I think lots of people still believe that all Ryanair pilots are contractors. This has changed in recent years, with most pilots being hired directly by the company and paying local taxes (depending on the country).

Full disclosure, I’m a captain at Ryanair, and it’s not a bad place to be. I joined at a time (not long ago but before COVID) when the airline was hiring direct entry captains, providing the type rating with a 3-year bond (no salary deductions) and a full salary from day 1 of ground school. I understand that this is not the deal anymore, but with the pandemic who can blame them?

Depending on which country you’re based in, salaries are pretty decent when compared with other European carriers. There are Collective Labour Agreements and union representation in almost all of the west European countries. The roster is great, 5/4 with every night at your home base, plus lots of annual leave. Matching Pension contributions are much better than in my previous outfit.

I’m sure that other airlines have better overall packages, especially in the US. But many things have changed in Ryanair since 2017, however not all of them will last unfortunately as COVID is giving management again the upper hand.

IMHO, Ryanair hiring 2,000 pilots in the next 3 years is a hopeful and positive development.

Finally someone who knows what they ste talking about! And it doesn't sound anything what a lot of uou were suggesting.

It is madness to suggest that any new employer will not take account of hours gained! If an employer changes the type of aircraft is flys then they will pay for the training. If it is your choice to change type then uou pay usually. I fly with FR frequently. I consider them to be safe, efficient and above all consistent everything a passenger requires

Congratulations to them for offering pilots continued opportunities! Which legacy carrier can do the same?

bigb wrote:

You missed his point about the value of the type rating? Good example would be DC-9 type rating, what good does that do someone? His point was that a type rating value has a shelve life while the type is being flown worldwide in good
numbers. Unlike a Master’s degree value really doesn’t go away at all...

This is correct, we are talking about someone in the early 20ies that has probably spent around 120,000 euros on an integrated CPL with frozen ATPL course, FR they want they to pay an additional 30,000 euros for a type rating.

That like Boeing being told we know you just spend 20 million building that aircraft, how about you pay FR 5 million so we can fly it. Its okay, the aircraft will be getting lots of flying experience.

SIVB wrote:

Full disclosure, I’m a captain at Ryanair, and it’s not a bad place to be. I joined at a time (not long ago but before COVID) when the airline was hiring direct entry captains, providing the type rating with a 3-year bond (no salary deductions) and a full salary from day 1 of ground school. I understand that this is not the deal anymore, but with the pandemic who can blame them?

You are in a different situation, they didn't exploit any money out of you as you were a DEC. Not like you will get a DEC anywhere else.

What is your point about a DEC? I dont understand your comment!

bigb wrote:

pilot has the 737 type rating he/she can fly for airline flying them. If CX replace a type it doesn't make your type rating worthless with any other airline.

You missed his point about the value of the type rating? Good example would be DC-9 type rating, what good does that do someone? His point was that a type rating value has a shelve life while the type is being flown worldwide in good
numbers. Unlike a Master’s degree value really doesn’t go away at all...[/quote]

I missed no point at all. Your 'good' example is rather pointless in the context being discussed. Unlike the DC-9, the 737 will be flown worldwide in great numbers for decades yet. So, with 'shelf life' all is really being done is playing with words. I see no correlation at all with the example of a Master's degree

zeke wrote:

[

This is correct, we are talking about someone in the early 20ies that has probably spent around 120,000 euros on an integrated CPL with frozen ATPL course, FR they want they to pay an additional 30,000 euros for a type rating.

Again, I disagree and I feel like we are looking at something from entirely ways. With the amount of redundant pilots currently I would bet a fair amount of those hired will already have a 737 type rating. I seriously doubt that 2000 fresh, green pilots are going to be hired. Equally, a pilot, knowing that FR only fly 737's, who does not have that rating should certainly expect to pay for it himself. I fail to see why FR should pay it in these circumstances


[/quote]You are in a different situation, they didn't exploit any money out of you as you were a DEC. Not like you will get a DEC anywhere else.[/quote]

I don't see any exploitation at all. One would sensibly expect anyone applying for any job, either meets the minimum requirements for that job (in this case a 737 type rating), or pays to obtain that minimum requirement.

bigb wrote:

You missed his point about the value of the type rating? Good example would be DC-9 type rating, what good does that do someone? His point was that a type rating value has a shelve life while the type is being flown worldwide in good
numbers. Unlike a Master’s degree value really doesn’t go away at all...

I think a Master's degree's value does go away pretty steeply. Employers look at any/all real world work experience above whatever academic qualifications you may have (at least in my field, high tech, in my country, the US). I'd say its "value" relative to real world work experience has dropped by half three years after you've earned it, 80% by five years. I say this after having interviewed lots of candidates, and having interviewed for positions while holding a Master's degree.

I'd also say it's not that unusual for employers of professionals to pay tuition for Master's degree programs for people willing to study on their own time. It surely was happening in the mid 2010s at my last job with a household name type of corporation, and I took full advantage of it back in my day.

Students have a pretty good grip on all of the above. They know what sacrifices need to be made, and what perks may or may not be available. Just check in to any of the newbie forums and there's all kinds of banter on the ins and outs.

I see lots of evidence that parents also are pretty well informed. I think one of the reasons US airlines haven't been able to cheapen terms and conditions excessively is because parents are taking a lot more convincing that they should support their children when they seek to go down a path that will require six figure investments before they earn a dime, then several years more support till they are earning a living wage never mind repaying the investment in education.

I'm quite surprised that they have no trouble gaining applications.

Revelation wrote:

bigb wrote:

You missed his point about the value of the type rating? Good example would be DC-9 type rating, what good does that do someone? His point was that a type rating value has a shelve life while the type is being flown worldwide in good
numbers. Unlike a Master’s degree value really doesn’t go away at all...

I think a Master's degree's value does go away pretty steeply. Employers look at any/all real world work experience above whatever academic qualifications you may have (at least in my field, high tech, in my country, the US). I'd say its "value" relative to real world work experience has dropped by half three years after you've earned it, 80% by five years. I say this after having interviewed lots of candidates, and having interviewed for positions while holding a Master's degree.

I'd also say it's not that unusual for employers of professionals to pay tuition for Master's degree programs for people willing to study on their own time. It surely was happening in the mid 2010s at my last job with a household name type of corporation, and I took full advantage of it back in my day.

Students have a pretty good grip on all of the above. They know what sacrifices need to be made, and what perks may or may not be available. Just check in to any of the newbie forums and there's all kinds of banter on the ins and outs.

I see lots of evidence that parents also are pretty well informed. I think one of the reasons US airlines haven't been able to cheapen terms and conditions excessively is because parents are taking a lot more convincing that they should support their children when they seek to go down a path that will require six figure investments before they earn a dime, then several years more support till they are earning a living wage never mind repaying the investment in education.

Not disagreeing one bit, my wife employer is reimburses and over tuition assistance to get her Masters. In the US, it’s standard for employers to cover type ratings as well as that is part of running their business. In return, year 1 pay is low. You already have folks shelling out more that 100k on flight training just to get the required certificates and ratings just to enter into commercial flying. I think it’s a fair expectation to have operators cover and incorporate the type rating rating into the new hire training process. Hell, if the operator is concerned about folks leaving after getting the type, have the employees sign some form of training contract for the first two years.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of desperate folks out there who will buy their type ratings.

SteelChair wrote:

I'm quite surprised that they have no trouble gaining applications.

I'm kinda surprised parents spend five if not six figure sums to help their children earn other kinds of specializations, but then again I'm not a parent.

bigb wrote:

Not disagreeing one bit, my wife employer is reimburses and over tuition assistance to get her Masters. In the US, it’s standard for employers to cover type ratings as well as that is part of running their business. In return, year 1 pay is low. You already have folks shelling out more that 100k on flight training just to get the required certificates and ratings just to enter into commercial flying. I think it’s a fair expectation to have operators cover and incorporate the type rating rating into the new hire training process. Hell, if the operator is concerned about folks leaving after getting the type, have the employees sign some form of training contract for the first two years.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of desperate folks out there who will buy their type ratings.

Thanks for the post. I agree, the employer should be expecting to pay for specialized training, yet the employer should be able to protect itself from employees who would just walk as soon as they acquired the specialized training.

I find it objectionable that FR and others such as Lionair have turned training into a profit center, but I also find it objectionable that we have universities that are also profit centers. Some of the salaries of university executives are absurd.

zeke wrote:

What happens in the long run is these contractors have not received employee contributions to retirement schemes, when they go to retire have no retirement fund, s it is left to the public to fund their retirement. This is fundamentally wrong in my view.

It's unlikely in most of the EU or UK that the contractor could sensibly pay themselves in a way so as to avoid saving for retirement, it would simply be so tax inefficient that they'd lose money today, let alone in total lifetime.

I heard on the radio the other day that technical skills lose value after 18 months. The advantage of a diploma isn't necessarily what you learn, but the fact it proves you can learn.

My company spends 5-10K a year on my technical training (and I don't even have a Master's), some of which it must do so by law. With my salary I definitely couldn't afford that. Now if you pay me 20K more but I have to pay for my training, we have a deal !

JibberJim wrote:

It's unlikely in most of the EU or UK that the contractor could sensibly pay themselves in a way so as to avoid saving for retirement, it would simply be so tax inefficient that they'd lose money today, let alone in total lifetime.

I have seen being discussed in the courts many times, it is in my view exploiting employees just like payment of training and uniforms which takes away from the employees long term retirement savings. In my view they count on the employees not having the funds to challenge the employer in court.

They call it shiny jet syndrome, pilots tripping over themselves to secure a job, justifying to themselves the short term loss in income for a job, taking out loans to cover training etc. It just doesn't get better. Then when it comes to retirement, their funds are just not there.

"Under Spanish law, a contractor does not enjoy the same workers’ rights as an employee and the airline does not have to contribute to the worker’s social security payments."

from https://www.reuters.com/article/ryanair ... SL8N1W539O

"Pilot or L.L.C.?
When Robertus Van Boekel applied for a pilot’s job at Ryanair in 2009, he interviewed at Brookfield Aviation, a British personnel agency.

Ryanair rarely hired new pilots directly. Instead, they were told to take the unusual step of applying to Brookfield or McGinley Aviation, another British recruiter, and declare themselves as self-employed.

Brookfield handed Mr. Van Boekel, who was based in Belgium, a list of Irish accounting firms and told him to choose one, according to a 2013 lawsuit that Brookfield brought against Mr. Van Boekel when he resigned to work at another carrier. The accountants made him a shareholder and director of a Dublin-based “service company” called Winged Foot Ltd. Brookfield then arranged for the company to supply Mr. Van Boekel’s piloting services to Ryanair, the suit said.

After German authorities began investigating Brookfield, Ryanair last summer turned to a new employment company to contract pilots, BlueSky Resources, set up by an agency called Crewlink that the carrier uses to hire flight crew. McGinley Aviation and Crewlink declined to comment. A spokeswoman at Brookfield, Elaine He, said it was no longer handling pilot recruitment for Ryanair."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/busi ... ilots.html

So my question is, when this article talks about hiring another 2000 pilots, is it actually 2000 employees ?

Noshow wrote:

The days at work and flight hours are very much scheduled according to regulations.

There will be a lot of EK, EY, QR and FZ pilots getting a good laugh out of this comment!

Vicenza wrote:

zeke wrote:

Noshow wrote:

You gain experience and flight hours fast. FR even has a history of fast progress to the left seat. It's not all bad. After a few years pilots can move on to legacy airlines if they want and they do it.
Try to start as a pilot with any legacy airline as a newbie for comparison.

Who care is they “gain experience and flight hours fast”, that straight away tells me you have no idea about fatigue management. Do you understand that “flight hours” is less than half the hours any pilot speds “at work”. The majority of time at the behest of the employer is unpaid.

If they leave FR as a captain and you don’t join BA as a captain, you go to the bottom of the list at BA again. All those hours and 737 type rating is all irrelevant to BA. All BA wants to see is a pilot with an ATPL, class 1 medial and the right to work.

Besides the masters university qualification being quoted on here is more akin to the ATPL theoretical knowledge and exams, a masters in itself has no practical use in day to day work.

This overcharging of cadets for type ratings is like a hospital saying to a newly hired board registered Radiographer that they have to pay for their own training on the CT and MRI equipment used at that hospital.

If you have a masters, you have that for life, a 737 rating is only as good as long as 737s are in service. I would wager FR will start replacing 737s with another type within 10 years. I firmly believe the 737Max is the end of the line for the 737,,so essentially it’s a worthless investment.

I would respectively disagree Zeke (and most unusually with yourself). Ryanair do not fly either widebodies or long haul, but they rigorously adhere to all regulations.

So short haul pilots can't get fatigued? You try having a weeks worth of sign on times that go from 0530 1245, 0800, 1900 and 1100 respectively and see if you're not fatigued after flying that for a few weeks.

Fliplot wrote:

If an employer changes the type of aircraft is flys then they will pay for the training.

So Ryanair is paying for their pilots 737MAX conversion, not the pilots themselves?

zeke wrote:

"Pilot or L.L.C.?
When Robertus Van Boekel applied for a pilot’s job at Ryanair in 2009, he interviewed at Brookfield Aviation, a British personnel agency.

Ryanair rarely hired new pilots directly. Instead, they were told to take the unusual step of applying to Brookfield or McGinley Aviation, another British recruiter, and declare themselves as self-employed.

Brookfield handed Mr. Van Boekel, who was based in Belgium, a list of Irish accounting firms and told him to choose one, according to a 2013 lawsuit that Brookfield brought against Mr. Van Boekel when he resigned to work at another carrier. The accountants made him a shareholder and director of a Dublin-based “service company” called Winged Foot Ltd. Brookfield then arranged for the company to supply Mr. Van Boekel’s piloting services to Ryanair, the suit said.

After German authorities began investigating Brookfield, Ryanair last summer turned to a new employment company to contract pilots, BlueSky Resources, set up by an agency called Crewlink that the carrier uses to hire flight crew. McGinley Aviation and Crewlink declined to comment. A spokeswoman at Brookfield, Elaine He, said it was no longer handling pilot recruitment for Ryanair."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/16/busi ... ilots.html

So my question is, when this article talks about hiring another 2000 pilots, is it actually 2000 employees ?

Exactly, it's disgusting how they are turning employees into contractors to deny them rights, shirk tax responsibilities and make it easier to fire people who raise safety issues. I don't imagine that it's very attractive (to pilots) as far as rostering goes as well.

Wizz does the same and there are plenty of others. This is an area where the EU has really dropped the ball and shows no sign of taking action.

A Latvian government has just approved another equity injection into Air Baltic (BT). This time in the amount of 90 mln euro. The state aid is conditional on approval by the EC. We probably all expect that the EC decision, if positive, will be appealed against by Ryanair. The situation is very interesting as I recall the last time the EC made the Latvian government to scale down the amount of the state aid granted to BT from the initial 286 mln euro to 250 mln euro. The entire amount of 250 mln euro was received by BT as equity.

https://www.rynek-lotniczy.pl/wiadomosc ... 12249.html

The pricing of air Baltic is definitely interesting. I have been living in Kaunas, Lithuania since times immemorial when the first A300s came into existence. Consequently, you would expect me to have flown BT dozens of times. Well, nope. I have taken 7 flights with them (btw, I don't fly Ryanair or Wizz at all). Wherever I need to go, Lufthansa always seem to be cheaper, especially if you have luggage. I don't know the market from Latvia that well, but, from Lithuania, they essentially do connections for Air France and KLM. But there should be daily flights VNO-AMS and VNO-CDG allowing for more flexibility, or even more than daily. Connection times are not so good, either. In 2019, flew VNO-SJO/BOG-VNO. Lufthansa was 200 euro cheaper per person. In two weeks, VNO-MEX-VNO. Lufthansa 150 euro cheaper plus nice connections. With Air Baltic, in too many cases, they just fly you via RIX.
In my opinion, they could develop a nice network from Vilnius. Such routes as MUC are begging to be 7 days per week but not just MO-WE-FR. They essentially ignore the weekend tourism. Milan is fashionable in Lithuania these days. Of course, you fly via Riga. LH is usually much cheaper. No idea why. In short, I always have the feeling that because I am midrange (slightly upmarket) passenger, I cannot afford Air Baltic. They may behave like a low-cost but they are low-cost only on the diaspora routes (UK, Norway, Germany...). Elsewhere, I have no idea which part of the market they are going for. not for me, definitely.

Fr will bleed money. . BT has better network and planes to fill for such limited market. Flying secondary airport means you will have to pay more for ground transportation or waste more time. People will choose FR only when tickets will be dirty cheap. I personally avoid their 738 and now even more with 737max. Lufthansa all the way or Sas or BT. I vote with my wallet.

Kikko> it depends on your situation. I have a family of 4. Imagine a fare difference of 25 euro per person, and the taxi is 70 euro. You ultimately save 30 euro plus whatever you would have paid when reaching your destination from the main airport. besides, if people rent a car, the remoteness of the airport has no impact. immigrants often live in 'interesting' places. then, the 'secondary' airport may become the primary one for them.
I would say that both will lose in the short run but both will be fine in the long run, the customer will win. The problem right now is the COVID restrictions in Latvia which seem quite strict in comparison to some other countries

edited for spelling

The A220 is one of the best decisions BT made, for there smaller market they could have easily went with the 737NG and MAX or the A320 family which is standard for most smaller national carriers, they would have had more empty seats to fill and would have to raise prices to compensate for it, a LCC comes in and takes PAX away making the carrier either raise prices further and put more PAX off or reduce prices and fight a losing battle with an LCC on cost. The A220 is right sized for their market right now.

MCTSET wrote:

The A220 is one of the best decisions BT made, for there smaller market they could have easily went with the 737NG and MAX or the A320 family which is standard for most smaller national carriers, they would have had more empty seats to fill and would have to raise prices to compensate for it, a LCC comes in and takes PAX away making the carrier either raise prices further and put more PAX off or reduce prices and fight a losing battle with an LCC on cost. The A220 is right sized for their market right now.

A bigger plane would certainly be appropriate for some key routes, ie. those were, not by accident, BT encounters competition from Ryanair or Wizzair. It will also be interesting to see the impact on the LF of moving to an all A220 fleet. The 75% LF of 2019 was achieved when one third of the fleet was still Q400 with just 76 seats. It may also result in BT pulling out of some routes/reducing frequences.

Another interesting point is what will happen with further contracted planes, given the slump in demand, evidenced by the need for more state aid. Irrespective of the slump in demand, coming planes may push BT to start opening more and more thin routes, with the obvious effect on the LF.

I am sure Ryanair is watching closely. If I remember correct, 250 mln euro is a limit of state aid given in the form of equity, where no compensatory measures must be applied. It seems that summing up the 2020 and 2021 aid, BT will be above that limit.

artflyer wrote:

MCTSET wrote:

The A220 is one of the best decisions BT made, for there smaller market they could have easily went with the 737NG and MAX or the A320 family which is standard for most smaller national carriers, they would have had more empty seats to fill and would have to raise prices to compensate for it, a LCC comes in and takes PAX away making the carrier either raise prices further and put more PAX off or reduce prices and fight a losing battle with an LCC on cost. The A220 is right sized for their market right now.

A bigger plane would certainly be appropriate for some key routes, ie. those were, not by accident, BT encounters competition from Ryanair or Wizzair. It will also be interesting to see the impact on the LF of moving to an all A220 fleet. The 75% LF of 2019 was achieved when one third of the fleet was still Q400 with just 76 seats. It may also result in BT pulling out of some routes/reducing frequences.

Another interesting point is what will happen with further contracted planes, given the slump in demand, evidenced by the need for more state aid. Irrespective of the slump in demand, coming planes may push BT to start opening more and more thin routes, with the obvious effect on the LF.

I am sure Ryanair is watching closely. If I remember correct, 250 mln euro is a limit of state aid given in the form of equity, where no compensatory measures must be applied. It seems that summing up the 2020 and 2021 aid, BT will be above that limit.

Interesting what does the compensatory measures entail? Giving up certain slots or route pairings, I doubt any BT routes are slot constrained so that would not have an affect. What other measures could they impose?

MCTSET wrote:

artflyer wrote:

MCTSET wrote:

The A220 is one of the best decisions BT made, for there smaller market they could have easily went with the 737NG and MAX or the A320 family which is standard for most smaller national carriers, they would have had more empty seats to fill and would have to raise prices to compensate for it, a LCC comes in and takes PAX away making the carrier either raise prices further and put more PAX off or reduce prices and fight a losing battle with an LCC on cost. The A220 is right sized for their market right now.

A bigger plane would certainly be appropriate for some key routes, ie. those were, not by accident, BT encounters competition from Ryanair or Wizzair. It will also be interesting to see the impact on the LF of moving to an all A220 fleet. The 75% LF of 2019 was achieved when one third of the fleet was still Q400 with just 76 seats. It may also result in BT pulling out of some routes/reducing frequences.

Another interesting point is what will happen with further contracted planes, given the slump in demand, evidenced by the need for more state aid. Irrespective of the slump in demand, coming planes may push BT to start opening more and more thin routes, with the obvious effect on the LF.

I am sure Ryanair is watching closely. If I remember correct, 250 mln euro is a limit of state aid given in the form of equity, where no compensatory measures must be applied. It seems that summing up the 2020 and 2021 aid, BT will be above that limit.

Interesting what does the compensatory measures entail? Giving up certain slots or route pairings, I doubt any BT routes are slot constrained so that would not have an affect. What other measures could they impose?

Irrespective whether the airports are slot constrained, the requirement may for example be to reduce frequences or cancel routes for a certain period of time. Basically the amount of aid (250 mln euro and now 90 mln euro), when compared to the size of BT, and in addition the fact that it was/it is all equity, makes it one of the bigger cases in the EU.

As a side point I am also wondering whether Latvia should not rather try to restructure BT, making sure the bondholders have a share in the overall cost.

Do I remember correctly that the first aid was appealed against by Ryanair? I guess that Ryanair, in its battle against the EC decision to approve grant of the first aid, will now be raising the argument that this aid proved to be ineffective. I mean one of the prerequisites for grant of the aid is that it will be effective in bringing the recipient back to liquidity. Interesting developments ahead.

Welcome to the Ryanair thread!

... including Malta Air, Buzz, Lauda, RUK and MOL.

Important: state rather unknown facts only by providing links to sources.

—

With their 8-200 deliveries they are back on announcing new routes. Including to Morocco and Jordan!

https://www.fly4free.com/flight-deals/e ... ss-europe/

is anyone else concerned about what appears to be a scattergun launch of hundreds of new routes on (fairly) large aircraft to historically small route pairings during a pandemic?

hehe. Here the FR CEO explains himself:

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... nce-568626

On the question "Do you see potential for adding other, let's say North African countries?", he replies:

"I'm in no hurry to go to another country."
too bad

by738 wrote:

is anyone else concerned about what appears to be a scattergun launch of hundreds of new routes on (fairly) large aircraft to historically small route pairings during a pandemic?

Not at all - FR have the data that other airlines don't have , the costs to drive demand and the flexibiilty to trim, add, adjust as necessary at lightning speeds. The pandemic requires advance organisational flexibility and FR is the master of OD.

Ryanair are specialists in low-demand, low-frequency city pairs. Particularly the kind that have poor connections to hubs, or overland options making travel times unattractive compared to their service. Think of Ireland-U.K. where they grew out of. Their GB domestic services have been nowhere near as successful where the train and bus is a viable option, for example.

If you compare the easyJet and Ryanair networks with roughly similar size fleets FR offers far more city pairs, implying lower frequency.

BrianDromey wrote:

If you compare the easyJet and Ryanair networks with roughly similar size fleets FR offers far more city pairs, implying lower frequency.

Planespotters.net shows easyJet with 165 aircraft and Rayanir with 258.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Ryanair

MIflyer12 wrote:

BrianDromey wrote:

If you compare the easyJet and Ryanair networks with roughly similar size fleets FR offers far more city pairs, implying lower frequency.

Planespotters.net shows easyJet with 165 aircraft and Rayanir with 258.

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Ryanair

Ryanair’s fleet is closer to 500 aircraft if you include Malta Air, Buzz, and Lauda.

Currently are 208 MAX8-200 deliveries for the whole group outstanding.

They negotiate about ordering 100 MAX10

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanair ... roup_fleet

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-07-26/

The vast majority of Latvians are perfectly happy with FR - most Latvians I know have never flown Air Baltic and think of FR as their go to airline. Air Baltic are a nice airline, offer good connections and those aircraft are lovely. Hopefully there's room for both to prosper and grow.

Do you see rising CO2 and flight taxes as a threat to Ryanair?

In their FY2020 they paid 383 million euro for the UK APD, 85 million euro for the German APD and 150 million euro for the EU EHS. 630 million euro in environmental taxes total. In the end it was just 11% of the the price (4,12€), but could rise quickly.

As far as I see it, Ryanair operates mostly inside the EU/EEA and some flights from the EU/EEA to outside. While Wizz is present and expands into other places where CO2 and flight taxes are less likely to be imposed.

Europe is the continent with the cheapest international ULCC fares. Are the 10€ fares going to be over?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... hamMJlh0nm, page 13

Navigato - thank you for posting Ryanair policy document on the environment. I don't think I have ever seen such a load of greenwash and rubbish that somebody has spouted without meaning a word of it... in my entire life

Ryanair pulls completely out of Northern Ireland.
There doesn't seem to be a high demand.

People in Northern Ireland are used to fly from Dublin?

https://aviation.direct/en/ryanair-stel ... fluege-ein

Ryanair offers tickets from Germany to Tel Aviv for 13€.

Even though the German APD for this route is 32€ already.

https://www.kiwi.com/ee/search/results/ ... lude=false

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... nger_taxes

airlinenavigato wrote:

Ryanair offers tickets from Germany to Tel Aviv for 13€.

Even though the German APD for this route is 32€ already.

https://www.kiwi.com/ee/search/results/ ... lude=false

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... nger_taxes

Same as W6 heavily discounting from TLV, loads must be pretty poor due to the restrictions.

Does anyone know why some Ryanair aircraft have winglets painted differently to the standard FR winglet? The Ryanair titles are not applied to either side of this winglet. It’s often the case that I see a Ryanair aircraft with two of the different winglets. Is this an older style of winglet or possibly a replacement? I would appreciate if anybody knew the reason for this. Photos linked below.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... AlJWMos%3D

EI757 wrote:

Does anyone know why some Ryanair aircraft have winglets painted differently to the standard FR winglet? The Ryanair titles are not applied to either side of this winglet. It’s often the case that I see a Ryanair aircraft with two of the different winglets. Is this an older style of winglet or possibly a replacement? I would appreciate if anybody knew the reason for this. Photos linked below.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... AlJWMos%3D

I too noticed this on a Ryanair flight last year but that particular aircraft was initially delivered from Boeing without winglets, so I assume the aircraft with plain white winglets facing towards the aircraft itself, have been retrofitted since delivery, I don’t think there are many aircraft that were delivered without winglets though. Some of the older Ryanair aircraft now are 17/18 years old but not many

New routes from London announced, although I'm pretty sure LTN > LPA has been around some time ..

https://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/ne ... n-aiports/

Galwayman wrote:

New routes from London announced, although I'm pretty sure LTN > LPA has been around some time ..

https://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/ne ... n-aiports/

On this route Wizz and Ryanair don't fly 2 times weekly on the same days – and on the same time of the day ^^. Having that kind of aggressive competition I cannot really understand.

—

EI757 wrote:

Does anyone know why some Ryanair aircraft have winglets painted differently to the standard FR winglet? The Ryanair titles are not applied to either side of this winglet. It’s often the case that I see a Ryanair aircraft with two of the different winglets. Is this an older style of winglet or possibly a replacement? I would appreciate if anybody knew the reason for this. Photos linked below.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... AlJWMos%3D

Possible is:
- They want to see, which winglet saves more fuel actually
- Another winglet had a lower price than the previously added
- The different designs could have a small marketing purpose

No, as mentioned up thread, the ones with no titles are post delivery fitted, the ones with titles were delivered from the factory. Over time they are swapped around the fleet.
Ryanair retro-fitted their whole existing B738 fleet with winglets as well as having them added to all new builds from then on.

Ryanair intends to buy up to 250 MAX 10 aircraft and grow by 50 planes yearly. That is one new plane every week. Around 4 new routes every week. That's ambitious!

So by the year 2032 they would have 1000 aircraft

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-08-31/

airlinenavigato wrote:

Ryanair intends to buy up to 250 MAX 10 aircraft and grow by 50 planes yearly. That is one new plane every week. Around 4 new routes every week. That's ambitious!

So by the year 2032 they would have 1000 aircraft

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 021-08-31/

I think many of these new deliveries will be used as a direct replacement of some older planes.

For replacing the 737-800 they already get up to 60 MAX 200 per year.


Graph as of July 2021

35+55+60+60=210. There is no order to get new aircraft for after 2024 yet.

Interesting, that Ryanair goes more for the MAX10. An order of 250 would bigger than their MAX200 order.

https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ded-567852

EI757 wrote:

Does anyone know why some Ryanair aircraft have winglets painted differently to the standard FR winglet? The Ryanair titles are not applied to either side of this winglet. It’s often the case that I see a Ryanair aircraft with two of the different winglets. Is this an older style of winglet or possibly a replacement? I would appreciate if anybody knew the reason for this. Photos linked below.

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... f6qhMtA%3D

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ryanair ... AlJWMos%3D

Wait until you discover that some of the ‘harps’ on the tail and fuselage are straight and some wonky. It really upsets my OCD.

This winter Ryanair gonna get 55 new MAX 8-200.

And the first with Buzz livery are about to be delivered.


I like the winglet style ^^

Am interested to see how many NG aircraft are going to be phased out this winter

https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryan ... ?market=en

Ryanair might be as cheap as they get but one thing I gotta give it to them is that they always have nice/interesting liveries ... unlike some like Wizz Air and easyJet.

Blerg wrote:

Ryanair might be as cheap as they get but one thing I gotta give it to them is that they always have nice/interesting liveries ... unlike some like Wizz Air and easyJet.

And they are more punctual than these two and a lot of other airlines.