MOL is 1000000000000% correct. The reason why. The DOT/FAA and any Government doesn't have .000000001% of the engineering smarts that Airbus or Boeing have for ten minutes on any Sunday at 2am. If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
The GOV is nothing but another set of Grifters.
Right to you MOL!
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
zippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4722 posts, RR: 13 Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 20928 times:
I always get the various airlines with Ryan in them confused so forgive me if I'm mistaken but, isn't Ryannair the super economy airline where they want or have made passengers pony up change to use the lav? If this is correct, it would be amazing that they are flying the Dreamliner. It's akin to my purchasing a 2013 Porsche 911 brand new. My apologies in advance if I'm off topic.
Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 847 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 20464 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 4): Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
I do not trust politics over engineering. But I suppose we could follow your lead and turn over everything to those Engineers at TSA and the FAA to run the country and everything we do every day, afterall they are the most intelligent and highest educated individuals in the nation.
Why would anyone work for Boeing or Airbus when they could work for the Government? B and A obviously only get third and fourth rate engineers, all the good ones obviously work for the DOT. Look the secretary of transport, LaHood is a highly educated mathematician who publicly stated planes shouldn't be in the air that are not 1000% safe. Knowing that we all go back to trains, that are also 1000% safe and cars which are far safer!
I like that perspective that the real smart ones don't work for the designers and manufacturers, but instead they are the politicians.
I presume you similarly believe the NRA is "Only" interested in your rights and has no interest in making money selling guns and ammunition? Its the same argument.
Nothing is what it appears. The FAA and DOT isn't qualified.
Or let me ask you this would you let the Secretary of Health operate on your partner, rather than a up to date qualified doctor? Might be a bad example, but do you really prefer politicians over professionals?
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16888 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 20331 times:
Considering that Ryanair is highly unlikely to ever fly the 787 (Even if they ever do start their rumored Transatlantic airline.), just noise from Mr. O'Leary. He seems to love the sound of his own voice and seeing his name in the papers.
The 787 problems are pretty serious stuff and the fact that the FAA and their equivalent in multiple countries grounded the type is hardly "regulatory crap". Passenger safety is the responsibility of not only the airlines but also the regulatory bodies in various countries and even the manufacturer of an a/c. Boeing is just lucky that there weren't any fatal incidents as the result of these issues.
SSTeve From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 434 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 20299 times:
From MOL's perspective, the regulators prevent a lot of envelope-pushing in favor of chasing extra 999s after the decimal place in aviation safety numbers. Not surprising "regulatory crap" is something he'd say.
Revelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 10453 posts, RR: 20 Reply 12, posted (2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19934 times:
Quoting SSTeve (Reply 12): From MOL's perspective, the regulators prevent a lot of envelope-pushing in favor of chasing extra 999s after the decimal place in aviation safety numbers.
The man's an idiot. He's one of the main benefactors of the regulator's vigilance over the years. No one would insure his planes never mind fly on them if it weren't for their work over the years, much which was done with cheapskate idiots like him complaining only about the costs.
It's par for the course for him. He scoops the creme off the milk, then complains it's not thick enough for his liking.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2321 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19932 times:
It makes you wonder what else does MOL consider "regulatory crap," to be dispensed with at the first opportunity... Not the best attitude for the CEO of an airline.
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1004 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19775 times:
Quoting UALWN (Reply 14): It makes you wonder what else does MOL consider "regulatory crap," to be dispensed with at the first opportunity... Not the best attitude for the CEO of an airline.
See my earlier comment. Anything O'Leary says needs to be taken with a truckload of salt, and the less attention we pay him, the better off we will all be.
The man is a Class-A [censored], but an annoyingly successful one.
[Edited 2013-03-19 14:05:42]
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
peterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 19746 times:
No wonder he's pissed off at the regulators, they wouldn't let him fit in 539 people in his "standing room only" 737s, they said no to his idea to allow people to store their children in the overhead luggage compartments and they said no to his idea to get rid of pilots and "let the stupid passengers fly the **ecking plane themselves".
Yes, that is Ryanair who only fly 737-800's currently. However, he did say that if Boeing could offer him some "cheap" 787's, he would have no issue flying them as they are today.
MOL's opinions are starting to make more sense than your posts, and THAT is scary.
Why bring the TSA into this? They have nothing to do with the safety and engineering of aircraft. BTW, the DOT has more to worry about than just airliners.....they are also responsible for railroads, highways and vehicles and so forth and in any government agency, the head of that agency is more or less an administrator.....they don't have to be an expert in that field.
BTW, the surgeon general of the U.S. is usually a medical doctor, so that theory of yours is wrong.
I'm not a government apologist, but your portrayal of some of these gov't workers is very wrong........most of the people that work, doing investigations for the NTSB are very, very good at what they do.
Using your logic (such as it is) then MOL should be the best pilot that he has, but he's not a pilot at all, is he? He's basically an administrator, which is the same as any other airline CEO that you can think of.
Not everyone can be a designer nor an engineer, can they?
And, on a final note......why bring the NRA into this? It has absolutely nothing to do with this subject.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, RR: 14 Reply 19, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18454 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 4): Lucky for the rest of the flying public not many people agree with you or MOL. I have absolutely no problem with the regulators erroring on the side of caution.
This CEO is speaking out of the lavs he wanted to charge his flyers to use. He doesn't know squat about the reasons why the 787 was grounded and in all seriousness has no right to say anything about it since his airline has one of the lowest customer service records on the planet
mayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 9185 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18350 times:
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20): This CEO is speaking out of the lavs he wanted to charge his flyers to use. He doesn't know squat about the reasons why the 787 was grounded and in all seriousness has no right to say anything about it since his airline has one of the lowest customer service records on the planet
Obviously, O'Leary has been out of the spotlight for awhile and he doesn't like that. Even if the subject has nothing to do with him, he'll stick his nose into it because it's newsworth (why, I don't know) and he'll get some free publicity out of it.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
PHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, RR: 14 Reply 21, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18070 times:
Quoting mayor (Reply 21): Obviously, O'Leary has been out of the spotlight for awhile and he doesn't like that. Even if the subject has nothing to do with him, he'll stick his nose into it because it's newsworth (why, I don't know) and he'll get some free publicity out of it.
Is this just his personality or what is it? I don't know enough about FR or O'Leary except from what I read here and in newspapers. Japanese media don't like him much either apparently.
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 18070 times:
Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 16): his idea to allow people to store their children in the overhead luggage compartments
Now, if he suggested carrying children in the cargo hold...
Quoting billreid (Thread starter): If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
I have a good friend who is an engineer for the FAA. He went to work for them after his position was eliminated by Grumman, where he worked on inconsequential programs like the F-14 and E-2.
cschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1032 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 17946 times:
Quoting billreid (Thread starter): MOL is 1000000000000% correct. The reason why. The DOT/FAA and any Government doesn't have .000000001% of the engineering smarts that Airbus or Boeing have for ten minutes on any Sunday at 2am. If these guys could design anything then they wouldn't be working for the DOT.
The GOV is nothing but another set of Grifters.
Right to you MOL!
Well, considering that two of B's 787's had battery related fires, clearly Boeing isn't 1000000% there yet, or even 100% there yet. As a passenger, I'd err on the side of caution and not get on one of those until the problem has been fixed. There's nothing wrong with making certain it's not an issue going forward.
From the article:
O'Leary said, "Look at the economics of the 737, the 800 [series] has 189 seats. The [Airbus] A320 has 180 seats. And those nine extra seats when you're flying them eight times a day, 365 days a year are a compelling competitive advantage for Boeing."
Kind of points to the feeling that Airbus would be wasting time trying to sell to Ryanair. John Leahy knows when not to waste resources.
KFLLCFII From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3262 posts, RR: 33 Reply 24, posted (2 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 17578 times:
If he views the government response to two potentially life-threatening thermal runaways as regulatory crap, then remind me to never fly on Ryanair. It's scary to think of what other regulatory crap he may be trying to evade.
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
25 ikramerica: I don't like agreeing with MOL, but I've been calling this same "crap" from the beginning of this unprecedented grounding without enough evidence to d
26 bennett123: http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-feb-traffic-down-3-percent Based on these figures, clearly not all of the seats are full. Without having furthe
27 Markam: Without getting into the issue of whether your (sarcastic) comment is correct, you should realize that it is not all about potential, incentives, amo
28 Revelation: MOL is the ultimate Grifter. He gets everyone else to pay for things like safety advancements and aviation infrastructure, and to keep people's eyes
29 seachaz: Michael O'Leary = Donald Trump of aerospace in terms of self promotion tactics.
30 bendewire: MOL does from time to time spout some real nonsence, however one thing is true the 787 is at the cutting edge of technology and the FAA and NTSB have
31 ltbewr: MOL hates govenment and their regulators (especially the EC 'government') but love their subsidies in taxes, for airports, for support services to get
32 trex8: Thats the whole point why the NTSB is so concerned! It wasn't picked up by the "testing"!!!
33 Asiaflyer: To develop and build airplanes or to be the regulatory body takes two different skill-sets.Airbus and Boeing engineers are good at what they do. FAA
34 CXfirst: And a highly trained, up to date, one at that, I would have no problem having the surgeon general treat me or my family. Plus they are generally neut
35 SPREE34: NTSB, I agree. FAA? FAA is a political agency run by fools and tools. People at the operational level, ie, systems techs, air traffic controllers, ma
36 Polaris: "Regulatory crap", or what little of it is left, is what protects the "little folks" from the "big folks". Without safety standards, how secure would
37 Mir: Of course it's a bad example, it's a horrible example. The FAA Administrator isn't doing anything with regard to the 787 batteries. Nor is the head o
38 planesarecool: Another hilarious A.net thread about Ryanair. He (or anybody else for that matter) won't care diddly squat about the individual opinions that posters
39 blueflyer: I guess there is karma in life. First MOL rapes Boeing, now he is their bitch... I strongly dislike him, but I happen to think he is one of the smarte
40 Aesma: Clearly you haven't been following the 787 saga too closely. First, the aircraft has real problems. Did the government design the failing parts ? No.
41 BlueSky1976: Two battery fires taking place within two weeks are enough evidence that 787 IS unsafe, with the current setup.
42 flyingalex: It is calculation. He figured out long ago that if he says something controversial, it gets airtime and column inches worldwide. Everytime he launche
43 abba: ... and what is properly even more important: in an organisation like Boeing and Airbus it is NOT the engineers who run the business. The higher mana
44 Eurohub: Neither do most of the posters on this forum and yet they are no less entitled to express their opinions about the 787 than he is! The only differenc
45 GDB: There are a lot of so called 'entrepreneurial' CEO's like him around, way beyond aviation. Their diet consisting largely of the hand that feeds them.
46 JValjean: Where third-party payers like governmental entities and insurance companies are responsible for providing payment, health care providers seeking paym
47 strfyr51: I wonder what HIS Maintenance records look like if He's making stupid statements like THAT?!?!
48 EagleBoy: I do not believe the B787 is unsafe......the batteries however are still an immature technology.
49 RomeoBravo: I would tend to agree with MOL. The FAA is a monopoly on safety standards, and i doubt anyone here would argue that monopolies are good.
50 pvjin: Safety should always be taken very seriously, grounding the 787 was the right thing to do instead of waiting for a total disaster to happen like with
51 Unflug: I certainly want a monopoly in a couple of areas: - law & legislation - law enforcement - safety regulation come to (my) mind first.
52 shankly: Pretty good interview. I like MOL...just not so keen on his airline! He was however being a little disingenuous regarding regulation. The passengers a
53 sankaps: If the grounding is crap and a political knee-jerk reaction, why is it that both McNerney and Conner basically said they knew a grounding was imminen
54 billreid: Why bring in TSA is because they are run by the EXACT same people as the FAA or the DOT or the FDA or the CIA or the FBI and 100000000 other Governme
55 cc2314: He doesn't seem like an idiot,he is basically trolling you and plenty of others.Sure aren't we here entertaining his pr. We all know whats going on h
56 bhill: billreid..the battery in an enclosed space was on frikken FIRE!!!! And the investigation is still not done on the actual engineering and testing that
57 flyingalex: billreid, if you're not trolling, then you need to go see your doctor. I think your medication needs to be adjusted. And don't forget to put your tinf
58 DTW2HYD: He got additional discount for putting that statement out or Boeing agreed to remove lavs from next batch of 737s.
59 pvjin: What is your suggestion then? No regulation of airplane design at all? Some private companies doing the certification process? Government should ALWA
60 trex8: computers, internet etc etc all just junk the government developed whilst dabbling in ways to kill other people and enforce hegemony on non Americans
61 Aesma: Again several people including the OP didn't follow the saga closely enough. One thing some us learned of it is that MANUFACTURERS HAVE A HUGE INFLUEN
62 mayor: No, it IS NOT the DOD that establishes the foreign ownership laws. Those were esablished by congress when they passed them and they are probably admi
63 RomeoBravo: I don't think i'd go that far. But you speak as if airlines have no incentive to prevent crashes and that the government is able to calculate the mil
64 flyingalex: It is absolutely not a ridiculous notion. The idea behind having a regulator is to have an independent check on what those directly involved are doin
65 RomeoBravo: You are suggesting that it is profitable to crash planes and kill people. It simply isn't. Please note that JL and NH pulled the flights voluntarily.
66 Aesma: Well since nobody can calculate it (again, the 787 saga suggests many probabilities are in fact calculated as part of certification) then a relatively
67 flyingalex: No, I am not. I am suggesting that it may be more profitable for Boeing to skimp on its testing programs. And that it may be more profitable for airl
68 Mir: If you gave the problem to the engineers at the FAA Certification Branch, they'd solve it, and they'd solve it well. But it's not their responsibilit
69 RomeoBravo: Then why did JL and NH ground 787 flights?
70 flyingalex: Because they saw the writing on the wall.
71 seabosdca: No. If you actually studied what the government did instead of just spouting uninformed, knee-jerk anti-government rants, you'd see just how wrong th
72 SYDAIRPORTS: MOL is spot on. Bureacracy gone made. Next you'll be telling us that the joke called the TSA is a good thing. MOL is brilliant at milking the media fo
73 SYDAIRPORTS: In light of what MOL said in interview about 738 over 320, why wouldn't Ryanair want the 739ER with 215 seats, compared to the 738 with 189 ? Or does
74 Bongodog1964: "Regulatory Crap" has provided a regime where flying is so safe that despite the huge increase in flights and passengers hull losses and passenger fat
75 flyingalex: For Ryanair, the problem with the 739 is that it requires an extra flight attendant. You need one flight attendant for every 50 seats or portion ther
76 aerowrench: Beautiful, as if pulled right from Atlas Shrugged.
77 aerowrench: Beautiful, as if pulled right from Atlas Shrugged.
78 mrocktor: 1. Draw a big + on a piece of paper. 2. In the top left space write "Mandatory and unnecessary" 3. In the top right space write "Mandatory and necessa
79 Aesma: I've never flown Ryanair but am considering them for a last minute trip next week because it's cheaper. However I would never consider it if there was
80 AirlineCritic: Now, if I didn't already believe that the 787 should have been grounded, that would have made be a firm believer that it should have been.
81 billreid: Interesting comment. Who do you think tells the lawmakers what to write? No you are right the lawmakers design everything ever made. In fact I believ
82 Kaiarahi: Why do you keep repeating this when you've been corrected on at least 3 other threads? NH and JL voluntarily grounded their own fleets, then the FAA
83 L410Turbolet: I am certainly glad that it is not O'Learys of this world who defining safety standards in civil aviation. What prevents MOL from cramming 300 people
84 GDB: Yes, the poisonous woman who wrote that, who also alienated just about everyone she ever knew as well, ended up living on the sort of social assistan
85 flyingalex: And before them, it was the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), the German Aerospace Center, who sent up the first yet aircraft to test
86 kalvado: There is a simple engineering criteria - one human life costs a few million dollars, sometimes they say 3M, sometimes 5-10M. Anyway, it is pretty eas
87 RomeoBravo: It's no good pompously telling people to go and read about economics and not actually explaining the mechanism as to why market failure would occur.
88 JimJupiter: It should not be the customer's obligation to obtain a degree in engineering first, to enable him to evaluate the risks he/she might take with his/he
89 RomeoBravo: Yeah the customer shouldn't be obliged to think. I don't need a politics degree to know it's not a good idea to go on holiday in Iraq. Poor airlines
90 JimJupiter: By planes dropping from the sky? No, thanks. I'll stay in my socialist wonder land then. You enjoy.
91 mayor: Probably the laws of physics keep him from doing that, but it is certainly Boeing that provides the engineering data to the airline so they can write
92 flyingclrs727: What would MOL know about it? Ryan Air has never flown an all new aircraft type. The 737 was decades old when Ryan Air started buying them.
93 JValjean: What's new about the media being largely ignorant about the subject they're reporting on? It's been the case since the dawn of mass media in the Nine
94 mayor: I think perhaps that it's more noticeable and obvious nowadays, considering how we receive our news, now.
95 sankaps: Nonsense. Regulators also define safety, egress, seating crash resistance, oxygen, medical kits, and other such restrictions. If you think an airline
96 mayor: Please read carefully, what I said.........I was talking about the WEIGHT & BALANCE of the a/c, nothing more. Where you got the rest of that, tha
97 sunrisevalley: My view is that there is no evidence that the system in place would not have worked. As for the NTSB bureauocrat who pontificates about being 1000% su
98 sankaps: Well, L410Turbolet had written: "What prevents MOL from cramming 300 people into a 738 regardless of any safety implications this idea may have? Boei
99 EIDL: They got the ATR42 relatively early in its service life, compared to how late after introduction they got the 1-11s/737s/etc.
100 PPVRA: An airline that does not maintain it's aircraft properly is going to have a host of other issues unrelated to accidents, like poor aircraft reliabili
101 sankaps: And planes dropping from the sky (which could happen at any time given the above scenario). Not too many would drop out of the skies though, as they'
102 mayor: Which I WAS NOT talking about........I was referring to WEIGHT & BALANCE, only. Of course the regulators are involved in all those other things.
103 sankaps: Then you clearly either did not understand the point L410 was making, or you intentionally gave a disingenuous response. I don't think there is any a
104 PPVRA: I think it's fair to say that's just a high level of alarmism. Not too discimilar to politicians attempting to invoke fear that the FAA may have to s
105 mayor: Tangent?? My reply was entirely about weight and balance. What would be the purpose for the manufacturer to go beyond the boundaries? Does the airlin
106 Aesma: Well airlines are always happy to put heavy stuff (be it first class suites or cargo) wherever on the floor/holds. I'm saying that there is a safety
107 pierrelav: Before Ryanair CEO goes on another rant, everyone should watch this informative video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi-x_UgTTOQ
108 777ER: This topic has gone off course and has turned into a flame bait, argument and political thread. Thread is now locked
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 847 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 4722 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2005, 99 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6358 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2012, 76 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 24894 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2321 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 229 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4959 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
