PA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1966 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5134 times:
Welcome to A.net! When you get a chance, check out the link "read how to include links, pictures and smilies!" It will show you how to put angle brackets before and after your links, so the link will be active in your post:
Northernlights From Iceland, joined May 2004, 87 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4999 times:
Thank you for your info PA110,
I really appreciate it, I am indeed a new user.
My future links will be well "linked".
As for my low life joke: I do not want to offend anyone with it, certainly not the hardworking people in the LCC industry. I only think Ryanair was completely right putting those pax on their blacklist, more airlines should do this consequently!
FLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4800 times:
Wow, five more? There was a thread on here a while ago where about 10 people were banned from Ryanair for the exact same reason. I'll see if I can dig it up.
My opinion - Ryanair are absolutely correct to ban people who smoke. There is absolutely no excuse for endagering the aircraft (which does not provide smoking facilities) and the lives of all on board, especially when it's been made perfectly clear that it's not allowed.
TheGreatChecko From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1121 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4509 times:
Being banned from RyanAir is that really all that bad?
Of course i'm kidding......Good job RyanAir! I wish I could've done the same at my previous jobs. You aren't mature enough to follow the rules....then we don't need your business, plain and simple.
To me this is a great example of a company backing up its employees. So many have rules, but when that front line employee goes to enforce it, there is little they can do but watch if the person ignores them. It really makes employees feel useless. Here's to RyanAir for putting some teeth in their regulations!
I wonder if any other airlines are as active in this area. I'm sure some airlines ban people from flying with them (like the lowlifes who flight with the FA's), but is it used as commonly and for similar offences as on RyanAir?
"A pilot's plane she is. She will love you if you deserve it, and try to kill you if you don't...She is the Mighty Q400"
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4035 times:
Five passengers have been banned for life for smoking on board aircraft. Three passengers have been banned for one year for disruptive behaviour and criminal damage.
Personally, I may be the minority here, but I think something is seriously wrong: Banned for life for smoking, while those who go on air rage and do criminal damage get banned for a year? So smokers are more dangerous than hooligans?
I beg to differ. Things belong the other way round.
COEWRNJ From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1061 posts, RR: 20 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3940 times:
I agree with you. If I were running the show, the air rage and criminal damage passengers would be the first to be banned for life. It's the passengers with air rage that are going to cause problems for the crew and the rest of the passengers. As for the smokers, I would just see that they were heavily fined and maybe banned for a short period of time.
I think they need to get their priorities straight.
WGW2707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1197 posts, RR: 37 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3933 times:
In the US, I am reasonably certain that this policy of Ryanair would clash with the "common-carrier" status of airlines. Of course, they can get away with it in Europe, along with a host of other policies ultimately designed to screw the consumer. One might ask oneself, while smoking onboard is illegal...why must Ryanair deliberately take a measure no other airline takes and go so far as to ban these people?
The answer cynically enough is PR; Ryanair has made a big media show out of banning these people from the airline. O'Leary is basically a classless, angry version of Richard Branson, they both like to get in the headlines, but whereas Branson gets in the news by claiming to provide the best service and cross-dressing as a stewardess, O'Leary prefers to get in the news by providing the worst service imaginable with an attitude, and by banning people for life from his airline.
It is my sincere hope that someday Europe will ban Ryanair from its skies forever, and that will certainly be a glorious moment in the history of commercial aviation.
Asuflyer05 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2370 posts, RR: 3 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3814 times:
One might ask oneself, while smoking onboard is illegal...why must Ryanair deliberately take a measure no other airline takes and go so far as to ban these people?
Because smoking onboard an aircraft puts the safety of passengers and crew at risk. I agree they are able to generate some PR over the incident. However it is better than the PR generated because of an onboard fire started by someone who had been caught smoking on a Ryanair flight before.
FLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3581 times:
"If I were running the show, the air rage and criminal damage passengers would be the first to be banned for life."
You'd get more than a ban for air rage - more than likely a criminal court case, a hefty fine or even a jail sentence, and then might still be banned for life (by the airline if not the relevant authorities.) Fortunately it appears that this has never happened on Ryanair (I'm sure we'd have heard if it had.)
I think it would be a fair punishment, given that the passenger would have caused severe disruption and possibly endangered the aircraft and everyone aboard. But you also must remember that smoking on board an aircraft, particularly one which has no provision for smoking (i.e. no ashtrays, and the only bins are probably full of paper towels) also endangers the aircraft and everyone aboard - therefore a life ban for this offence is also fair.
"One might ask oneself, while smoking onboard is illegal...why must Ryanair deliberately take a measure no other airline takes and go so far as to ban these people?"
Because they don't want one of their aircraft dropping out of the sky due to an inflight fire. If these people are so ignorant that they already have ignored countless warnings about smoking, then they could quite easily do it again.
"It is my sincere hope that someday Europe will ban Ryanair from its skies forever, and that will certainly be a glorious moment in the history of commercial aviation."
Er, why? Have you ever flown them? They may not offer the best service and they may have a CEO who, to many, seems like he needs a punch in the face, but they do what they say they will - get you there on time for the lowest fares. For people like me (i.e. student, not a lot of money) who can't even afford a normal-service economy ticket most of the time, Ryanair is a godsend.
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3257 times:
Actually, a few years ago I've heard BA did the same to a couple caught joining the Mile High club aboard their plane.
Airlines DO ban people for periods of time, or even life, if they feel it's warranted.
However, I do not believe that smokers pose a safety risk, aboard an aircraft full of inflammable materials. Smoking is a nuisance, and that's why it's banned on every European airline, as far as I know. Passengers should be fined, or even banned for a year. But to claim they pose a safety risk and ban them for life, while banning people comitting "criminal damage" and "causing a disturbance" only get banned for a year, that's illogical. I'd rather sit next to a chimney-breath than some drunk hooligan.
On the "banning Ryanair" thing: Ryanair is easily the best shorthaul airline in Europe (if not the world) today. They offer magnificient value for money, safety, and punctuality. I prefer those qualities to "customer service", especially if it means, in most cases, that I'd have to cough up 100-200% more. In fact, it recently was cheaper for me to fly CWL-DUB-EDI than to take the train.
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 12670 posts, RR: 13 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3102 times:
In the USA, smoking on a flight is totally forbidden and if you light up in the toilet, or disable the smoking alarm to do so, you can be arrested on Federal charges upon landing and subject to a large fine and possible jail time. As far as I know you may not be able to be 'banned' by the airline by law, but I am quite sure that have ways they can make it impossible for such persons to book a flight with them. Ryanair, as conterversial of an airline it is, made it clear at no real cost to them that they take such laws seriously (as well as getting lots of free publicity).
Ikarus From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 3524 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3010 times:
What I read there are allegations, without backup evidence. "Go and look it up if you like" isn't proving anything.
Despite the Air Canada incident (which involved a lavatory fire, thought whether it was caused by a smoker was not detailled on airdisaster.com), I would still feel safer around a smoker rathern than a violent person.
FLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2992 times:
If that's your opinion, well then fair enough, you're entitled to it. When I said "go and look it up" I was referring mainly to #31 from the Fire Safety officer - I'd say he/she was better qualified to comment than anyone else. My opinion still stands, however - Ryanair were correct to do what they did. And if they got extra publicity for it, well good for them.