Swedish politician slams Ryanair for sexy ad
Sunday, October 19, 2008 By Isabel Conway in Karlstad, Sweden
A war of words has broken out between Irish low-cost airline Ryanair and a leading Swedish politician over the Irish carrier's alleged ''cavalier'' response to a recent reprimand from a Swedish watchdog.
The controversy, dismissed as a ''storm in a D cup'' by Ryanair, came after the airline which operates European routes from airports all over Sweden, was rapped on the knuckles for advertising the ''hottest back to school prices''.
The campaign showed a blonde posing in a girl's skimpy mini school uniform, with open blouse and bare midriff, as she suggestively pointed at a blackboard. Sweden's Trade Ethical Council against Sexism in Advertising (ERK) slammed the ad on the grounds that the scantily clad woman in the school uniform was used ''to catch the eye in a sexual manner that is offensive to women in general''.
The ERK has existed in Sweden since 1988 and is the country's leading self regulating advertising watchdog. Ryanair's response has angered one of Sweden's best known feminist politicians Birgitta Ohlsson, a member of Parliament for the Liberal People's Party. She suggested a consumer boycott of the Irish airline to punish Ryanair for its cavalier attitude towards the ERK finding.
Ohlsson said: ''It's my duty as a feminist politician to name and shame companies like this." She dismissed Ryanair's claim that the advertisement was in line with Swedish liberal values. ''It was neither funny nor liberal, it was old-fashioned and conservative," she said.
Ryanair said the airline would be sending free tickets ''to boring Birgitta so that she can take a nice relaxing break''.
http://www.thepost.ie/ezineSBP/story.asp?storyid=36827
The Picture in Question!
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/01/31/RyanairSchoolgirl.jpg)
They do this every year in some country, get loads of publicity and get a small fine. They even use the same photo.
School was never like that....
The advertising company have done well here.
Bit like PP who use advertising to create publicity, negative or positive
sc**bag airline.
where's the open blouse?
i'm disappointed
ryanair response is hilarious
I fly to Glasgow and London fairly frequently and Ryanair have to be at least £25 per return journey cheaper than Easyjet before I would consider using them ,£4 charge per flight for booking with mastercard or visa is a complete rip off
RYANAIR will consider charging passengers for carry-on baggage as part of its relentless focus on increasing revenue and profits.
Deputy chief executive Michael Cawley said that baggage charges are among those that are always under consideration.
Asked yesterday if Ryanair might also consider charging for carry-on baggage, he said: "If you don't charge for something, that service isn't appreciated," he said. "When it was free, 80pc of people checked in a bag."
On average, just 35pc of Ryanair passengers now check in a bag. "We'd consider anything, but we're not doing it at the moment."
Carry-on luggage is one of the last free services to be offered by the airline.
Heartless bastards
RYANAIR has said it regrets "causing inconvenience" to a group of seriously ill children and their families after they were forced to repack their luggage because it exceeded weight limits.
However, the airline said it was "pleased" the group "avoided any excess baggage charges".
The children, who have life-threatening conditions, were recipients of National Children of Courage awards at the weekend and were on a trip to Disneyland in Paris with the Share A Dream Foundation.
But their holiday got off to a bad start when they arrived at Dublin Airport yesterday morning. Several families were told their checked-in luggage -- which contained the children's medicines and other important items -- exceeded weight limits.
The families of the seriously ill children said they were annoyed and humiliated after they were forced to unpack some of their bags and repack belongings in other bags.
One parent told how their suitcase was 6kg over the 15kg limit and they were facing a €120 excess fee. Fortunately two other parents stepped in and offered to take items, including medicines, in their luggage.
The Share A Dream Foundation, which held a special ceremony to honour the children in Limerick on Saturday night, branded the incident a "disgrace". The trip was part of the children's award win.
The awards ceremony was presented by broadcaster Miriam O'Callaghan, who described the children as "incredible".
However, Ryanair said the families were given the opportunity to repack their bags so that they could avoid paying excess baggage fees. "We sincerely regret (any) inconvenience, but are pleased that they avoided any excess bag charges.
"These families agreed to Ryanair's (very well-known) checked-in baggage policy (one checked-in bag per person of no more than 15kgs in weight) at the time of their original booking," it said in a statement.
"As their checked-in bags this morning were overweight, they were offered the opportunity to repack their bags rather than pay an excess baggage fee . . . and as a result these families avoided any excess bag fees."
However, last night the families were said to be putting the incident behind them and were making sure the children enjoyed a magical first day, soaking up the Christmas atmosphere at Disneyland.
Eight children received National Children of Courage awards at the weekend.
Among them were six-year-old Sophie Mulcahy from Rhebogue Road in Limerick, who suffers from the rare Ohdo Syndrome and has undergone six heart operations as well as battling lung and kidney failure.
Quote
RYANAIR has said it regrets "causing inconvenience" to a group of seriously ill children and their families after they were forced to repack their luggage because it exceeded weight limits.
These people were just chancing their arm, the weight limits are clear enough and they could have shared around the items before arriving at the checkin desk or done a deal with Ryanair beforehand.
What a non story. If you fly Ryanair you know you need to have your luggage weight right or you're fecked.
How do people not know how Ryanair operate at this stage? It's cheap and doesn't bother with special cases so if you want sympathy they're not the airline for you and you'd better be prepared to pay a bit more!
Exactly...Read the rules...Then Follow them...And then spend the savings on a few pints in the departure lounge...Possibly even raise a toast to Michael O Leary for forcing competitive prices in the airline industry...
When I read the thread title I hoped that Ryanair were being hit with a huge financial penalty.
Sadly not the case, so I'm very disappointed.
Quote from: wildrover on December 13, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Exactly...Read the rules...Then Follow them...And then spend the savings on a few pints in the departure lounge...Possibly even raise a toast to Michael O Leary for forcing competitive prices in the airline industry...
Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph speed limit area? If yes, then please send your licence details and cheque to the Penalty Points office like a good chap.
Quote from: Orior on December 13, 2012, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: wildrover on December 13, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Exactly...Read the rules...Then Follow them...And then spend the savings on a few pints in the departure lounge...Possibly even raise a toast to Michael O Leary for forcing competitive prices in the airline industry...
Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph speed limit area? If yes, then please send your licence details and cheque to the Penalty Points office like a good chap.
Except that's not quite an accurate comparison is it?...
If I KNEW that the police were stationed at each 25metre interval of each and every 30mph zone I ever ventured into, I sure as hell wouldnt be exceeding the 30mph speed limit...When you go to an airport to fly with Ryanair you KNOW that Ryanair baggage officials will be there to greet you and will weigh your baggage and you should have prepared accordingly for this...
If I went to an airport to fly with Ryanair 1000 times and only had my bag weighed three times (about as often as I've seen PSNI in South Down), I might be inclined to chance my arm with a little extra sun-tan lotion....
Quote from: screenexile on December 13, 2012, 10:59:00 AM
What a non story. If you fly Ryanair you know you need to have your luggage weight right or you're fecked.
How do people not know how Ryanair operate at this stage?
Maybe that person had not travelled by air before or had not travelled with Ryanair before, maybe they just assumed that 20kg per piece was the norm as it is for most cheap airline tickets.
QuoteIt's cheap and doesn't bother with special cases so if you want sympathy they're not the airline for you and you'd better be prepared to pay a bit more!
It's cheap in many ways ::) but the way cheaper travel tickets is a myth.
How many people have travelled once on Ryanair and said 'never again' and managed to keep to their word as best they could?
Once was enough for me.
Quote from: Main Street on December 13, 2012, 11:35:41 AM
Quote from: screenexile on December 13, 2012, 10:59:00 AM
What a non story. If you fly Ryanair you know you need to have your luggage weight right or you're fecked.
How do people not know how Ryanair operate at this stage?
Maybe that person had not travelled by air before or had not travelled with Ryanair before, maybe they just assumed that 20kg per piece was the norm as it is for most cheap airline tickets.
QuoteIt's cheap and doesn't bother with special cases so if you want sympathy they're not the airline for you and you'd better be prepared to pay a bit more!
It's cheap in many ways ::) but the way cheaper travel tickets is a myth.
How many people have travelled once on Ryanair and said 'never again' and managed to keep to their word as best they could?
Once was enough for me.
I had a quick check there. A flight to Barcelona in April will cost me €106 including Charges.
With Aer Lingus those same flights will be €142. That's a pretty significant saving for most people!
I read that headline and said to myself what a non-story - everyone knows the weight limits - 6kg over a 15kg limit - chancers - good cause or not
If I have a choice between Aer Lingus and RyanAir it's Aer Lingus every time. Even down to the friendliness of the staff, Aer Lingus is much better. That said, from Shannon or Farranfore, you are limited in routes and if I have to fly Ryan Air, I do so, and I know their rules and follow them.
I just always feel like a flight with Ryan Air is the equivalent of riding the tram in Rome. It's an achievement to have the same money in your pocket when you reach the destination.
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 13, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
If I have a choice between Aer Lingus and RyanAir it's Aer Lingus every time. Even down to the friendliness of the staff, Aer Lingus is much better. That said, from Shannon or Farranfore, you are limited in routes and if I have to fly Ryan Air, I do so, and I know their rules and follow them.
I just always feel like a flight with Ryan Air is the equivalent of riding the tram in Rome. It's an achievement to have the same money in your pocket when you reach the destination.
Flying with Aer Lingus just feels like an upgrade!
Nothing new here. Ryanair purposely stir up controversy as the media love having a go at them. It gets plastered all over the papers and its great PR. Any publicity is good publicity and everyone knows who they are. Result - most people know about Ryanair when booking flights and I see tehir profits have went up again this year. O'Leary uses the media very well.
Quote from: southdown on December 13, 2012, 12:34:23 PM
Nothing new here. Ryanair purposely stir up controversy as the media love having a go at them. It gets plastered all over the papers and its great PR. Any publicity is good publicity and everyone knows who they are. Result - most people know about Ryanair when booking flights and I see tehir profits have went up again this year. O'Leary uses the media very well.
I have no principled objection to flying with Ryanair, but I'm always bewildered as to how their publicity stunts like the one that started this thread are seen as gas altogether yet PR disasters -and it is a disaster, the meek tone of their statement says as much - like the latest story are shrugged off on the basis that everyone knows what Ryanair are like. Why are Ryanair so impervious to the concept of the magnificent gesture?
Quote from: wildrover on December 13, 2012, 11:30:53 AM
Quote from: Orior on December 13, 2012, 11:15:52 AM
Quote from: wildrover on December 13, 2012, 11:11:46 AM
Exactly...Read the rules...Then Follow them...And then spend the savings on a few pints in the departure lounge...Possibly even raise a toast to Michael O Leary for forcing competitive prices in the airline industry...
Have you ever driven 31 mph in a 30 mph speed limit area? If yes, then please send your licence details and cheque to the Penalty Points office like a good chap.
Except that's not quite an accurate comparison is it?...
If I KNEW that the police were stationed at each 25metre interval of each and every 30mph zone I ever ventured into, I sure as hell wouldnt be exceeding the 30mph speed limit...When you go to an airport to fly with Ryanair you KNOW that Ryanair baggage officials will be there to greet you and will weigh your baggage and you should have prepared accordingly for this...
If I went to an airport to fly with Ryanair 1000 times and only had my bag weighed three times (about as often as I've seen PSNI in South Down), I might be inclined to chance my arm with a little extra sun-tan lotion....
I've flown with Ryanair loads and have never had my bag weighted at the airport. Have had to fit it into the box yoke once to ensure it was right size.
That's Carry On. I've never had the Carry On weighed either. I assume these things were Checked Bags?
The more I think about it, the sillier the behaviour of the Ryanair staff in this case gets. 20 (for example) people travelling together. Baggage allowance: 20 people x 15 kilos each = 300 kilos. Weigh all the bags and add up the allowances. No need for anyone to go trashing through their luggage to balance it all up and hold up the queue. But no! That would set a dangerous precedent, anyone in the queue could club their allowances together and you'd be for the high jump when Michael O'Leary or whichever satrap who was in charge found out. What a horrible company it must be to work for.
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 13, 2012, 12:44:44 PM
That's Carry On. I've never had the Carry On weighed either. I assume these things were Checked Bags?
Yeah that could well be it.
Deisech - i've heard it said that staff get commission from these extra charges they can levy at the airports. Not sure if its true as I've never met anyone who admit working for them, a few who have said sheepishly they "work at the airport" have raised a few eyebrows though. ;)
QuoteThe more I think about it, the sillier the behaviour of the Ryanair staff in this case gets.
People in any organisation have to do their job.
Allowing people bypass regulations is depriving their employer of revenue, which should be a no no for any employee.
There is a broader point here. This trip was only possible because Ryanair provided affordable airfares, yet everyone is trying to undermine the Ryanair model.
Quotei've heard it said that staff get commission from these extra charges they can levy at the airports.
correct
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
QuoteThe more I think about it, the sillier the behaviour of the Ryanair staff in this case gets.
People in any organisation have to do their job.
Allowing people bypass regulations is depriving their employer of revenue, which should be a no no for any employee.
There is a broader point here. This trip was only possible because Ryanair provided affordable airfares, yet everyone is trying to undermine the Ryanair model.
But they didn't get any extra revenue here. All they got from this incident is bad publicity. And despite an old trope to the contrary, there is such a thing as bad publicity.
Quote from: deiseach on December 13, 2012, 01:28:29 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2012, 01:20:15 PM
QuoteThe more I think about it, the sillier the behaviour of the Ryanair staff in this case gets.
People in any organisation have to do their job.
Allowing people bypass regulations is depriving their employer of revenue, which should be a no no for any employee.
There is a broader point here. This trip was only possible because Ryanair provided affordable airfares, yet everyone is trying to undermine the Ryanair model.
But they didn't get any extra revenue here. All they got from this incident is bad publicity. And despite an old trope to the contrary, there is such a thing as bad publicity.
If you or anyone else can find and instance of any of Ryanair's publicity having an effect on the profit they make then good luck to you. The fact that their prices are so low means bad publicity is never going to affect them or turn customers off them. They seem to defy logic in the way they keep increasing their profits!
Quote from: screenexile on December 13, 2012, 01:59:25 PM
If you or anyone else can find and instance of any of Ryanair's publicity having an effect on the profit they make then good luck to you. The fact that their prices are so low means bad publicity is never going to affect them or turn customers off them. They seem to defy logic in the way they keep increasing their profits!
Ever heard of Gerald Ratner?
Quote from: deiseach on December 13, 2012, 02:10:25 PM
Quote from: screenexile on December 13, 2012, 01:59:25 PM
If you or anyone else can find and instance of any of Ryanair's publicity having an effect on the profit they make then good luck to you. The fact that their prices are so low means bad publicity is never going to affect them or turn customers off them. They seem to defy logic in the way they keep increasing their profits!
Ever heard of Gerald Ratner?
I hadn't but having done a bit of research I think they are 2 completely different cases. Ryanair is very warts and all. You know exactly what you're getting and the price for it.
Ratners seemed to be selling what some thought we 'luxurious' items and charging way over the odds for them. When it was revealed to consumers that it was a load of tat they stopped buying it.
At this stage Consumers should know exactly what they're getting from Ryanair.
Quote from: screenexile on December 13, 2012, 02:47:15 PM
At this stage Consumers should know exactly what they're getting from Ryanair.
Point taken. I still think that they are successful despite being obnoxious, not because of it.
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 13, 2012, 11:58:18 AM
If I have a choice between Aer Lingus and RyanAir it's Aer Lingus every time. Even down to the friendliness of the staff, Aer Lingus is much better.
Me too - I do a lot of flying with work and will always take Aer Lingus and never Ryanair - I'd even take two flights or a flight + a long train journey to avoid them
I like coffee. Sometimes I'll take my coffee in a paper cup on the move. Other times I like to relax with a newspaper in our nice local coffee shop and have a Danish with it and a chat if there's anyone I know there. The coffee there costs more than the stuff in the paper cup you buy at a stall, even though it tastes pretty much the same. That's OK with me.
The only time I feel hard done by is when I go into a place, ask for a black coffee and they say "Americano - OK." That's not what I mind. It's the fact that the Americano usually costs about 40c more than I'd pay in a place that allows me to call it black. That's about 10c for each extra letter in the name.
It's hard to put a price on being treated like a criminal and a scam target, then told to fxck off because you should have known better.
QuoteBut they didn't get any extra revenue here. All they got from this incident is bad publicity. And despite an old trope to the contrary, there is such a thing as bad publicity
Firstly the staff members didn't get sacked, which would have been the result if there were 21Kg bags in the hold and nothing collected for them. But even the publicity will lead to hundreds of people being more careful about the weight limits and not trying to chance their arm.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 13, 2012, 04:51:37 PM
Firstly the staff members didn't get sacked, which would have been the result if there were 21Kg bags in the hold and nothing collected for them. But even the publicity will lead to hundreds of people being more careful about the weight limits and not trying to chance their arm.
As I said - a horrible company to work for.
Don't be so harsh. For those who manage not to get sacked, isn't there a 50p tip, paid out to vigilant check-in staff for each baggage fine extracted? Probably about about 1% commission.
The smaller than 'normal size' for hand baggage, a size smaller than which passes every other airlines' criteria, must also be a handy earner for the crime detectors.
Its amazing the snobby attitude people have to flying, I'd love to know where it comes from. For example you can get a bus eireann bus from North Donegal to Dublin and it will probably take you 3 hours. You won't a seat reserved and you get a smiley stewardess or free coffee. Would you pay 30% more for that luxury. But come to flying and we get all this shite about aer lingus being better garbage. I fly at least once a week to europe. My first port of call is always Ryanair as they are the cheapest (i wouldn't even bother compare the others anymore as i've never found them cheaper). I've had one flight late in 3 years and I've never had my bag go missing. Thats all I care about. I also fly aerlingus to some places like stuttgart or munich. They are fine but again 30-50% more expensive. You get the same shite about bag size, charged for bag check ins and weight of bags. The only difference is you get a seat number - fantastic. Lufthansa charge 70% more and they give you a seat number and a piece of cake.
The recent case of the ill children is bullshit. What is the ryanair worker supposed to do, tell them its ok to have heavy bags as they are ill. What if they are blind, crippled, old - do you think the worker should just make it up as they go along. Unless the people in charge of this group live on Mars they will know that all airlines have weight restrictions. Its to do with fuel consumption and the like. Should people with no luggage pay for those that choose to bring anything they want? The media love having a go at one of Irelands most successful companies and i don't get it.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w6_-EstUB_Q/TZR0zxDhsFI/AAAAAAAABZI/l8vlzBgeTAE/s1600/2-2-Race-to-the-Bottom.jpg)
Quote from: Main Street on December 13, 2012, 08:38:06 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-w6_-EstUB_Q/TZR0zxDhsFI/AAAAAAAABZI/l8vlzBgeTAE/s1600/2-2-Race-to-the-Bottom.jpg)
Its called competition and if it weren't for the likes of Ryanair good old aer lingus would be charging you 500 euro return to London.
Aer Lingus good service?? The only difference is Ryanair don't pretend to make an effort
Quote from: Itchy on December 13, 2012, 07:27:28 PM
Its amazing the snobby attitude people have to flying, I'd love to know where it comes from. For example you can get a bus eireann bus from North Donegal to Dublin and it will probably take you 3 hours. You won't a seat reserved and you get a smiley stewardess or free coffee. Would you pay 30% more for that luxury.
I would think that most people making the trip from Dublin to North Donegal would do what they can to avoid using Bus Eireann - even if the tickets were free. Which is more or less the same thing as avoiding Ryanair if you can.
I don't fly as often as I used to, maybe half-a-dozen trips a year. As I live in Newry, it's as easy for me to fly from Dublin or either Belfast airport, so I tend to have options. I've found that Ryanair rarely provides the cheapest option. They're always competitive, but my personal experience is that them being cheap is a myth. Obviously I don't go out of my way to fly to fields on the middle of nowhere at 10pm on a Wednesday night, which is what Ryanair's pricing model excels at, but surely that puts me in the majority of consumers.
Quote from: Itchy on December 13, 2012, 07:27:28 PM
Its amazing the snobby attitude people have to flying, I'd love to know where it comes from. For example you can get a bus eireann bus from North Donegal to Dublin and it will probably take you 3 hours. You won't a seat reserved and you get a smiley stewardess or free coffee. Would you pay 30% more for that luxury. But come to flying and we get all this shite about aer lingus being better garbage. I fly at least once a week to europe. My first port of call is always Ryanair as they are the cheapest (i wouldn't even bother compare the others anymore as i've never found them cheaper). I've had one flight late in 3 years and I've never had my bag go missing. Thats all I care about. I also fly aerlingus to some places like stuttgart or munich. They are fine but again 30-50% more expensive. You get the same shite about bag size, charged for bag check ins and weight of bags. The only difference is you get a seat number - fantastic. Lufthansa charge 70% more and they give you a seat number and a piece of cake.
The recent case of the ill children is bullshit. What is the ryanair worker supposed to do, tell them its ok to have heavy bags as they are ill. What if they are blind, crippled, old - do you think the worker should just make it up as they go along. Unless the people in charge of this group live on Mars they will know that all airlines have weight restrictions. Its to do with fuel consumption and the like. Should people with no luggage pay for those that choose to bring anything they want? The media love having a go at one of Irelands most successful companies and i don't get it.
Great post Itchy.
Quote from: Itchy on December 13, 2012, 07:27:28 PM
Its amazing the snobby attitude people have to flying, I'd love to know where it comes from. For example you can get a bus eireann bus from North Donegal to Dublin and it will probably take you 3 hours. You won't a seat reserved and you get a smiley stewardess or free coffee. Would you pay 30% more for that luxury. But come to flying and we get all this shite about aer lingus being better garbage. I fly at least once a week to europe. My first port of call is always Ryanair as they are the cheapest (i wouldn't even bother compare the others anymore as i've never found them cheaper). I've had one flight late in 3 years and I've never had my bag go missing. Thats all I care about. I also fly aerlingus to some places like stuttgart or munich. They are fine but again 30-50% more expensive. You get the same shite about bag size, charged for bag check ins and weight of bags. The only difference is you get a seat number - fantastic. Lufthansa charge 70% more and they give you a seat number and a piece of cake.
That's great that you have that view.
I choose Aer Lingus as I can choose a seat with leg room, can be the first to board the plane, get fast track security & get lounge access. All of these things are important to me as a frequent travellers. I can also bring a laptop + suitcase on board.
I can't use your comparison with a bus to Donegal as I'd never dream of taking a three hour bus to Donegal.
You can be the first to board with Ryanair also.
Yes Aer Lingus will offer lounges etc for frequent flyers thats good of them.
With Ryanair everyone at this stage should know what you get with them cheap flights but if you dont bring a boarding pass or are over baggage weight you will pay and pay alot. I have never had any problem with any Ryanair flight, i must say i am not a frequent flyer but have flown with them about 10 times and found the cabin staff to be friendly.
Quote from: tommysmith on December 14, 2012, 09:36:14 AM
You can be the first to board with Ryanair also.
You can in theory yes.
In some airports despite buying a priority boarding they don't split the queues, sometimes they change the gate, sometimes you have your boarding pass accepted first and get to be the first person to stand on the bus to bring you to the plane.
There is no comparison to flying Aer Lingus imo.
Quote from: heffo on December 14, 2012, 09:42:15 AM
There is no comparison to flying Aer Lingus imo.
I would agree that Aerlingus are slighty better and thats why some people will pay more to fly with them when Ryanair are cheaper to go to the same airport.
Here is an post that i read on another forum about ryanair.
QuoteYou pays your money and you read the small print, then there will be no surprises for you.
No reserved seats, long treks to/from gates and airports, small weight allowances.
Yes Ryanair are very annoying, but it's like being crammed onto a holiday bus in Ibiza on your Summer holidays with lots of drunk English. You just tolerate it for 2 hours and you get to where you want to be. Travelling is not a meaningful event with 5 course meals and private butlers, just get me (and me luggage) from Airport A to Airport B please.
Quote from: tommysmith on December 14, 2012, 09:46:31 AM
Quote from: heffo on December 14, 2012, 09:42:15 AM
There is no comparison to flying Aer Lingus imo.
I would agree that Aerlingus are slighty better and thats why some people will pay more to fly with them when Ryanair are cheaper to go to the same airport.
Here is an post that i read on another forum about ryanair.
QuoteYou pays your money and you read the small print, then there will be no surprises for you.
No reserved seats, long treks to/from gates and airports, small weight allowances.
Yes Ryanair are very annoying, but it's like being crammed onto a holiday bus in Ibiza on your Summer holidays with lots of drunk English. You just tolerate it for 2 hours and you get to where you want to be. Travelling is not a meaningful event with 5 course meals and private butlers, just get me (and me luggage) from Airport A to Airport B please.
I'm not anti-Ryanair or O'Leary - I've no sympathy for moaners complaining about extra charges etc with them.
I was responding to the man of the people post who thought those who chose to fly Aer Lingus for their job were snobs.
Alright i didnt even read the whole thread.
Sure if i was flying with my job and getting the flight paid for i would prob go with Aer Lingus myself.
Quote from: Itchy on December 13, 2012, 09:48:22 PM
Its called competition and if it weren't for the likes of Ryanair good old aer lingus would be charging you 500 euro return to London.
It's also called a race to the bottom. In Ryanair's case, part of the vast profits are made by slashing working conditions as well as shoving 2 fingers at them.
I suppose there would be no chance that Ryan Air would distribute a bonus of (a minuscule) 1% of its profits to the workers who play their part in making that profit possible. If that's an example of a 'great company', you can have it.
I very much doubt snobbery has anything to do with choosing where possible and realistic, anybody else but Ryanair.
Nice touch from Michael O'Leary in donating 200K to the JT McNamara fund.
Why do people want to be the first on the plane? I've never understood this. I always try to be the last to board and I always try to get a seat near the front so I can get off as quickly as possible. I want to spend as little time on the thing as possible. You're going to be stuck in that seat for 5 hours, why would you want to lengthen the experience?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 01, 2013, 05:40:26 PM
Why do people want to be the first on the plane? I've never understood this. I always try to be the last to board and I always try to get a seat near the front so I can get off as quickly as possible. I want to spend as little time on the thing as possible. You're going to be stuck in that seat for 5 hours, why would you want to lengthen the experience?
Board last and you're carry on luggage will be at the opposite end of the plane.
Board first and you're luggage is overhead and you can be off the plane and out the door quick.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 01, 2013, 05:40:26 PM
Why do people want to be the first on the plane? I've never understood this. I always try to be the last to board and I always try to get a seat near the front so I can get off as quickly as possible. I want to spend as little time on the thing as possible. You're going to be stuck in that seat for 5 hours, why would you want to lengthen the experience?
In my experience if you board last you are never going to get a seat near the front.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 01, 2013, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 01, 2013, 05:40:26 PM
Why do people want to be the first on the plane? I've never understood this. I always try to be the last to board and I always try to get a seat near the front so I can get off as quickly as possible. I want to spend as little time on the thing as possible. You're going to be stuck in that seat for 5 hours, why would you want to lengthen the experience?
In my experience if you board last you are never going to get a seat near the front.
You will with airlines with reserved seating. At least those I've flown i.e. major US airlines and European flag carriers. I've never tried Ryanair or Southwest yet.
However, as someone said, good luck with your carry-on luggage!
Anyway, well done Michael O'Leary for throwing 200k into the JT McNamara pot.
Quote from: J70 on April 01, 2013, 07:32:34 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 01, 2013, 07:02:55 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 01, 2013, 05:40:26 PM
Why do people want to be the first on the plane? I've never understood this. I always try to be the last to board and I always try to get a seat near the front so I can get off as quickly as possible. I want to spend as little time on the thing as possible. You're going to be stuck in that seat for 5 hours, why would you want to lengthen the experience?
In my experience if you board last you are never going to get a seat near the front.
You will with airlines with reserved seating. At least those I've flown i.e. major US airlines and European flag carriers. I've never tried Ryanair or Southwest yet.
However, as someone said, good luck with your carry-on luggage!
Reserved seating is reserved seating, so obviously if you reserve a seat at the front you'll get it :) Eamonn is on about (I think) people paying extra on RyanAir to get on early. I'm saying that's the only way you'll get a seat up front in my experience of Ryan Air. Another reason why I prefer Aer Lingus :)
Sorry, I just realised I missed Eamonn's point. I think you're right J70. He's probably talking about people with reserved seats rushing to get on the plane first. I assumed because it was a Ryanair thread....
Anyway, heffo's probably right, it's about the carry on. When I'm flying Aer Lingus or BA, I prefer to be on early (although not in a mad panic to get on) just to get settled, get the headphones out, etc etc. Might as well be sitting in the seat on the plane as the plastic seat in the Heathrow departure lounge!
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 01, 2013, 05:02:15 PM
Nice touch from Michael O'Leary in donating 200K to the JT McNamara fund.
Fabulous gesture.
Quote from: Donnellys Hollow on April 01, 2013, 08:19:40 PM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on April 01, 2013, 05:02:15 PM
Nice touch from Michael O'Leary in donating 200K to the JT McNamara fund.
Fabulous gesture.
fair play. brilliant gesture
Is this Michael O'Leary's first venture into the world of philanthropy or one of many?
I'm thinking of the fact that the big-shots in first class usually board first. Parents with small childer? Okay, I can understand you might want a bit of room to work and get all your gear stashed away which is easier to do when the cabin's still empty.
What really drives me nuts is the people who crowd the gate before their zone number has been called. I have to ask "Excuse me, are you in Zone 3? No? Then step aside please. Excuse me, are you in Zone 3? No? Then step aside please. Excuse me, are you in Zone 3? No? Then step aside please." Have to swim through the crowd just to get on the bloody plane, as if these people think that blocking the entrance to the gate is going to get them on the plane quicker, and why they'd want to do that I just do not know. Drives me f***ing insane. Worse than the pole-vaulters who jump up out of their seats as soon as the plane arrives at the gate and the seat belt sign goes out. Where do they think they're going? They're going to be standing in the aisle for the next 5 minutes while everyone in front of them gets gathered up and shuffles out.
God I've come to hate air travel.
It is always important to remember that if you rush like hell then you will get there. After the plane comes to a halt I always remain in my seat - standing wont get me off any quicker.
And anyway, I will get stuck behind the two old folk who cant manage stairs very well (that could be me someday). Or the wall of chattering women who dont know how to pull a suitcase.
And often we all gotta queue at immigration, and you will always pick the slowest queue.
And often we all gotta wait at the luggage carousel anyway.
Oh aye. The luggage carousel. Don't get me started on that. The people who have to get standing right up against the side of it even when there's no sign of their bags, don't have the presence of mind to stand back and only step forward when their own bag appears. Then they look at you like "WTF is he doing?" when you say "Excuse me" and have to squeeze through them to get in there and reach your bag out.
Bloody unseasoned travelers. Is it any wonder I hardly ever check baggage?
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
Scum? I think you need to take a look in the mirror judging by your questionable morals in other threads.
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
I'm sure JT McNamara has climate change on his mind.
I will retract that personal comment - no need on my part. Seafoid, as you will see below I called you an arsehole. ;)
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
Climate change is only 'happening' because it has the most woolly and least tangible of effects.
I wonder what they thought of the big snow in Glenarm in 1962. Climate change? No. Act of god? No. Just one if these things that happens every once in a while? Yes.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2013, 11:45:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
I'm sure JT McNamara has climate change on his mind. What an arsehole.
Better than a kick in the nuts.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 01, 2013, 11:52:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
Climate change is only 'happening' because it has the most woolly and least tangible of effects.
I wonder what they thought of the big snow in Glenarm in 1962. Climate change? No. Act of god? No. Just one if these things that happens every once in a while? Yes.
Let's try a few irrefutable scientific facts.
- Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (PPM) prior to the Industrial Revolution (circa 1760) stood at about 260. It's currently at 395, and rising steadily.
- CO2 traps heat, and methane, for example, which is currently being released with thawing permafrost, is about 20 times more potent as a heat-trapper than CO2, and to which it (methane) eventually decomposes in any case.
- Glenarm, for example, is not the Globe. (And whilst overall global temperatures are indeed inexorably rising, 'Global Weirding' might be a more reflective description of the local realities.)
- January 2013 was the 335th consecutive month with a global temperature above the twentieth-century average.
"woolly and least tangible of effects" my arse.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 02, 2013, 12:47:40 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 01, 2013, 11:52:03 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
Climate change is only 'happening' because it has the most woolly and least tangible of effects.
I wonder what they thought of the big snow in Glenarm in 1962. Climate change? No. Act of god? No. Just one if these things that happens every once in a while? Yes.
Let's try a few irrefutable scientific facts.
- Atmospheric CO2 parts per million (PPM) prior to the Industrial Revolution (circa 1760) stood at about 260. It's currently at 395, and rising steadily.
- CO2 traps heat, and methane, for example, which is currently being released with thawing permafrost, is about 20 times more potent as a heat-trapper than CO2, and to which it (methane) eventually decomposes in any case.
- Glenarm, for example, is not the Globe. (And whilst overall global temperatures are indeed inexorably rising, 'Global Weirding' might be a more reflective description of the local realities.)
- January 2013 was the 335th consecutive month with a global temperature above the twentieth-century average.
"woolly and least tangible of effects" my arse.
Please explain to me how exactly 'they' have managed to calculate PPM for 1760.
Then start me again with 'irrefutable' scientific facts.
Thanks in advance.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 08:19:31 AM
Please explain to me how exactly 'they' have managed to calculate PPM for 1760.
Then start me again with 'irrefutable' scientific facts.
Thanks in advance.
Oh dear, you really don't have a grip on this 'science thing', do you?
You've never heard of ice-cores then, such as the Vostok? Ice-cores hold an abundance of atmospheric data from many millenia ago right up to the present.
It takes a particular type of (wilful?) ignorance to question scientific data without even a smidgen of knowledge, fair dues for the brass neck.
Edit: Ice-cores are not the only historical record open to science: others include ocean and lake sediments, geomorphic surface features, tree rings, coral, stalactites and stalagmites, etc.
I think any person who believes that humans have any influence on the world weather would need to take a flight into space and look back at the earth an realise that we are only specks of dirt in the scheme of things.
Alot of people need to catch themselves on.
Quote from: Hereiam on April 02, 2013, 09:15:12 AM
I think any person who believes that humans have any influence on the world weather would need to take a flight into space and look back at the earth an realise that we are only specks of dirt in the scheme of things.
Alot of people need to catch themselves on.
Congratulations, possibly the most ridiculous 'contribution' to the thread! :D
Yes, the Earth is a speck in the wider cosmos. Your difficulty, though, is that you inhabit that speck, so if you feck that speck up, you're fecked too.
And there's no serious scientific commentator left who will deny the anthropogenic (man-made) nature of the climate shift at this current accelerated rate.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 02, 2013, 08:51:13 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 08:19:31 AM
Please explain to me how exactly 'they' have managed to calculate PPM for 1760.
Then start me again with 'irrefutable' scientific facts.
Thanks in advance.
Oh dear, you really don't have a grip on this 'science thing', do you?
You've never heard of ice-cores then, such as the Vostok? Ice-cores hold an abundance of atmospheric data from many millenia ago right up to the present.
It takes a particular type of (wilful?) ignorance to question scientific data without even a smidgen of knowledge, fair dues for the brass neck.
Edit: Ice-cores are not the only historical record open to science: others include ocean and lake sediments, geomorphic surface features, tree rings, coral, stalactites and stalagmites, etc.
I'm going to walk away now.
I always find it amusing when 'men of science' laugh at the fairy tales that 'men of faith' cling to, but these same people will not hear of any questioning of their scientific data, which almost always requires a leap of faith in its algorithm.
If you want to cling to some scientific 'evidence' derived from a handful of people's self-proclaimed expertise in ice cores, then go on ahead. But please do not insult me by demanding that I should follow suit.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:26:44 AM
If you want to cling to some scientific 'evidence' derived from a handful of people's self-proclaimed expertise in ice cores, then go on ahead. But please do not insult me by demanding that I should follow suit.
More incredible ignorance. Really, you have zero knowledge about science (evidently) and all you can do is to decry (totally without foundation) those who have?
Pathetic, enjoy your dystopia.
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
Who says they're immune? And what specific relevance do general human failings have to climate science in particular? They're universal afflictions, so no need to single that sphere out for especial treatment.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
You have confused (on this thread) weather with climate, and you didn't even know what an ice-core was, yet you're happy in your blissful ignorance!
Climate science is more aware than most disciplines about the myriad complexities involved, and like all good science, is open to correction when proof emerges to contradict the theory. Where ice-cores are concerned, that's proof, and it takes a strange type of denial to be blind to that. Inferences can be deduced , with greater or lesser certainties, based on the evidence to hand, and at this point anthropogenic climate change is virtually beyond question, at least beyond serious question.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I beg to differ, alas. I've given you the science, that you have dismissed without a thought, and I'm the zealot! Let's discuss, though that would involve a rational analysis of the avaible scientific data, which I fear you'd have no inclination to do.
Quote from: Fear ón Srath Bán on April 02, 2013, 09:22:33 AM
Quote from: Hereiam on April 02, 2013, 09:15:12 AM
I think any person who believes that humans have any influence on the world weather would need to take a flight into space and look back at the earth an realise that we are only specks of dirt in the scheme of things.
Alot of people need to catch themselves on.
Congratulations, possibly the most ridiculous 'contribution' to the thread! :D
Yes, the Earth is a speck in the wider cosmos. Your difficulty, though, is that you inhabit that speck, so if you feck that speck up, you're fecked too.
And there's no serious scientific commentator left who will deny the anthropogenic (man-made) nature of the climate shift at this current accelerated rate.
Are these the same as
actual scientists or just people that comment on science (on GAA discussion boards for example)? If we could only separate
all the scientists from their respective interest groups, "research sponsors" and the likes, then we might get somewhere.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 02, 2013, 10:31:02 AM
Are these the same as actual scientists or just people that comment on science (on GAA discussion boards for example)? If we could only separate all the scientists from their respective interest groups, "research sponsors" and the likes, then we might get somewhere.
It would help immensely if those who were funded by corporate interests, for example, declared their affiliations. But even then, they diminish in number as the body of scientific evidence overwhelms. And no, casual contributors to a discussion board don't count, though that doesn't mean that significant (and serious) scientific sources can't be quoted by those same contributors.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society). How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.
Quotethat water has memory
That's a new one on me!
Quote from: Shamrock Shore on April 02, 2013, 10:55:03 AM
Quotethat water has memory
That's a new one on me!
Here's the theory (http://odewire.com/170441/scientists-investigate-water-memory.html).
Here's the reality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0).
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 01, 2013, 11:45:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 01, 2013, 10:49:38 PM
O Leary is a Grade A arsehole.
Climate change is happening and it's only going to get worse. Deniers like him are scum.
I'm sure JT McNamara has climate change on his mind.
I will retract that personal comment - no need on my part. Seafoid, as you will see below I called you an arsehole. ;)
JT McNamara was very unlucky but his is an isolated incident. Fair play to O Leary for the spons but of course he has to make a PR deal about it.
Climate change is going to change everything. Food production needs stable environmental conditions. Ryanair won't be able to feed anyone long term if the basis of agriculture is fucked.
Already Australia and the US are getting weather that is way off the scale. Things are only going to get worse.
Quote from: deiseach on April 02, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society). How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.
Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.
But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.
Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.
I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: deiseach on April 02, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society). How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.
Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.
But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.
Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.
I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.
How do you interpret the lowest level of summer sea ice in the Arctic since records began? Or temperatures of 40 degrees plus in Indiana last summer for over a month? Is it all just random?
What would you need to believe that climate change is happening?
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.
I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.
Jeez, stop digging will you!
Scientists do not 'want to prove things' as an end in itself; they want to uncover the truth about phenomena,
through proving things! And where climate change is concerned they're not looking for 'anything to cling to', that is just so wrong -- seriously, there's now so much evidence to render that assertion as simply ridiculous.
And to state that 'Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.' defies belief -- the evidence totally precludes this possibility that the climate is not already changing, radically. What do you want them to do about that, pretend that such evidence doesn't exist?
Michael Creighton has a lot to answer for.
Quote from: seafoid on April 02, 2013, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: deiseach on April 02, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society). How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.
Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.
But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.
Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.
I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.
How do you interpret the lowest level of summer sea ice in the Arctic since records began? Or temperatures of 40 degrees plus in Indiana last summer for over a month? Is it all just random?
What would you need to believe that climate change is happening?
Just wondering Seafoid, do you think the Wobbler is Scum too?
If you ask me the Climate change lobby have only themselves to blame for the lack of belief in what they say. Only yesterday I was listening to some guy blaming global warming for floods in Cork. Weather does not equal climate as someone said earlier, except that is if its extreme weather in which case it does.
If things are as bad as they seem and given that the two of the biggest countries in the world (China and India) don't really give a crap about Climate change, then I suggest we should put our resources into building a space ship and getting out of here as this is only going to get worse
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 02, 2013, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 02, 2013, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: deiseach on April 02, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society). How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.
Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.
But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.
Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.
I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.
How do you interpret the lowest level of summer sea ice in the Arctic since records began? Or temperatures of 40 degrees plus in Indiana last summer for over a month? Is it all just random?
What would you need to believe that climate change is happening?
Just wondering Seafoid, do you think the Wobbler is Scum too?
If you ask me the Climate change lobby have only themselves to blame for the lack of belief in what they say. Only yesterday I was listening to some guy blaming global warming for floods in Cork. Weather does not equal climate as someone said earlier, except that is if its extreme weather in which case it does.
If things are as bad as they seem and given that the two of the biggest countries in the world (China and India) don't really give a crap about Climate change, then I suggest we should put our resources into building a space ship and getting out of here as this is only going to get worse
I think the Wobbler is perhaps misinformed , Myles. But a lot of people want it to be like that.
Plutocrats like O'Leary who imply we can ignore what is happening around us and that it is all a joke are more dangerous than the Nazis were, IMO. The Nazis didn't destroy the planet.
I visited a few glaciers last year in France and Switzerland and they are all retreating.
This is from Chamonix near Mont Blanc
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2LsRIlRF2W8/TFmu1GdkZPI/AAAAAAAACUM/KEhfk0_7woo/s1600/07-Hauteur+de+la+Mer+de+Glace+en+1990.JPG
If the glaciers that feed the Ganges Valley in India disappear half a billion people are going to have problems feeding themselves. That sort of social breakdown has never happened on such a scale before. It is very scary what is happening.
So I do think O'Leary is a sc**bag.
People like him are doing what the cigarette companies did in the 1950s. Using their power and influence to muddy the waters so people don't find out what's happening.
With the amount of evidence/facts available it is hard to believe that some people can still argue against the seriousness of climate change. If you can't be bothered to actually study the evidence that is easily found (like O Leary) then at least stay out of the argument and don't try to cloud the debate. Just because the powers in China, India and the US among others don't care doesn't mean everybody else should stop caring. We will all be long dead before the real manifestation of the damage humans have done to this planet will be seen but again that is no reason to be ignorant.
And yes I will get down of my moral high horse now.
O'Leary will have the calculator out when he reads this -
The head of Samoa Air has defended the airline's decision to start charging passengers according to their weight.
Chris Langton told Australia's ABC Radio that it was "the fairest way of travelling".
Rather than pay for a seat, passengers pay a fixed price per kilogram, which varies depending on the route length.
Samoa Air flies domestically and to American Samoa. It is thought the move could encourage other airlines to introduce similar policies.
"Airlines don't run on seats, they run on weight, and particularly the smaller the aircraft you are in the less variance you can accept in terms of the difference in weight between passengers," Mr Langton told ABC radio.
"Anyone who travels at times has felt they have been paying for half of the passenger next to them."
Under the new model, Mr Langton described how some families with children were now paying cheaper fares.
"There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything - it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo," he said.
Air Samoa's rates range from $1 (65p) to around $4.16 per kilogram. Passengers pay for the combined weight of themselves and their baggage.
Mr Langton also suggested that the move had helped promote health awareness in Samoa, which has one of the world's highest levels of obesity.
"People generally are becoming much more weight conscious. That's a health issue in some areas," he told ABC Radio.
Mr Langton said he believed that charging by weight was "the concept of the future."
"People generally are bigger, wider and taller than they were 50 years ago," he said. "The industry will start looking at this."
A Ryanair jet returned safely to Krakow in Poland 25 minutes after its tail struck the runway on taking off last Sunday. There was a delay of eight hours before a replacement aircraft flew the 127 passengers to Dublin.
Tail-strikes are a common cause of aircraft damage although aircraft have a built-in "bumper" cartridge or skid to absorb much of the force of contact with the runway. Ryanair spokesman Robin Kiely said an inspection afterwards revealed "a minor scrape on the tail skid".
There was no further damage to the aircraft, Mr Kiely added.
Tail-strikes can be caused by taking off at too slow a speed or by energetic handling of the aircraft's control column on take-off, although errors in the distribution of baggage and passengers can be a contributory factor. Weather conditions can also be a consideration.
"Ryanair is fully co-operating with investigating authorities in order to establish the cause of the incident," Mr Kiely said.
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Unit of the Department of Transport in Dublin said any inquiry will be a matter for the Polish aviation authorities.
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 02, 2013, 03:57:37 PM
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 02, 2013, 02:03:49 PMWeather does not equal climate as someone said earlier, except that is if its extreme weather in which case it does.
NO IT DOESN'T!
Weather = Current/immediate conditions in the atmosphere. Also associated with predictions of these conditions hence the term "weather forecasts". The longer the period being forecast, the decreasing odds in its accuracy especially in some climate areas e.g. temperate locations in much of Western Europe.
Climate = The accumulation and interpretation of such weather statistics over a long period of time, normally 30 years but can be more or less. The use of such data helps to classify the climate type in a given area based on these results. Longer periods can then note over how the climate in a given location has changed - or not - over say decades or even centuries depending on the approach taken, from which predictions can be made about possible future changes of an area's climate and what possible knock-on effects this may have.
tl;dr version - Weather = Short term. Climate = Long term.
If you read again what I said you'll find I agree with you, I was being sarcastic about a lot of these "experts" you hear on the news that cite short term extreme weather events as examples of climate change.
The scientific illiteracy of some people on this thread is staggering.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 02, 2013, 05:23:03 PM
If you read again what I said you'll find I agree with you, I was being sarcastic about a lot of these "experts" you hear on the news that cite short term extreme weather events as examples of climate change.
Sarcasm is hard enough to convey in writing, but when it comes to climate change it's best avoided because the deniers are so serious in their profession of ignorance that it's hard to tell the parodies from the real thing.
Quote from: orangeman on April 02, 2013, 03:58:41 PM
O'Leary will have the calculator out when he reads this -
The head of Samoa Air has defended the airline's decision to start charging passengers according to their weight.
Chris Langton told Australia's ABC Radio that it was "the fairest way of travelling".
Rather than pay for a seat, passengers pay a fixed price per kilogram, which varies depending on the route length.
Samoa Air flies domestically and to American Samoa. It is thought the move could encourage other airlines to introduce similar policies.
"Airlines don't run on seats, they run on weight, and particularly the smaller the aircraft you are in the less variance you can accept in terms of the difference in weight between passengers," Mr Langton told ABC radio.
"Anyone who travels at times has felt they have been paying for half of the passenger next to them."
Under the new model, Mr Langton described how some families with children were now paying cheaper fares.
"There are no extra fees in terms of excess baggage or anything - it is just a kilo is a kilo is a kilo," he said.
Air Samoa's rates range from $1 (65p) to around $4.16 per kilogram. Passengers pay for the combined weight of themselves and their baggage.
Mr Langton also suggested that the move had helped promote health awareness in Samoa, which has one of the world's highest levels of obesity.
"People generally are becoming much more weight conscious. That's a health issue in some areas," he told ABC Radio.
Mr Langton said he believed that charging by weight was "the concept of the future."
"People generally are bigger, wider and taller than they were 50 years ago," he said. "The industry will start looking at this."
Wondering was that aired yesyerday - 1st April?
Quote from: mylestheslasher on April 02, 2013, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 02, 2013, 11:17:32 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 11:04:11 AM
Quote from: deiseach on April 02, 2013, 10:46:14 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on April 02, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
No.
What I decry is the assumption that scientists are somehow immune to the human traits of bias, greed, pride, stubbornness, jealousy and lust.
I don't need a knowledge of science to know that once humans get involved, the truth is ALWAYS more complex than true or false.
Which, by the way, is neither pathetic nor ignorant. The problem with discussing such things with zealots such as yourself is that you're not prepared to discuss, you just want to shout.
I'm very surprised at this post. What you are saying is that we can trust nothing scientists say because they're all human with the prejudices that come with being human. It's the same kind of argument deployed by those who think the MMR vaccine causes autism or that water has memory. Some people claim the earth is flat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/feb/23/flat-earth-society). How do we know that it's not all a giant con and those handful of people who claim to have been in orbit are not in on the joke? Yes, very surprised to see this coming from someone as normally sensible as yourself.
Not quite Deiseach. In general I respect science tremendously.
But the global warming/climate change discussion is one aspect of science that always raises scepticism with me.
Here's my point of view. Scientists want to prove things. So if there's nothing happening, there's nothing to prove. Human nature means they'll try to find something, anything to cling to. Unfortunately this basic human factor means there'll never be the same conviction in proving climate change doesn't exist.
I like science being science. I don't like science being industry.
How do you interpret the lowest level of summer sea ice in the Arctic since records began? Or temperatures of 40 degrees plus in Indiana last summer for over a month? Is it all just random?
What would you need to believe that climate change is happening?
Just wondering Seafoid, do you think the Wobbler is Scum too?
If you ask me the Climate change lobby have only themselves to blame for the lack of belief in what they say. Only yesterday I was listening to some guy blaming global warming for floods in Cork. Weather does not equal climate as someone said earlier, except that is if its extreme weather in which case it does.
If things are as bad as they seem and given that the two of the biggest countries in the world (China and India) don't really give a crap about Climate change, then I suggest we should put our resources into building a space ship and getting out of here as this is only going to get worse
Just because its China and India churning out the most CO2 doesn't mean we aren't blameless. These countries are churning out the cheap shite we in the west think we need. We stop buying, they stop producing.
Posted before, but always worth repeating when O'Leary is trying to woo the punters...
==============================================================
Ryanair's Micheal O'Leary arrives in a hotel in Dublin, he goes to the bar and asks for a pint of draught Guinness. The barman nodded and said, "That will be one Euro please, Mr. O'Leary."
Somewhat taken aback, O'Leary replied, "That's very cheap," and handed over his money.
"Well, we try to stay ahead of the competition", said the barman. "And we are serving free pints every Wednesday evening from 6 until 8. We have the cheapest beer in Ireland"
"That is remarkable value" Michael comments
"I see you don't seem to have a glass, so you'll probably need one of ours.
That will be 3 euro please.
O'Leary scowled, but paid up. He took his drink and walked towards a seat.
"Ah, you want to sit down?" said the barman. "That'll be an extra 2 euro. - You could have pre-book the seat, and it would have only cost you a Euro."
"I think you may to be too big for the seat sir, can I ask you to sit in this frame please"
Michael attempts to sit down but the frame is too small and when he can't squeeze in he complains "Nobody would fit in that little frame".
"I'm afraid if you can't fit in the frame you'll have to pay an extra surcharge of €4.00 for your seat sir"
O'Leary swore to himself, but paid up. "I see that you have brought your laptop with you" added the barman. "And since that wasn't pre-booked either, that will be another 3 euro."
O'Leary was so annoyed that he walked back to the bar, slammed his drink on the counter, and yelled, "This is ridiculous, I want to speak to the manager".
"Ah, I see you want to use the counter," says the barman, "that will be 2 euro please." O'Leary's face was red with rage.
"Do you know who I am?"
"Of course I do Mr. O'Leary,"
"I've had enough. What sort of Hotel is this? I come in for a quiet drink and you treat me like this. I insist on speaking to a manager!"
"Here is his E mail address, or if you wish, you can contact him between 9 and 9.10 every morning, Monday to Tuesday at this free phone number. Calls are free, until they are answered, then there is a talking charge of only 10 cent per second"
"I will never use this bar again
"OK sir, but remember, we are the only hotel in Ireland selling pints for one Euro"