Airlines don't cut corners on safety unless it is legal to do so. Most airline safety today hangs on a thread of government regulation and enforcement; without that, air travel in developed countries would be the Wild West, as it is in some other parts of the world. Airlines do everything the law requires, but often nothing more (fortunately, the law in most Western countries is strict indeed). What protects your safety is the law and the threat of enforcement of that law, not any fundamental concern for safety on the part of airlines; all they want to do is make money.

Extensive deregulation puts enormous pressure on airlines to cut costs wherever they can, and safety is one area where costs can be cut, if the law permits it.

Remember Alaska Airlines, which obtained FAA permission to reduce the maintenance schedule on a key rudder subsystem, leading to excessive wear that caused the rudder to fail and kill everyone aboard one of their flights (Flight 261). If the FAA had refused permission to reduce the maintenance on the aircraft, it might still be here today.

It's possible that Ryanair cuts costs everywhere except on safety, but that seems unlikely. Fortunately, while customer service and in-flight amenities are lightly regulated, safety is heavily regulated, so that should keep you safe, as long as everyone follows the rules.

It's safer to fly than drive, and the statistics per air mile are getting better and better. Let's all just hope it stays that way. I just had the opportunity to fly from one dirt airstrip to another dirt airstrip with a fly-by to chase the zebra off the "runway". The inexpensive airlines HAVE to be safer than that! I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

The statistics are more complex than that. Flying is quite safe if you stick to scheduled flights on major airlines using large aircraft in the USA. Everything else is slightly less safe, the decline in safety depending on a number of variables. For example, flying in Western Europe is only a bit more than half as safe as flying in the USA (flying in Eastern Europe is much worse). Flying a commuter airline or aircraft is less safe than a major airline or large airliner. And so on.

Most of the differences are small, but they can get larger. Flying in Africa is distinctly more dangerous than flying in the USA. Flying small general-aviation airplanes is many times more dangerous than flying commercial airlines (the former is about as dangerous as riding a motorcycle, the latter somewhat safer than driving a car).

The numbers change depending on one's definition of safety as well: accidents per mile, accidents per trip, probability of dying, etc.

Overall, though, flying commercial airlines in the developed world is safe enough that one's time is better spent worrying about other things.

AnthonyGA wrote: "It's possible that Ryanair cuts costs everywhere except on safety, but that seems unlikely."

I am not a fan of Ryanair and don't use them. That is because of the way they treat people (staff, passengers, those who provide services for them); their style has been described as "adversarial".

But I do not believe that they cut costs on safety in an inappropriate way. There seems to be a proper safety culture within the airline.

There might be one particular issue. The fast turnaround times means that a flyaround becomes a problem, and there have been suggestions that pilots have chosen to land in situations where pilots with other airlines would have chosen a flyaround.

is it possible ryanair does not do flyarounds as much as other airlines because they fly with less petrol reserve?

I don't doubt for one minute that statistically, Ryanair have very few flyarounds. Because they mostly use uncongested airports. I've flown with them umpteen times (Stansted's my nearest airport, and relatives in Donegal & Dublin), and I can't recall a single time we've done anything other than go straight into an approach at any airport.




"Last time I went to the site you had to provide a lot of personal data before you could see the final price.

Is this still the case as I personally resent having to type in copious information just in order to find a price?"


I far prefer this to sites which insist that you have to register before you can see a price.

A flyaround is not to be confused with circling in a holding pattern waiting to land; it is an aborted landing. The need to perform a flyaround is not generally linked to how congested an airport is. It arises because an approach is not as good as one might like -- too fast, or at a bad angle. There is a grey area between a perfect approach and an impossible one. It might be that some Ryanair pilots see different shades of grey than do pilots in other airlines where there is less pressure to get in and out again very fast. It's the pilot's call.

I don't believe that Ryanair don't carry enough fuel for a flyaround. They will have enough fuel to go to another airport if that proves necessary, and that is more than would be needed for a flyaround.

There are legal minimums for reserve fuel that Ryanair and all other airlines must respect (at least in developed countries), so they have at least that. It normally provides enough fuel to reach an alternate airport and/or fly for some specified time beyond the expected arrival time.

Beyond that, it's the pilot's call. Pilots can ask for more fuel to be loaded if they wish; some do, if they have any reason to be concerned about additional delays, or simply because they like a larger safety margin. It's possible that some airlines press their pilots very hard not to load anything beyond the legal minimum fuel, though. Just be glad there <i>is</i> a legal minimum, though, or a lot of aircraft from a lot of airlines would be landing with fuel emergencies.

I believe the most common cause for a go-around is when an airline is too close to another when coming in to land, or when another aircraft is on the runway.

It's never happened to me personally on numerous flights with Ryanair - or any other airline.

Steve

Go-arounds are normal procedures, not to be confused with emergencies. They don't occur very often because pilots and air traffic controllers do a very good job of organizing things and there's rarely a reason to abandon a landing once the process has begun. However, in the rare case where an aircraft that has previously landing is taking its time about clearing the runway, or something like that, a pilot may decide to go around and start the landing again (the controller may suggest it as well). Go-arounds are time-consuming and expensive (more fuel burned flying around in a circle to come back in), so everyone tries to avoid them. They aren't dangerous.

Military pilots often do a few touch and goes to get in some practice landings before coming to a full stop. They don't get as many flying hours as commercial pilots, so that is necessary for them. You wouldn't do it with a plane full of passengers unless there was good reason, though.

I've flown Ryanair, easyjet and BMI before and didn't have a problem with any of them, though easyjet and BMI were definitely more comfortable, better with customers, and flew out of bigger airports than Ryanair.

As for safety records, I just did research of my own online and the major US carriers' flight &quot;incidents&quot; totally dwarf those of Europe's. Southwest is the best, and it seems to be on par with Europe's regional carriers.

Just about everything about U.S. commercial aviation dwarfs that of Europe.

Just remember that Ryanair does not always fly to the major airports and as other emailers have said, follow their guidlines to the letter!! Also on the Ryanair website it tells you the various ways to get from airport to the city of your destination.