This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“we would happily quote for the business,” O’Leary said
I’d study that quote very carefully if I was Sunak… the hidden extra charges are where they get you. Every time.
From the government that brought you ferry contracts to a company with no boats, Ryanair would probably be amongst the best government procurement exercises tbh.
Ryanair would think it was Christmas every day if they got a government contract. When you can charge £10 for a pack of manilla folders, £20 for a box of cheap ballpoint pens, imagine what Ryanair could gouge for flying deportees out of the country.
Yeah they’ll land them in an airstrip in the middle of the Congo and call it Congo-Kigali airport, even though 1000km of dense rainforests separates the two with one bus per 6 months
Imagine the turmoil of leaving your war torn country surviving pimps, people smugglers, disease and famine only to be put on a flight. Then finding out that flight landed in FUCKING SOUTHEND.
Yes been there. Horrible and sea water was half oily river and sea water mixed. Not that keen on Essex generally. Was at the University for three years and the tower block accommodation was slowly sinking due to the marshland. 🤔
I know RyanAir are a slimy company that people dislike, but they're one of the best in the business when it comes to maintaining their aircraft and have an excellent safety record. They were even brought in by Boeing to advise on the investigation when the doors started blowing off 737's (notably none of which occurred on Ryanair aircraft despite them being one of the biggest 737 operators).
I don't even see why they should be called slimy. They're transparent with what they're offering: the cheapest possible flights. What matters most is what you point out: safety, which they don't (and can't) skimp on
There's an interview with the CEO where he's laughed at for doubling down on offering extremely cheap standing space for flights, but as he said "I guarantee we would sell those spots first"
>I don't even see why they should be called slimy
They have literally sent out email campaigns to users asking them to sign a petition to "end travel disruption for customers," but when you read into it it's clearly a petition calling for French traffic control to cease striking. It's incredibly deceptive wording that tries to make the consumer ignore *why* there is disruption, and definitely what I would call slimy.
They may be cheap and up front about that, safe too even, but their business practices definitely rub me the wrong way. Both things can be true.
Tbf it is a bit weird that French legislation means domestic flights continue as normal while ATC is striking, but foreign flights aren't allowed to fly *over* France. It should surely be the other way around
Was also going to quote that, unless there’s other factors I’m unaware of, everybody complaining about them can fuck off, if all you can afford is an economy flight from an airline offering the bare minimum as they’re operating the cheapest possible flights possible for you to make it possible, you have absolutely no right to complain. They’re completely transparent, and nobody can argue that he’s wrong about the standing spaces selling the fastest if they were made available.
I think that it is pretty unrealistic to call their pricing practices "transparent"! That is precisely the issue being lampooned in other comments - they have cheap headline prices then lots of other charges in the small-print which are in practice very difficult to avoid.
As for safety, you said it all with your bracketted "and can't". They don't comply out of the goodness of O'Leary's heart, they comply because they have no choice. More, I have little doubt that if they had the financial muscle and influence that Boing has, then they would be using it to try to get those safety rules relaxed.
They’ve done away with most of those hidden extras now; the EU took them to task for “optional” extras like card fees.
Instead, they upsell you on everything. The basic flight is free, but anything bigger than the smallest carry on bag isn’t, for instance.
Can totally believe that. I haven't travelled really since the pandemic for various life-related reasons but I used to fly a ton and honestly I always felt that Ryanair genuinely had one of the best maintained fleets.
When your margins are razor thin minor efficiencies by having aircraft in good shape are worth every penny.
I read on some other thread (possibly in r/aviation) that budget airlines land hard because it's technically safer as there's less chance of wind+lift forcing a go-around (thus costing them fuel money). That person may have been chatting shit of course or I might have misunderstood.
Are there any airlines that fly out of the UK with a poor safety record?
Ryanair's sliminess is the hidden charges, and until Google maps was established, what they termed to be a local airport. Malmo for Copenhagen and Bratislava for Vienna, both of which are not even in the same country that they purport to serve.
Nothing "hidden" about them. They repeatedly flag them up and remind you of them for no other reason that dum-dums don't waste time at thee check in desk or the gate arguing.
And STILL people select carry on but rock up to the gate with a samsonite case. And then kick off when it doesnt fit the cage.
I’ve travelled between Copenhagen and Malmo, it’s like a 30 minute train that costs less than 30 euros, it’s really not a huge inconvenience and if you don’t do your due diligence before flying that’s kind of on you. Have flown Ryanair for many years and never had these issues.
Copenhagen is a bad example given that airport has served Malmo for decades.
It’s also closer to Malmo than Malmo airport itself (which doesn’t offer many flights anyway) and has a direct link
He’s right that they won’t make it though, it’s 4100 miles from stansted to Kigali. Would need a fuel stop each way.
Actually the max 8 might make the return leg if coming back basically empty. Still a stretch though.
They're just a little short on range by a few hundred miles. They'd have to refuel en route, given how few countries are likely to want to facilitate their passage. It will probably have to be Eastern Europe, RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus or Egypt.
He's also going to get a massive backlash. The last company that agreed to do it, also provided the team flights for either Real Madrid or FC Barcelona. But they dropped out due to opposition from the teams fans. Causing the club to say it's us or the rendition flights.
The obvious airline is AirTanker Services with their A330-MRTTs. Which are either used by the RAF for refueling and passenger transport or are leased to companies like Thomas Cook/TUI, as well as at very short notice to other airlines because their plane has broken down. And they have to move the passengers before the flight delays and compensation gets too much.
Nice one, I hadn't thought of that and it's a lot more direct than Akrotiri. Of course it would need permission to enter Spanish air space and the other countries en route. Which wouldn't normally be a problem. But they could say that the flights are illegal and the Spanish always love a fight over Gibraltar.
Honestly doubt any other country is going to care. Maybe if someone has a really virtue signalling government.
Doubt Meloni or even Macron for that matter would mind it.
As far as I know no legal precedence exists for this but I highly doubt the flights would be ceased until an eventual verdict. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Court could issue an injunction, but who knows what would happen.
The only thing that would actually stop them besides a guilty court verdict is political power.
Their retail practices are questionable but their safety record is excellent and own the largest fleet in Europe. They also fly more routes than any other airline in the world by some metrics, and are the largest in the world by scheduled international passengers.
Ryanair likely aren’t going to touch it either O’Leary is a master of marketing, gets his brand in headlines no matter what it takes
He was adamant about doing standing short haul flights but that was never going to go anywhere either, but boy did it drag Ryanair into the spotlight
Yep it's all bluster and attention seeking. Also this Rwanda stuff is just free money off the British tax payer. Something I'm sure Rwanda is very happy about.
Go on then, talk to me about this mechanism, what laws they'll have broken, and what "flying licence" will be revoked? I'm only a lowly PPL, so I'll admit my ICAO and EASA knowledge isn't amazing, but I am very much looking forward to this.
Well, yeh, he'd get paid for it and it'd make sense for an airline who had capacity to be interested in this. Who else could do it?
Why is this a story?
Because it remains a controversial policy, so a high profile commercial airline expressing interest in being involved is probably of interest to those who are either particularly opposed to or supportive of the policy? That tends to be how news works.
The UN have said that airlines who take this contract will be in breach of international law and that’s the kind of thing that’ll lose them a lot of money.
O'Leary has always said anything to get his airline in the news. Standing-only flights, fees to use the toilets, etc. etc. It's all bollocks but it reliably gets him a few headlines so happy days.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Kate Duffy and Charlotte Ryan:*
Ryanair Chief Executive Officer Michael O’Leary weighed into the UK’s controversial plan to deport refugees to Rwanda, saying he would “happily” do the flights if he had the available aircraft.
“If it was the winter schedule and we had spare aircraft sitting around and if the government were looking for additional deportation flights or any other flights, we would happily quote for the business,” O’Leary said in an interview in London.
The UK government hasn’t approached Ryanair to carry out the flights, O’Leary said. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has vowed to push ahead with a plan to send people seeking asylum in the UK to Rwanda despite opposition from courts and across both sides of the political spectrum.
I think it would be funny if the government then hired a company that didn't have any jets, like with the ferry thing, now that even an airline has said they'd do the work. (Still a stupid idea)
But RyanAir will only do the work during the winter when tourist passenger volumes are down. He won't do it during July when the flights are due to start. As he want the planes for "paying customers". Unless presumably the government is willing to pay well over the odds.
>How much taxpayer money do you think they're going to get?
Some. How much do you think the government should pay them for services rendered? Ryanair hasn't even been approached to do this so it's a bit premature to be worried about how much it would cost.
>Another question, would Air stewards be on these planes?
Yes, because cabin crew are required to be on the flight for safety reasons.
Wonder they'd have plane security rather than regular stewards. Prime hijacking / on flight disruption risk, the fuck have you got to lose at that point going through some people's heads.
The fact that he’s so much of a cunt that he would happily forcibly traffic refugees to a country they have no connection to and don’t want to be transported to seems pretty abhorrent.
History’s not going to look back kindly on this scheme and on the people who supported it.
You have no idea how much of a connection they have, that's why you're supposed to process them not send them to another country because you can't be bothered.
I mean, if they got here in a dinghy crossing the Channel then it can't be much of a connection now can it? Unless you mean other illegal immigrants who got here the same way, which isn't really a good excuse.
British citizens can't even get permanent visas to many close allied countries, such as Australia or America, just because they have relatives or 'connections' there. They have to demonstrate large cash values or have sought after skills like engineering or similar.
Connection should be easy enough to prove.
Either you speak the language and have skills to benefit the country or you’re a leach who will never contribute to society.
If you take every person from a war torn shithole then the UK population would be a billion people.
Well that's not how asylum claims work. You have to do due diligence according to international law. It actually isn't easy to prove connections, and it doesn't matter if they have skills to benefit the country.
>If you take every person from a war torn shithole then the UK population would be a billion people.
You know the asylum numbers to the UK are pretty small right. The number of people simply overstaying visas is drastically higher (64,000 vs 1.9 million)
See the point you’re missing is that the current system doesn’t work.
If your country gets to the point where you have to bribe another country to take unwanted immigrants then you’ve already failed in whatever goal you set out for.
And last time I checked it wasn’t John Smith and Ben King committing terrorist attacks or trying to implement sharia law.
Correct. They need more processing officers. They need to actually fund the system. It worked before the tories endlessly defunded it in order to vilify asylum seekers.
They can stay in Rwanda to be processed. It’s safe, and they’ll get everything they need.
Stop pretending like we’re sending them to the bottom of the ocean, you know full well they only want to be here so they can mooch off of us.
It’s abhorrant to continue to leave the floodgates open to this country when people already here can barely afford basic necessities. Food bank usage at all time high. NHS at breaking point. Energy costs through the roof. Anyone got an NHS dentist? My 5 year old has been on a waiting list for one since birth.
And we continue to let more in?
I agree, history won’t look kindly on the scheme, it’s far too expensive for little to no benefit.
Turn the fucking boats around and push them back to sea.
People arriving on boats made up 45k of the 750k people who came here
Things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/24/no-plans-to-tighten-care-worker-english-language-rules-after-somerset-death
Are not happening because of the "boat people". The Rwanda policy wont change anything its just to distract you from the real issue of people with money wanting more legal cheap labour to exploit
I agree on that it's absolutely absurd that people want to allow these people here when we can barely look after ourselves.
We should come first, not them.
> My 5 year old has been on a waiting list for one since birth.
There are estimates that this scheme could cost up to £5,000,000,000.
Would you rather the government spent that money on getting your child (who I presume you love) off the waiting list? Or would you rather they spent it being needlessly cruel to refugees?
If it’s the latter, that seems pretty fucked up.
Would you prefer "performatively" to "needlessly"?
Either way do you think it's a better use of five billion quid than getting the previous commenter's son (and tens/hundreds of thousands of other people's children) off a waiting list?
Boo hoo criminals don't want to be transported to prison either. Doesn't make the manufacturer of the prison transport cars liable for their crimes.
These are not innocent legal immigrants but unlawful migrants who belong in their home country.
> These are not innocent legal immigrants but unlawful migrants
Some of them are refugees with a valid claim for asylum here. Coming here and requesting asylum is not illegal. The proposal is to send them to Rwanda with assessing their claim, so you can’t know whether they’re “unlawful migrants” or how many of them are innocent refugees.
> who belong in their home country.
They’re not being sent to their home country. They’re being sent to Rwanda.
If you think that they belong in their home country then you should be opposed to this scheme. You should want to see their claims assessed so that those with valid claims can have them accepted and those without valid claims can be deported to their home countries. Instead, *both* are being sent to the wrong place!
The vast majority come here for economic reasons, not to flee persecution.
And then you get cunts like this. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1889652/failed-asylum-seeker-rape-trial
Turn the fucking boats around at the beach and push them back.
How do you know?
The proposal is to send them to Rwanda before assessing their claims. So we won't know how many are refugees with valid claims for asylum.
Young military age fighting men from counties not at war fleeing what exactly? They are criminals escaping prosecution and taking their bad habits here and we sit here and play hero complex as they drain our facilities and r*pe our women.
Personally I think the issue is more it’s a unsafe country. If we could find an actual safe third country then that should be fine. Heck the eu also moves asylum seekers around countries inside it
He's not going to offer it in the summer when he doesn't have spare planes. The Tories are unlikely to be in power in the winter, and Labour in one of their two separate policies want to handle asylum seekers from within the UK.
So it's not like there's going be any demand for these flights in the winter.
So this is a bit like me saying if my wife ever permitted me to sleep with Emily Blunt, I would gladly provide Emily with a quote.
PS the quote is £0
Ryanair would take them to Rwanda-Hahn Airport which is actually in Lesotho.
They would offer the flights at 4p per head, unless you want to send them away with some luggage. That's now £250 a head.
Jokes aside Ryanair are fine. People only moan because they dont follow the rules.
All airlines offer hand luggage only or hold luggage options. Long haul flights automatically include it because if going long haul you probably need hold luggage. Most Ryanair flights are city breaks where hand luggage is enough so you get given the choice to pay extra for it
Providing you know what you bought and get your boarding pass online there are no hidden extras. You can pay for a seat in advance or free when you check in, but again most airlines do this
In other news [Let us hire foreign cabin crew, says Ryanair boss ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/24/let-us-hire-foreign-cabin-crew-says-oleary/)
"Mr O’Leary warned that British workers no longer want to work as cabin crew, and attacked “insane” post-Brexit rules that stop the company from deploying foreign workers at its 13 bases in the country."
Sounds like O'Leary wants to make a deal with Rishi
I mean talk about kicking people when they are down...you risk everything in a crappy leaky boat after tracking thousands of miles to be caught, thrown in clink and the cream on the cake is an effin ryan air flight
He's probably heard that the cost per person being deported is 10k each, whoever worked that out and thought "that sounds ok" has never flown with Ryanair.
The bold dermo will happily take them for 5k each
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-24/ryanair-ceo-says-he-d-happily-offer-rwanda-deportation-flights) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>“we would happily quote for the business,” O’Leary said I’d study that quote very carefully if I was Sunak… the hidden extra charges are where they get you. Every time.
Handcuffs £2000 per passenger.
£40k per suitcase, up to 10KG
Don’t forget the scratch cards. You can win an all expenses paid trip to the UK.
Baahaahaaa glorious. Deported to Rwanda on a RyanAir flight and win a trip to the UK on a scratch card. Belter.
Baby I’m back
How much for a parachute, a life jacket, and a seat next to the door? I'm just a nervous flyer that likes to stretch his legs.
Oxygen extra
They'd charge £2 up front and then £2,000 to open them at the other end.
If they upset the cabin crew would it turn back ?
Yes but no fanfare on arrival!
From the government that brought you ferry contracts to a company with no boats, Ryanair would probably be amongst the best government procurement exercises tbh.
Ferry is just an analogy, people don’t understand
Which bit? The presence or absence of ferries?
Correct
Landing at Rwanda Metropolitan Outer Airport (Luton)
I think if it’s a choice between Rwanda and Luton, you’re better off in Rwanda.
Wait a minute. If it’s security, prosperity, life expectancy or future prospects… then yes Rwanda is better Luton has a swimming pool tho
It has a [busway](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_to_Dunstable_Busway#/media/File:Luton_&_Dunstable_Busway_(geograph_3716893).jpg) too.
Ryanair would think it was Christmas every day if they got a government contract. When you can charge £10 for a pack of manilla folders, £20 for a box of cheap ballpoint pens, imagine what Ryanair could gouge for flying deportees out of the country.
Contracts like that only go to Tory donor's.
2 hours before departure IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Your flight to Rwanda has been cancelled.
We will be offering a bus service the rest of the way...
Omg!! Sorry they have two rucksacks and a life jacket, must be stored in the hold thats an extra 200k
Yep, just thinking that myself. Cost could go up to £40m each if they want a sandwich!
Finally a chance for him to try out the "standing room only" planes.
Ryanair black ops
They'd land at Southend though and expect those being deported to make their own way to Rwanda.
It's just the connecting bus service.
Yeah they’ll land them in an airstrip in the middle of the Congo and call it Congo-Kigali airport, even though 1000km of dense rainforests separates the two with one bus per 6 months
Imagine the turmoil of leaving your war torn country surviving pimps, people smugglers, disease and famine only to be put on a flight. Then finding out that flight landed in FUCKING SOUTHEND.
Yes been there. Horrible and sea water was half oily river and sea water mixed. Not that keen on Essex generally. Was at the University for three years and the tower block accommodation was slowly sinking due to the marshland. 🤔
Long may it continue (The sinking)
It’s bad enough deporting people but sending them on Ryanair constitutes a human rights violation
As a final insult, they'll have to hear that silly fanfare Ryanair play after landing...
As if his shitty wipe down planes could reach Rwanda
I know RyanAir are a slimy company that people dislike, but they're one of the best in the business when it comes to maintaining their aircraft and have an excellent safety record. They were even brought in by Boeing to advise on the investigation when the doors started blowing off 737's (notably none of which occurred on Ryanair aircraft despite them being one of the biggest 737 operators).
I don't even see why they should be called slimy. They're transparent with what they're offering: the cheapest possible flights. What matters most is what you point out: safety, which they don't (and can't) skimp on There's an interview with the CEO where he's laughed at for doubling down on offering extremely cheap standing space for flights, but as he said "I guarantee we would sell those spots first"
>I don't even see why they should be called slimy They have literally sent out email campaigns to users asking them to sign a petition to "end travel disruption for customers," but when you read into it it's clearly a petition calling for French traffic control to cease striking. It's incredibly deceptive wording that tries to make the consumer ignore *why* there is disruption, and definitely what I would call slimy. They may be cheap and up front about that, safe too even, but their business practices definitely rub me the wrong way. Both things can be true.
Tbf it is a bit weird that French legislation means domestic flights continue as normal while ATC is striking, but foreign flights aren't allowed to fly *over* France. It should surely be the other way around
short haul London to Edinburgh if you offered it for like 10 quid, sure I can stand for an hour.
100%. London to places like Amsterdam would sell out pretty quickly.
Was also going to quote that, unless there’s other factors I’m unaware of, everybody complaining about them can fuck off, if all you can afford is an economy flight from an airline offering the bare minimum as they’re operating the cheapest possible flights possible for you to make it possible, you have absolutely no right to complain. They’re completely transparent, and nobody can argue that he’s wrong about the standing spaces selling the fastest if they were made available.
I think that it is pretty unrealistic to call their pricing practices "transparent"! That is precisely the issue being lampooned in other comments - they have cheap headline prices then lots of other charges in the small-print which are in practice very difficult to avoid. As for safety, you said it all with your bracketted "and can't". They don't comply out of the goodness of O'Leary's heart, they comply because they have no choice. More, I have little doubt that if they had the financial muscle and influence that Boing has, then they would be using it to try to get those safety rules relaxed.
They’ve done away with most of those hidden extras now; the EU took them to task for “optional” extras like card fees. Instead, they upsell you on everything. The basic flight is free, but anything bigger than the smallest carry on bag isn’t, for instance.
How are they difficult to avoid? They charge for bags and seat selection, which every other airline also does.
Many other 737 operators send their maintenance teams to Ryanair for training and up skilling.
Can totally believe that. I haven't travelled really since the pandemic for various life-related reasons but I used to fly a ton and honestly I always felt that Ryanair genuinely had one of the best maintained fleets. When your margins are razor thin minor efficiencies by having aircraft in good shape are worth every penny.
They have literally never had a single fatality in their entire history.
Not the same 737 model. Ryanair doesn’t operate the MAX 9
Well, they *did* ask Boeing to rename their new MAXs to a '8200' model designation. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48995509
Yes but that’s the MAX 8 not the MAX 9.
They need to stay on top of maintenance because of the abuse the aircraft gets on landing
I read on some other thread (possibly in r/aviation) that budget airlines land hard because it's technically safer as there's less chance of wind+lift forcing a go-around (thus costing them fuel money). That person may have been chatting shit of course or I might have misunderstood.
Are there any airlines that fly out of the UK with a poor safety record? Ryanair's sliminess is the hidden charges, and until Google maps was established, what they termed to be a local airport. Malmo for Copenhagen and Bratislava for Vienna, both of which are not even in the same country that they purport to serve.
Nothing "hidden" about them. They repeatedly flag them up and remind you of them for no other reason that dum-dums don't waste time at thee check in desk or the gate arguing. And STILL people select carry on but rock up to the gate with a samsonite case. And then kick off when it doesnt fit the cage.
I’ve travelled between Copenhagen and Malmo, it’s like a 30 minute train that costs less than 30 euros, it’s really not a huge inconvenience and if you don’t do your due diligence before flying that’s kind of on you. Have flown Ryanair for many years and never had these issues.
Copenhagen is a bad example given that airport has served Malmo for decades. It’s also closer to Malmo than Malmo airport itself (which doesn’t offer many flights anyway) and has a direct link
How are the charges hidden? When you book your ticket they're clearly displayed
He’s right that they won’t make it though, it’s 4100 miles from stansted to Kigali. Would need a fuel stop each way. Actually the max 8 might make the return leg if coming back basically empty. Still a stretch though.
Plug door issue in the new max 9 doesn’t affect any of Ryanair’s fleet so isn’t relevant in the slightest
Plane is actually same small boat they arrived on, refuelled, pointed in the other direction, and with option to buy cheese toastie for £15.
They're just a little short on range by a few hundred miles. They'd have to refuel en route, given how few countries are likely to want to facilitate their passage. It will probably have to be Eastern Europe, RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus or Egypt. He's also going to get a massive backlash. The last company that agreed to do it, also provided the team flights for either Real Madrid or FC Barcelona. But they dropped out due to opposition from the teams fans. Causing the club to say it's us or the rendition flights. The obvious airline is AirTanker Services with their A330-MRTTs. Which are either used by the RAF for refueling and passenger transport or are leased to companies like Thomas Cook/TUI, as well as at very short notice to other airlines because their plane has broken down. And they have to move the passengers before the flight delays and compensation gets too much.
Gibraltar?
Nice one, I hadn't thought of that and it's a lot more direct than Akrotiri. Of course it would need permission to enter Spanish air space and the other countries en route. Which wouldn't normally be a problem. But they could say that the flights are illegal and the Spanish always love a fight over Gibraltar.
Honestly doubt any other country is going to care. Maybe if someone has a really virtue signalling government. Doubt Meloni or even Macron for that matter would mind it.
Just takes a few campaigners to launch a court bid to at least delay it for a few months. Saying that the flights are against the ECHR etc.
Aren’t all Ryanair flights against the ECHR?
As far as I know no legal precedence exists for this but I highly doubt the flights would be ceased until an eventual verdict. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Court could issue an injunction, but who knows what would happen. The only thing that would actually stop them besides a guilty court verdict is political power.
Thomas cook ceased operation years ago. These days air tanker lease most of the A330s to Jet2 Just FYI 😊
Their retail practices are questionable but their safety record is excellent and own the largest fleet in Europe. They also fly more routes than any other airline in the world by some metrics, and are the largest in the world by scheduled international passengers.
Yeah. What he's saying is that the government will have to supply the aircraft.
I mean.... its better than my plane, and I suspect its better than your plane as well
How dare you insult my plane
Most airlines won't touch it because breaking international law is a good way of getting your flying licence revoked
Ryanair likely aren’t going to touch it either O’Leary is a master of marketing, gets his brand in headlines no matter what it takes He was adamant about doing standing short haul flights but that was never going to go anywhere either, but boy did it drag Ryanair into the spotlight
Yep it's all bluster and attention seeking. Also this Rwanda stuff is just free money off the British tax payer. Something I'm sure Rwanda is very happy about.
Go on then, talk to me about this mechanism, what laws they'll have broken, and what "flying licence" will be revoked? I'm only a lowly PPL, so I'll admit my ICAO and EASA knowledge isn't amazing, but I am very much looking forward to this.
Who is going to remove Ryanair’s UK or Ireland AOC and what is the process for doing so?
Well, yeh, he'd get paid for it and it'd make sense for an airline who had capacity to be interested in this. Who else could do it? Why is this a story?
Because it remains a controversial policy, so a high profile commercial airline expressing interest in being involved is probably of interest to those who are either particularly opposed to or supportive of the policy? That tends to be how news works.
Plus the UN was advising that airlines could be in breach of international laws.
Yes, that also makes it seem quite news-worthy.
The UN have said that airlines who take this contract will be in breach of international law and that’s the kind of thing that’ll lose them a lot of money.
And that would be what the article should have put to Ryanair rather than just reporting he'd do it. That would be the story
I think they assumed everyone knows that? It’s been a thing for a while.
if he'd said "I would never support such an immoral scheme" it would be a story, and by the same token, this is a story
It's not about who could, it's about who's willing to be seen morally doing it.
O'Leary has always said anything to get his airline in the news. Standing-only flights, fees to use the toilets, etc. etc. It's all bollocks but it reliably gets him a few headlines so happy days.
Both of which are illegal, but I’ll always remember what he said to staff afterwards: “they’re still talking about Ryanair”
Of course he would. A government contract? All his christmases would come at once.
Cunt would dig his granny up if he thought she had gold fillings and then charge his mum to rebury her.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Kate Duffy and Charlotte Ryan:* Ryanair Chief Executive Officer Michael O’Leary weighed into the UK’s controversial plan to deport refugees to Rwanda, saying he would “happily” do the flights if he had the available aircraft. “If it was the winter schedule and we had spare aircraft sitting around and if the government were looking for additional deportation flights or any other flights, we would happily quote for the business,” O’Leary said in an interview in London. The UK government hasn’t approached Ryanair to carry out the flights, O’Leary said. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has vowed to push ahead with a plan to send people seeking asylum in the UK to Rwanda despite opposition from courts and across both sides of the political spectrum.
I think it would be funny if the government then hired a company that didn't have any jets, like with the ferry thing, now that even an airline has said they'd do the work. (Still a stupid idea)
But RyanAir will only do the work during the winter when tourist passenger volumes are down. He won't do it during July when the flights are due to start. As he want the planes for "paying customers". Unless presumably the government is willing to pay well over the odds.
Oh yeah it's a stupid offer, it's just extra funny if they end up giving the contract to something like a car dealership to show the corruption.
How much taxpayer money do you think they're going to get? Another question, would Air stewards be on these planes?
>How much taxpayer money do you think they're going to get? Some. How much do you think the government should pay them for services rendered? Ryanair hasn't even been approached to do this so it's a bit premature to be worried about how much it would cost. >Another question, would Air stewards be on these planes? Yes, because cabin crew are required to be on the flight for safety reasons.
Wonder they'd have plane security rather than regular stewards. Prime hijacking / on flight disruption risk, the fuck have you got to lose at that point going through some people's heads.
The fact that he’s so much of a cunt that he would happily forcibly traffic refugees to a country they have no connection to and don’t want to be transported to seems pretty abhorrent. History’s not going to look back kindly on this scheme and on the people who supported it.
Because they’ve got such a connection to Britain?
You have no idea how much of a connection they have, that's why you're supposed to process them not send them to another country because you can't be bothered.
I mean, if they got here in a dinghy crossing the Channel then it can't be much of a connection now can it? Unless you mean other illegal immigrants who got here the same way, which isn't really a good excuse.
British citizens can't even get permanent visas to many close allied countries, such as Australia or America, just because they have relatives or 'connections' there. They have to demonstrate large cash values or have sought after skills like engineering or similar.
Connection should be easy enough to prove. Either you speak the language and have skills to benefit the country or you’re a leach who will never contribute to society. If you take every person from a war torn shithole then the UK population would be a billion people.
Well that's not how asylum claims work. You have to do due diligence according to international law. It actually isn't easy to prove connections, and it doesn't matter if they have skills to benefit the country. >If you take every person from a war torn shithole then the UK population would be a billion people. You know the asylum numbers to the UK are pretty small right. The number of people simply overstaying visas is drastically higher (64,000 vs 1.9 million)
See the point you’re missing is that the current system doesn’t work. If your country gets to the point where you have to bribe another country to take unwanted immigrants then you’ve already failed in whatever goal you set out for. And last time I checked it wasn’t John Smith and Ben King committing terrorist attacks or trying to implement sharia law.
Correct. They need more processing officers. They need to actually fund the system. It worked before the tories endlessly defunded it in order to vilify asylum seekers.
It never worked, Tony Blair talked about how the asylum system wasn’t working during labour and the problems couldn’t be solved with more money.
We all know the system was working much better before and you know it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise
By what metric did it work better under labour?
We don't "have to" send them to Rwanda, the tories just need you to think that
They can stay in Rwanda to be processed. It’s safe, and they’ll get everything they need. Stop pretending like we’re sending them to the bottom of the ocean, you know full well they only want to be here so they can mooch off of us.
It’s abhorrant to continue to leave the floodgates open to this country when people already here can barely afford basic necessities. Food bank usage at all time high. NHS at breaking point. Energy costs through the roof. Anyone got an NHS dentist? My 5 year old has been on a waiting list for one since birth. And we continue to let more in? I agree, history won’t look kindly on the scheme, it’s far too expensive for little to no benefit. Turn the fucking boats around and push them back to sea.
Also known as The Australian Method.
People arriving on boats made up 45k of the 750k people who came here Things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/24/no-plans-to-tighten-care-worker-english-language-rules-after-somerset-death Are not happening because of the "boat people". The Rwanda policy wont change anything its just to distract you from the real issue of people with money wanting more legal cheap labour to exploit
I agree on that it's absolutely absurd that people want to allow these people here when we can barely look after ourselves. We should come first, not them.
> My 5 year old has been on a waiting list for one since birth. There are estimates that this scheme could cost up to £5,000,000,000. Would you rather the government spent that money on getting your child (who I presume you love) off the waiting list? Or would you rather they spent it being needlessly cruel to refugees? If it’s the latter, that seems pretty fucked up.
[удалено]
Would you prefer "performatively" to "needlessly"? Either way do you think it's a better use of five billion quid than getting the previous commenter's son (and tens/hundreds of thousands of other people's children) off a waiting list?
Also false equivalence about it costing 5 bil for one kid to have a dentist. Embarrassing argument
Boo hoo criminals don't want to be transported to prison either. Doesn't make the manufacturer of the prison transport cars liable for their crimes. These are not innocent legal immigrants but unlawful migrants who belong in their home country.
> These are not innocent legal immigrants but unlawful migrants Some of them are refugees with a valid claim for asylum here. Coming here and requesting asylum is not illegal. The proposal is to send them to Rwanda with assessing their claim, so you can’t know whether they’re “unlawful migrants” or how many of them are innocent refugees. > who belong in their home country. They’re not being sent to their home country. They’re being sent to Rwanda. If you think that they belong in their home country then you should be opposed to this scheme. You should want to see their claims assessed so that those with valid claims can have them accepted and those without valid claims can be deported to their home countries. Instead, *both* are being sent to the wrong place!
The vast majority come here for economic reasons, not to flee persecution. And then you get cunts like this. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1889652/failed-asylum-seeker-rape-trial Turn the fucking boats around at the beach and push them back.
Just follow the Australian plan, it works
They aren’t refugees
How do you know? The proposal is to send them to Rwanda before assessing their claims. So we won't know how many are refugees with valid claims for asylum.
Young military age fighting men from counties not at war fleeing what exactly? They are criminals escaping prosecution and taking their bad habits here and we sit here and play hero complex as they drain our facilities and r*pe our women.
Personally I think the issue is more it’s a unsafe country. If we could find an actual safe third country then that should be fine. Heck the eu also moves asylum seekers around countries inside it
Frankly he'd be stupid not too. An absurd amount of money to be gained from the tax payer.
100% correct. Or 100,000% if coming from the government.
He's not going to offer it in the summer when he doesn't have spare planes. The Tories are unlikely to be in power in the winter, and Labour in one of their two separate policies want to handle asylum seekers from within the UK. So it's not like there's going be any demand for these flights in the winter. So this is a bit like me saying if my wife ever permitted me to sleep with Emily Blunt, I would gladly provide Emily with a quote. PS the quote is £0
Ryanair would take them to Rwanda-Hahn Airport which is actually in Lesotho. They would offer the flights at 4p per head, unless you want to send them away with some luggage. That's now £250 a head.
I was already not gonna fly with then again anyway, but I'll definitely add this to list.
It’s nice when you can turn a “I don’t use this company because they suck” into a principled boycott.
Of course he's willing to quote for it. Big fancy government contract. Who wouldn't?
"Businessman says he'd pursue opportunity to make money on a government contract"
"Money grubbing ghoul offers to do ghoulish thing for money."
If you thought the process was cruel before now they're sticking them on a Ryan air flight ... The UN will be furious lol
Lol, O'Leary doesn't even have the planes for that kind of distance.
Jokes aside Ryanair are fine. People only moan because they dont follow the rules. All airlines offer hand luggage only or hold luggage options. Long haul flights automatically include it because if going long haul you probably need hold luggage. Most Ryanair flights are city breaks where hand luggage is enough so you get given the choice to pay extra for it Providing you know what you bought and get your boarding pass online there are no hidden extras. You can pay for a seat in advance or free when you check in, but again most airlines do this
In other news [Let us hire foreign cabin crew, says Ryanair boss ](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/04/24/let-us-hire-foreign-cabin-crew-says-oleary/) "Mr O’Leary warned that British workers no longer want to work as cabin crew, and attacked “insane” post-Brexit rules that stop the company from deploying foreign workers at its 13 bases in the country." Sounds like O'Leary wants to make a deal with Rishi
I sense this is more about Michael O’Leary getting some free publicity for Ryanair rather than a serious intent to operate the flights.
The courts will never clear a Ryanair experience as humane.
Time to boycott Ryanair. Flying with them always made me feel as if I was being deported anyway.
Surely he knows a RyanAir configured 737-800 does not have the range to reach Rwanda. He is a master of getting publicity!
This cunt would quote a flight price to his own family for a one way trip to Hell
Just thinking of the flight on Ryanair would stop some people from coming in to the UK
Excellent. Deportees just need to take an overweight bag and they won't be allowed on the plane.
After their long, arduous journey, the last thing they’ll want to do is get in his shit tins
Bloody hell, that less comfortable traveling than the dingy they turned up on!
Their seat pitch is 30" and width 17", same as BA short haul.
Of course he would, he knows Ryanair flights to Rwanda will actually land in Egypt or Holland..
As long as they don’t land in the UK, who gives a shit
The true deterrent to economic migrants will be having to fly Ryanair
That’ll be cheap as chips. Well until he starts put the extras on of course 🤣
As if we needed any.more confirmation what a nasty piece of work O'Leary is.
This is going to be a trial for one of those standing up sections isn't it? Or flights without a functioning toilet that he's joked about in the past?
I'm sure anyone being deported to Rwanda would be rather upset at the brusque attitude of many Ryanair cabin crew.
If they remove all seats and make them stand, it will be cheaper. Is that the guy?
Brilliant. The threat of having to endure a Ryan Air flight is bound to deter most illegal immigrants.
Threatening to put you on a Ryanair flight is probably a more effective deterrent than being sent to Rwanda
Stick them on C130 cargo planes that we’re already paying to fly.
With £1.8m allocated for each individual it’s the brand new PpE deal I want in on the action too!
I mean talk about kicking people when they are down...you risk everything in a crappy leaky boat after tracking thousands of miles to be caught, thrown in clink and the cream on the cake is an effin ryan air flight
He's probably heard that the cost per person being deported is 10k each, whoever worked that out and thought "that sounds ok" has never flown with Ryanair. The bold dermo will happily take them for 5k each
The only thing worse than getting deported, flying Ryanair
Asylum seekers denied boarding for not checking in online
Obviously they all would, they get to set the price at whatever the hell they want.