Talk:Ryanair

Doesn’t Ryanair operate a few Learjet 45s?

I’ve seen photo’s and read articles about it and supposedly it operates about four Learjet’s in its fleet. It’s also supposedly transport Maintenance crew and parts and well after a while of reading on the Simple Flying Page the Four aircraft are M-ABEU, M-ABGV, M-ABJA, and M-ABRB with ages around 11-20 years But one thing is that it usually has a Ryanair Callsign(FR) as FR1,FR2,And FR3. I’m not sure if it’s important or not but in my opinion it is.

Source:https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-learjets/#:~:text=Ryanair's%20four%20Learjets,typical%20passenger%20capacity%20of%20nine. Heyymann21 (talk) 02:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They are mentioned:

"The company also owns four Learjet 45 business jets, based at London Stansted Airport and Bergamo Airport but registered in the Isle of Man, which are mainly used for the quick transportation of maintenance personnel and small aircraft parts around the network." Lard Almighty (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I didn’t see that lol sorry. Heyymann21 (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know, SimpleFlying is deemed as an unreliable source. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 13:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Learjets are being replaced with Challenger 3500s. cagliost (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Challenger M-ABSU delivered end March 2025, based at London Stansted. cagliost (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

M-ABTE registered in April. cagliost (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

We now have M-ASBA delivered mid-May but currently no source online Ruk-and-roll (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Go-around incidents

Shall we mention the recent go-around incidents with aircraft EI-HET and EI-HGG. Both have AAIB incident reports. EI-HET had a bit of press coverage. 105.155.254.245 (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree EI-HET is worth mentioning considering it was classified as "serious incident" and received press coverage. Jao1Jao1Jao1 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

9H-QBD has an AAIB investigation underway for a serious incident on 3 October 2025, which had a bit of press coverage. ~2026-72133-3 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:AIRCRASH - those are the generally agreed-upon criteria for inclusion of an incident. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

If it was classified as "serious incident" it could be worth including it. I wouldn't give too much weight to WP:AIRCRASH noting the discussion on this at Talk:Ryanair#h-Non-notable incidents-20260710185300 Jao1Jao1Jao1 (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

“serious incidents” happen regularly, for better or worse. It’s not notable. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2025

Add Memmingen Airport (FMM) to the list of airports with 39+ Ryanair destinations. It now has 40 operating from there. Can be backed up by this section on the Memmingen Airport Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memmingen_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations Avia108 (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please note that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRC). Day Creature (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Non-notable incidents

I’ve removed the majority of the safety incidents section, as they fail WP:AIRCRASH, which is the notability guideline for aviation incidents. Put simply, the incidents, while newsworthy, aren’t necessarily notable. That includes today’s decompression - there’s no fatality, serious damage or write-off of the airframe, or verifiable process change. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Cubnorth, @C00LC1PH3R, @~2026-36678-40 and @Coleisforeditor Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

On a point of vocabulary, WP:AIRCRASH is about the noteworthiness of aviation events for inclusion on airport and airline pages, not about their notability (i.e. their suitability for having a standalone article). That said, I entirely agree that all the incidents you removed are not noteworthy, let alone notable. Rosbif73 (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was just about to post a separate section before I saw this:

@Danners430: You just cleared out the #Safety incidents section of all but one incident, which featured plenty of reasonable-to-include and well-cited entries for safety incidents on the airline. You cite WP:AIRCRASH, a WikiProject advice page which seemingly misapplies several policies (WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are for article notability and bear no weight on the contents of articles on notable subjects), and the sole reliance on it seems to me to be some form of assertion of ownership (it sure does seem like the examples given in WP:ADVICEPAGE of misusage of advice pages)? There seems to a long-standing edit consensus for the inclusion of these incidents and I would suggest it would be reasonable to bring your grievance to this talk page before removing content actively being updated by editors or accidentally engaging in edit warring.

Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Well if you'd be so kind as to point us to that consensus, that would be brilliant - because it's not on this talk page, and the WikiProject level consensus is WP:AIRCRASH. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

The WikiProject does not WP:OWN this article. Any consensus on its essays and advice pages are at best a local consensus on another page and does not override any local consensus made here and is not any more valid for the creation of a consensus on this article than a material argument citing policy by me, as I have made. If your WikiProject believes that advice page is worthy of global consensus so it becomes binding here then it should put it through the procedure laid out at WP:PROPOSAL to become a site-wide guideline. "WikiProject level consensus" is not a thing that exists. All of this is laid out, many times verbatim as I have written it, at WP:ADVICEPAGE, which is a project guideline with actual global consensus. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Er… I haven’t once claimed that this page is “owned” by the WikiProject. You have claimed there is consensus on this article to include the information which was removed - I asked where this consensus is, and you have yet to provide a link to it. I’ve looked through the talk page archives here, and I can’t find it. So right now, the WikiProject is the only consensus that exists, since there is no consensus here overriding it. I’m open to discussing, however please stop claiming there is consensus where there is none. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I said there was WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which there was, and I was suggesting that, in future, with such longstanding edit consensus, and with a revert already done on just the removal of this mornings event, it would be much more advisable to seek WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS rather than going ahead with a near complete removal of the sections contents. You are encouraged to be bold, but not rash (WP:EDITCON). Again, there is no such thing as "WikiProject level consensus", that has no direct bearing on consensus on Wikipedia on pages which are not directly related to the WikiProject, and any WikiProject advice pages are only as useful as the arguments within them are accurate. Asserting that "WikiProject level consensus" is binding on mainspace articles is asserting that the WikiProject owns the article, per WP:ADVICEPAGE, please read that guideline. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You’ve been spraying WP links everywhere instead of simply discussing the matter at hand, so no I’m not going to “read that guideline” at your command.

As for EDITCONSENSUS, that consensus lasts until it is disputed or reverted. Hello! This is what’s going on! It’s both disputed and it was reverted (or rather removed in this case)

And guess what… what do you think this talk page topic is? It’s not a friendly chat between friends, this is the discussion to gain consensus. So how about we stop talking procedure and you could enlighten us why you think the content belongs in the article? I’ve already made clear why I feel it doesn’t belong, and through this entire discussion you haven’t told us why you disagree. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 19:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually said why I think it should be in the article at the beginning (which featured plenty of reasonable-to-include and well-cited entries for safety incidents on the airline.), but allow me to rephrase: because it is highly relevant (to the section) verifiable content which would meaningfully improve Wikipedia by providing information on the safety history of the airline. There is simply no policy or guideline reason to remove the content. Regardless, you're shifting the burden of proof. You are the one making the claim that verifiable claims should be removed from an article and your only evidence or argument for that is a flawed WikiProject advice page which seemingly makes no credible interpretation of Wikipedia policy.

I don't understand why you think me citing Wikipedia policies and guidelines is a bad thing for developing consensus. I am pointing out the obvious flaws in both the essay you cite (which makes the incorrect assertion that WP:GNG and WP:EVENT apply to the inclusion of content in articles, when they are actually about the notability of articles themselves and have no bearing on their contents), and your application of the essay (which treats it as if it were a guideline or as if WikiProject consensus is a form of binding consensus on other mainspace articles). This is a deviation from the point, however, and I would prefer if we did not waste our time arguing about whether citing policies is actually a bad thing.

Yes, that is how edit consensus works. You seem to have taken my light-hearted suggestion personally. I was simply advising that in future you should take your grievance to the talk page with such a long standing edit consensus and having immediately previously editwarred (this is not a personal attack, I am making a constructive suggestion for future conduct) over a related edit. This, though, is also a deviation from the point, and is not constructive so I would prefer if we stopped arguing about it. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the last time I read through these walls of text, and leave you with a reminder… that this discussion exists. I am perfectly entitled to remove the content with good reason per BOLD, and I'm not even required by any policy to discuss it here. But I am. That is the last I will discuss procedure which you seem to have inexplicably taken offence to.

Here's the thing - why are those incidents worthy of inclusion? Remember that WP:NOTNEWS is a thing - those removed incidents are newsworthy in the immediate instance, but have no lasting coverage or are really notable beyond the initial news story. So they fail NOTNEWS. That is the purpose of WP:AIRCRASH - it's effectively a set of guidelines for when an aviation incident would pass the NOTNEWS hurdle. Even setting that aside, I see nothing that would cause those incidents to pass. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I had three paragraphs in response to your three paragraphs. I don't see how this they are egregious walls of text, and claiming that you will cease to productively engage with my arguments is not helpful. You are not bound to engage in any talk discussions but if you do not you will not be able to present an argument so it is more likely your argument will not be held by consensus and your bold editing will be to no avail.

Regardless, I am pleased to return to actual discussion of the content of the article. They are worthy of inclusion because they offer meaningful value to the article by helping to detail the safety record of the airline. NOTNEWS is not relevant here because aviation safety incidents are not routine events and are not comparable to the examples given there: routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities. I don't see how the lack of lasting coverage impacts whether it should be included in article contents, the test on lasting coverage is intended for deciding whether an event is notable enough for an independent article. Safety incidents are still encyclopedically relevant and noteworthy. On the contrary, I see no reason why the incidents are not contextually relevant or noteworthy. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that guidance put together by community consensus by many editors in a WikiProject about aviation means nothing… oh well. Sorry, but it does mean something - I fundamentally disagree that a huge section filled with general safety incidents is helpful to the article. The fact they have only a single incident which resulted in hull loss and no fatalities should serve to prove that the airline actually have a good safety record. Incidents which are diverts are routine, evacuations less routine but really nothing to write home about, and fires with non-major damage happen. There is nothing newsworthy or notable about any of those. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

iirc the list had like, 6, maybe 8 entries, all quite concise. I'm not saying guidance put together by community consensus by many editors in a WikiProject about aviation means nothing, I'm saying that it is flawed, does not align with policy, is not a binding policy or guideline, and there are a number of legitimate reasons for keeping the contents. The fact that Ryanair has a good safety record does not mean that we should exclude incidents, instead the section should be improved citing reliable sources to detail its full safety record, complemented by a record of safety incidents. This is not all or nothing. Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Similarly, there are legitimate reasons not to include these incidents - for the simple reason that they aren’t worth including. Not all well-sourced content belongs on Wikipedia… this is some of it. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I simply don't agree that this isn't worth including and I doubt these are two positions we can compromise on or reconcile. I don't see how this doesn't provide encyclopedic value to the article Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree that the latest incident is not notable enough for inclusion on here. A passenger being partially ejected from the aircraft is a near catastrophe and an incredibly unique situation, which I believe makes it notable for inclusion. I personally think WP:AIRCRASH is too restrictive anyway, but at the end of the day they are not rules and exceptions can be made. I would have appreciated some more discussion before making repeated reversions. Cubnorth (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Er… I started the discussion immediately after the second reversion. I personally follow WP:BRD, and nowhere in there or in policy is there a requirement that states a discussion is required after the first reversion.

I'm more than happy to join a discussion at the WikiProject if we want to update AIRCRASH - after all that would be the process to alter it. However I dispute that the incident is worthy of inclusion… passenger injuries do happen somewhat frequently (given the size of the industry that's not surprising), and as of now it's not gone beyond normal news coverage. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I never said it was required, I said I would have appreciated it. It's not all about policy or WP pages but I would argue you're not even following BRD correctly by making multiple reversions. But that's not really the point.

But again, chalking it up as a simple passenger injury ignores the circumstances that this is an incredibly unique event. Defining notability purely through set criteria ignores what actually makes things notable to readers. And I personally think it's borderline ridiculous for an incident in which a passenger was partially ejected from an aircraft to not be worthy of even a mention on Wikipedia. Cubnorth (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikiproject guidelines, layouts, notes and everything else have zero weight. They're not what Wikiprojects are for. Wikiprojects are perfectly entitled to make suggestions, but they have no authority and nothing that they have can be enforced or insisted upon in any way. WP:AIRCRASH comes right into that, it really doesn't mean anything useful. Someone can make an edit quoting a Wikiproject guideline or suggestion by all means, but if it's reverted then it can't be put back. People seem to mistakenly think anything that comes out of a Wikiproject has any consensus across the rest of Wikipedia or on articles. We need to stop Wikiprojects from making these "guidelines", "notability" criteria and "layouts" as people get the wrong impression on them. If Wikiproject members want to work on such things in more mainspace areas, then great the input is greatly welcomed, but anything decided in a Wikiproject stays in a Wikiproject and shouldn't come out of it to articles. Canterbury Tail talk 21:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Notes

I was surprised Danners430 has been removing the 10 July 2026 incident, leaving edit summaries stating it doesn't meet WP:AIRCRASH. This wikiproject essay states: "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport". In this incident, the engine was destroyed and a fan blade exited the engine and destroyed a window, depressurising the aircraft. That is serious damage. cagliost (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

None of the edits stated anything to do with the engine, and none of the sources did either. At the time it was added, as far as could BE gleaned from the additions (and indeed my own looking it up) it was a depressurisation and loss of a window. Nobody mentioned the fan blade separation, which yes would in my opinion count as severe damage. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:58, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Loss of a window is serious damage to the aircraft. cagliost (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would disagree that JUST the loss of a window constitutes serious damage. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this is false: Special:Diff/1363521173 Respectfully dissenting, Coleisforeditor (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Has Danners430 provided a single argument other than repeatedly citing AIRCRASH? With Coleisforeditor, Cubnorth, and Canterbury Tail disagreeing, I think we have consensus for inclusion here. These are interesting and noteworthy incidents. For example, the Belarus incident was not an accident at all, but is worthy of inclusion. cagliost (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Am I required to give any other reason beyond agreeing with what that guideline says? No. If I go through what was removed:

• An evacuation after a runway excursion, with no reported injuries… how is that anything beyond a headline in a newspaper?
• An in-flight delay leading to a fuel emergency… nothing noteworthy.
• The Belorussian divert - sure, maybe a note elsewhere in the article… it's certainly not a safety incident.
• A fire where no mention is made of serious damage, with no injuries reported
• An emergency landing after turbulence with some injuries

Seriously, how are any of these noteworthy? They are for the most part either routine aviation incidents, which happen every so often, or (in the case of the forced divert not even a safety incident, so belong elsewhere in the article if at all. I certainly see nothing at all that satisfies WP:NOTNEWS.

As for consensus… it's not even been 24 hours. And Canterbury Tail hasn't expressed support or opposition - they've made it clear that a guideline isn't binding, as we all already know. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 10:16, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to clarify on some terminology. No matter what Wikiproject Aviation etc says, what WP:AIRCRASH is isn't a guideline. Guideline has a specific meaning on Wikipedia and anything in a Wikiproject isn't it. The language in the project needs clearing up as it's not a guideline, purely someone's thoughts on a topic. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

And no I haven't expressed an inclusion or exclusion opinion. The only thing I would say is that if it's included, no one or no thing, in the history of aviation, has ever been sucked out of an aircraft. That's not how air pressure, physics etc work. Things are blown out of aircraft, sucked out is impossible no matter the blatantly incorrect wording of tabloid journalism because the word sounds more dramatic. Canterbury Tail talk 12:32, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion that happened since I was last on here, it seems like people agree that the recent and the diversion incident warrant inclusion, so I've added them back in. I've renamed the section to 'accidents and incidents' like most articles, which I believe the diversion comes under, but feel free to move it. I've also made sure to mention the engine debris. I do agree that the other listed incidents were not notable, but feel like they have muddied this discussion to nobody's fault. Cubnorth (talk) 12:56, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that; the incidents you've restored in Special:Permalink/1363575279 are the only potentially noteworthy ones, though I would tend to agree with @Danners430 that yesterday's decompression incident is borderline for inclusion. The arrest of Roman Protasevich is a typical case where overall noteworthiness (and the involvement of a notable person) overrides the wikiproject's WP:AIRCRASH criteria – which, while not binding, are nonetheless useful and widely applied in airline and airport articles – and leaving this in the "accidents and incidents" section is probably preferable to a mention elsewhere in the article. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2026 (UTC)