We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Another reason why Ryanair sucks as an airline

I guess this is a good reason as any not to fly on Ryanair.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

11 comments to Another reason why Ryanair sucks as an airline

  • Rob

    Being a Michigander who refuses to even set foot in an airport while the “federal” goons are in control, I hadn’t even heard of Ryanair until I saw an article last night about their proposal for paying extra to sit on a flight.

    I don’t have a problem with the idea of offering a very basic low cost fare with the option to pay for “frills”, but I do have a problem with those who deliberately aligns themselves with any government. That makes it the best reason to not fly with Ryanair.

  • Brian, follower of Deornoth

    The democratic European Union. Support us or go out of business.

  • Leary was “a man who could have been.”

  • Yes … or on anything involving an Airbus.

  • Verity

    On the upside, Ryanair are charging fat people extra.

    This addresses the issue of weight on the plane, but not the issue of fat people seeping over, under and through their seat into the seat next to them … the one you might be sitting in.

    I think they should put dedicated “fat people’s seating” – which would be normal 1 1/2 seats-size – in the back of the plane and charge them 1 1/2 times the fare. That way, if they were too fat to contain even in 1 1/2 times the normal area, they would just seep over into each other’s space and leave the rest of us alone.

  • I cannot stop giggling over ‘seep’ – does that make me a bad person?

  • Robert Speirs

    I can’t believe the weightist comments on this blog. Why can’t we appreciate the way the differently weighted among us gracefully flow – not “seep”?!

  • You are absolutely right Robert, not all triglycerides are created alike. Now, where should I hide…

  • Chris H

    Surely if you hold a referendum and a no vote is carried and you then hold another referendum because you didn’t like the no answer and so could everyone kindly vote yes this time. Is it not the duty of every voter, even the ones who previously voted yes, to vote no because that is the answer that the referendum actually delivered?

  • In Australia, a constitutional amendment requires a Swiss style double majority at a referendum – ie a majority of votes overall and a majority of votes in a majority of states. In the first few decades of the twentieth century, federal governments put a number of proposals to the voters to increase the powers of the federal government at the expense of the states. These were almost always defeated. On quite a few occasions, the same or very similar proposals were put to the people on multiple occasions, with same presumption that somehow the people would get it right eventually that we are seeing here in Ireland.

    Amusingly, the people kept voting no. There has never been an instance in Australia (despite many opportunities for it) in which a proposal has been passed at referendum on a subsequent occasion after being defeated previously. The political class has a tendency to make patronising comments about how this demonstrates the constitutional illiteracy of the electorate (blah blah blah), but the response to this is for people to keep voting no. Except in very special circumstances, Australians vote “no” when faced with a referendum practically without reading the question. This shows good judgement if you ask me.

    This is not entirely a story with a happy ending, unfortunately, as the powers of the federal government have steadily increased over the decades anyway. This has happened in much the same way it has happened in the US, with the highest court steadily interpreting the constitution in rather creative ways that its authors are unlikely to have thought of, and through exercise of emergency powers in wartime that made changes that were somehow never reversed when the wars in question were over.

  • Paul Marks

    That was a nice comment Mr Jennings (in the old sense of “nice” as well as the new one).