I can try to cut it down to:

"From 2008 to 2014, Ryanair ran advertising campaigns and a charity calendar featuring cabin crew members in underwear that helped raise €100,000 for charity in 2012 alone and led to complaints to national advertising watchdogs and court rulings.[a few links]"

And one could equally argue that blocking even the slightest notion of the topic - what effectively MilborneOne is saying in his replies - amounts to a strong bias towards facts of the scope provided. I pardon If my comments sound too formal, English is not my first language. Arman.mchitaryan (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to the sentence above - maybe a slight tweak of wording but it's not especially problematic in itself. It's fine to mention controversies, but unfortunately they can often become over-emphasised in Wikipedia articles, hence the caution. Cnbrb (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I still object to any addition on a number of counts and I also think that Arman.mchitaryan needs to assume good faith here particularly when deciding I have not researched the event, one thing for sure is that "arguably most widely reported events in the passenger airline industry of the last decade" clearly is not true. Perhaps a compromise would be a new section "Charity Support" as it clearly is not controversial advertising. "From 2008 to 2014, Ryanair sold charity calendar featuring cabin crew members in swimwear that helped raise over €600,000 for various charities from 2008 to 2014, a small number of complaints about the advertising of the calendars caused the company to stop producing calendars featuring crew members." But even this causes issues as to balance it would need us to add other charity activities to the article to maintain balance. For such a minor thing it may not be worth the effort. And on balance the money raised for charity and the numbers bought 60,000 at least far outweigh the 17 complaints (which was related to advertising not the calendars) and the millions of non-complaining customers. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the feedback, Cnbrb and MilborneOne. I apologize if I didn't assume good faith in any of my comments, MilborneOne, I can accept it. But then it would be fair if you too apologized, for misquoting me (or continually dismissing the topic I brought about as minor, unwarranted, undue, etc(especially, considering that 60-70% of flight attendants report sexual harassment while on the job in the US and Australia and 50% in Germany even nowadays) ) - I actually said "one of the arguably most widely reported events in the passenger airline industry of the last decade," not "arguably most widely reported events" - it alters the context and I will be glad to see some research data comparable to my that comment for quite a few other topics related to passenger aviation (we can discuss this on my talk page if you're interested, I'll create one) in the last decades to challenge it, or at least a few.

The adverts all came from the calendar shooting according to all the news coverage in my reply and according to Ryanair (otherwise I imagine there would've been way more court cases and bans even though just four bans in Sweden alone concerning these ads is not neglectable), and the number of complaints on just one of the ads published in the UK in 2012 included 17 individual + a petition of 11 000 signatures.

I will agree to your proposal about Charity Support if we include the petition with 11 000 or at least mention that a large/big/considerable petition along with the rest you suggested. Please consider the last paragraph under Controversial advertising for instance, the 'provocative schoolgirl' ad - it explicitly mentions "After receiving 13 complaints, the advertisement was widely reported by national newspapers." In this case 17(> 13 by ~23.5%) + an 11 000 strong petition, so can be mentioned without sounding undue. How can balanced numerical facts sound undue, if we mention 600 000 euros, 11 000 petition shouldn't eclipse the argument. Hence, the word "small" can also sound undue. I have to be so explicit and detailed because otherwise I just get accused of overcriticizing Ryanair, which clearly is not my position.

Otherwise, we can ask Cnbrb help re-word what I proposed - he clearly said he is not opposed to it. It doesn't have to be MilborneOne or me I think. I will agree on the first version provided by Cnbrb, given that at least one link to the petition is mentioned. re-pasting for clarity "From 2008 to 2014, Ryanair ran advertising campaigns and a charity calendar featuring cabin crew members in underwear that helped raise €100,000 for charity in 2012 alone and led to complaints to national advertising watchdogs and court rulings." I agree to either. What would you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arman.mchitaryan (talk • contribs)


My recommended text, if it were to be included: ″From 2008 to 2014, Ryanair ran advertising campaigns and a charity calendar which attracted criticism for featuring cabin crew members in underwear. In 2012, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned Ryanair adverts titled ″Red hot fares & crew″ after receiving complaints.″ (plus references of course)
However, I don't think you have consensus to include it in the article - one editor is opposed, this editor is ambivalent. This minor issue has now received far too much attention and does not deserve to be discussed further. Cnbrb (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Passenger numbers

Found a source with passenger numbers. They seem to be missing in the article. Is there a good place to integrate the data? http://www.travelextra.ie/ryanair-carried-record-139-2m-passengers-in-2018/ regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.216.158.27 (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020

The Subsidiary of Ryanair, known as Buzz Air, is still labelled as 'Ryanair Sun.' Aviaidan (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Ryanair's subsidiaries

Hello folks,

I am not extremely versed in all of the different editing rules and I am still learning. However, I do have a general idea of editing, revisions etc.

I have recently undone a revision by one of the users. The user removed a reference of Buzz from the KRK article "as being part of Ryanair". They did not update/merge them into Ryanair, hence the reversal, but it got me thinking why would they do it and done a small bit of research. Below I'd like to explain why I'm finding it confusing and perhaps other users also:


I have compared two airlines: Lufthansa and Ryanair:

-both consist of multiple subsidiaries: L Group: Austrian, Brussels, Swiss and R Holdings: Buzz, Lauda, Malta Air (and others)

-all airlines have their respective liveries: Austrian, Brussels, Swiss and Buzz, Lauda, Malta Air

-all airlines have their main operating bases: Austrian - VIE, Brussels - BRU, Swiss - ZRH and Buzz - WMI,[1] Lauda - MLA, Malta Air - MLA

-all airlines have their staff in respective uniforms, as one would expect from an airline,

-all airlines have their own IATA, ICAO codes and Callsigns

-only Lufthansa's subsidiaries have their respective websites with a booking system, but Ryanair denotes which subsidiary airline operates the flight during booking.


-all Lufthansa subsidiaries are listed as separate airlines in the above mentioned articles and others (such as DUB and many others), but Ryanair's companies are not. In fact, routes operated by Ryanair's subsidiaries are not listed even on their operating bases pages. All routes are listed as "Ryanair".

(Example: according to the reference provided 'Buzz' had operated 55 routes by 2021 at WMI, and it's being listed as 'Ryanair' on the page. Meanwhile, 'Brussels Airlines', according to BRU's wiki article, operates 60 non-stop routes at BRU and is listed as 'Brussels', not as 'Lufthansa').


Would anyone be able to explain why this is so inconsistent?

Thanks, much appreciated!


References

  1. ^ "Buzz (Ryanair Sun) na ścieżce wznoszącej". Pasazer.com (in Polish). 25 June 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2022.

Johnny19w (talk) 15:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I am missing a section (which may be worth a separate page) on various legal battles that Ryanair has been fighting over the years with the competitors and the customers. I am not very experienced in Wikipedia edits, but I am willing to do some research on this subject. Could someone please advise what would be the best approach? 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Internetyev (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

These are covered in the timeline or the appropriate sections (e.g. misleading advertising). If you find one that is missing, that is covered in reliable sources and does not give undue weight to the topic, feel free to add it in the appropriate section. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Fleet table with or without subsidiary fleet

Hey,

my point is this: The fleet table including the subsidiary fleet was often updated wrong and/or incomplete by Wiki users. For example:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryanair&diff=prev&oldid=1164109998 (the numbers 56, 33 and 13 of the subsidiary fleet were not updated)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryanair&diff=prev&oldid=1160785943 (the amount of MAX200 of the subsidiaries did not add up to 108. 56+33+13 ≠108)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryanair&diff=prev&oldid=1168762481 (87 instead of 108 Boeing 737 MAX 200 are on order.)
- ...

Unfortunately I don't have the time to revise incorrect updates of the Fleet table including the subsidiary fleet again and again. As nobody else did revise these incorrect edits in the past, those figures will very likely stay wrong in the future.

I updated the chart to see the details of the 2023 subsidiary fleet there (If it still shows the figure as of 2020, you need to delete the images and files in your browser cache).
Ryanair Holdings Group fleet size as of July 2023.
So I don't see it necessary to have the subsidiary fleet in the Fleet table. There is way more clarity in the chart than in the Fleet table anyway.


I want that the Wiki users update the Ryanair fleet table correctly and completely in the future thanks to a simple Fleet table without the subsidiary fleet. WikiPate (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

In the examples you provided, that just seems to be a user who forgot to update the numbers. There’s plenty of sources for each of the Ryanair Group’s airlines individual fleets. Since the page is for the group, I think it should show who operates what planes. Plus, it’s been that way on this page for a while. We’ll just need to keep a lookout that it’s updated accurately, which I don’t see how that’s much different from what’s done on other fleet pages anyway. VenFlyer98 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Operating profit and Profit before tax

Hey,

in the Business trends table the "turnover" and the "profit after tax" as key financial metrics are given.

Hereby I propose to delete the "Operating profit" and "Profit before tax". Those two aren't shown in the tables of other airline articles. And for most readers those are simply not sufficiently relevant and overload the table. The goal of the table is to give a quick overview without overstraining with economic figures. WikiPate (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ryanair/Archive_3&oldid=1217379625"