For what it’s worth Ryanair have one of the best safety records in the world. I’ve got no idea how they manage it considering they’re known for cost-cutting, but they’re very good at looking after their aircraft and I guess their crew are well trained too.
Also FYI the aircraft that was involved in the incident today was ex-Ryanair. It left their hands in 2017.
It’s reasonable but also a bit unrealistic, planes get swapped out, sometimes last minute (my flight in June has already changed planes). And it’s going to cost more and lead to choosing flights at inconvenient times, when there’s no guarantee of the plane you’ll be getting.
You could probably reduce the amount by only flying planes / routes that usually have a Boeing and some smaller airlines only have one make of plane etc so you could favour those. I know people doing something like this. It’s not entirely rational given the risk level but people are not obliged to act rationally I suppose
I guess just as an aside to that there was clearly a reason it was hurtling towards said wall which may be pilot error, plane error or natural event that would have happened regardless.
So it could still have been an issue with it being “Boeing”.
A bird strike shouldn’t prevent the landing gear from coming down, usually would affect one engine only and should result in a fairly standard (albeit emergency) landing. Even without a landing gear down there should be flaps up and thrusters to slow the plane down.
Worthy of note in this plane the landing gear can be manually brought down too.
Obviously right now nothing can be ruled in or out, and there is a chance that a bird strike was a part of the issue, but as an isolated event this would be highly irregular to bring a modern commercial jet down.
The plane was literally hurtling at full speed down the runway. I suspect there’s more to it than just birds. As with most crashes it’s usually the Swiss cheese effect.
The concrete wall was in no way a good thing though; and I’m surprised there aren’t better rules on what should be at the end of a runway. I’d probably start with “should not be able to crush an entire plane” and work from there.
The wall shouldn’t have been there, and ultimately chances are that there would have been far more survivors if it weren’t. That being said planes still get to the end of runways and flip over even without the walls.
TBH most of the experts on the news are just pilots. Thousands of them exist and usually one pilot’s opinion is as equally valid as the one taking you to Rome later today; some pilots just have become the go-to contacts for news organisations. So they are often only experts in the sense they fly a plane.
Bird strikes are practiced for a lot. And I mean a lot. They are also very common. So while I’m not disagreeing that everything started with a bird strike and ended with a concrete wall - the bits in between should be really standard emergency stuff for a pilot; and that’s where the mysteries remain.
What I always try to do though is remain empathetic to any human who is tasked with making instant decisions that can affect 200 odd lives including their own, under pressure that none of us can imagine. Even with all the training pilots go through they are human still and even if they miss something I can empathise with that.
Well, any air crash is highly irregular by its nature. Birdstrike did bring down that jet which landed in the Hudson though, which was an Airbus A320.If birdstrike can take out one engine (which is not that unusual), it can (on a very rare occasion) take out two, and passenger jets don’t stay in the air long with no engines.
It is unlikely to be the sole cause here though as you say, as there’s no reason it would have prevented the landing gear deploying.
That was more that they wouldn’t have made it to an airport and was a pretty rare occurrence generally. Bird strikes are actually quite common but even with two engines out planes should be in theory able to land on a runway perfectly fine and they train for this.
Depending on height a plane will go 60-100 miles gliding with no engines. If over ground then better chance of being near something to land on.
Usually the mechanics to slow a plane down and landing gears etc are not affected by an engine failure so this all works and it’s just a matter of gliding to a place to land. This plane managed all of that so actually by textbook it should have probably landed safely.
The fact this didn’t happen means either more went on, pilots did not complete everything they should have or it was just the absolute rarest of bird strikes (which of course is always a possibility).
We are thinking of doing a hike across the Canaries next winter and then finishing for a couple of days all inclusive to recover.
For anyone loyal to BA, might be the end of it soon:
www.headforpoints.com/2024/12/30/british-airways-club-revenue-based-status/
Frankly £7,500 not including taxes and fees is an insane amount for Silver status. £20,000 for Gold is even more insane.
I need some time to digest this but I feel like I might be one of the very few who benefit from this. I never really got any benefit from the old system.
I spend a lot on my BA Amex so earning points that way is welcome. I also travel occasionally for work and those tend to be booked for me as those more expensive fully flexible tickets. Bronze and Silver may be doable for me now, but I’ll need to see how this all plays out.
It’s capped at £2,500 of the spend bear in mind.*
If it was not limited Silver would be much easier and I’d get that spend per year.
*Actually it’s capped at 2,500 points of the 7,500 required so actually depends on how many points per £1 spend you get, I’m assuming £1 to 1 point like flying but it may not be.
My BA Gold is valid until 2026, so I will enjoy it as much as I can.
After that, I am moving my status to another OneWorld airline (that earns Avios perhaps).
Same benefits, less cost to achieve.
I’m Silver until 2026 but then I’ll be just looking at the cheapest acceptable flight and consider either business or buying lounge access rather than default BA.
I’m not in the high esteemed customer bracket BA clearly want but I was always loyal and have been for many years.
I’m already playing about with different airlines for Europe trips - I’m surprised only BA fly direct to Berlin as far as flag carriers go!
Only really a flag carrier for London
It’s a flag carrier whether you like it or not though, but the point more was that the German flag carrier doesn’t fly direct.
Most flag carriers are actually focused on capital cities, as is ours particularly given our size.
A good example is often the quote that KLM cover more destinations in the UK than BA. When KLM have no internal flights and only fly via Amsterdam. In fact most carriers fly via one airport (usually the capital) except low cost carriers.
The exceptions tend to lie in countries that have vastly more land than us or have several major long haul airlines (which we don’t).
I find KLM’s fares really good value and you get carry-on baggage included plus snacks and drinks on the flight (not essential but nice to have).
Plus the customer service was really good, I missed my connection at Schipol due to my first flight being late. Within 15 mins of getting off the plane I was on the bus to an airport hotel and rebooked on the first flight out the next morning. Within 4 weeks I also had €342 compensation without having to fight for it.
You can drive to Amsterdam from anywhere within the Netherlands within 2 hours, so a single base makes sense there.
Anyway, BA is a good reflection of the UK… London centric and far lower quality than in the past due to cost cutting. And now orienting its rewards to benefit those that have the most money 
Ah yes the London haters show their faces every now and then here, we’re used to it. Well done, you’re super original 
We’re not a big country. We don’t need a domestic flight network. Those cities that do have a connection and they just go via London. It makes absolute sense for London as a base given there’s like 20% of the entire country living in the area.
I’ve never flown them but it’s certainly a good option given the short hop to Amsterdam for any long haul options. Their FF programme is kind of hard to climb but these changes do mean I (and many others) just won’t be getting status anywhere so it’s down to flight cost/convenience/on board experience.
I’m figuring out how to retain BA Silver by March 2025, then spend the remaining Amex voucher and remaining Avios in the joint account over the year for the lounge access in economy. Then it’s open skies I suppose.
On the up side I’ll be getting a lot more flight review YT watches now I’ll be venturing out!
Most countries are like this if they are European or our size though, this is my point.
My French friend flies AF but almost all her flights route via Paris. If in Germany you’re likely going via Munich or Frankfurt.
As time goes on I think hub and spoke will reduce as smaller planes go further and become more economical, but until then clearly there isn’t a business case for BA to fly from more than one hub or they would be. Virgin have taken a lot of the premium northern market and TUI/Jet2 have the leisure market.
If I’m honest half the people complaining about BA not flying more around the UK wouldn’t actually take BA anyway, it’s just an easy “omgzzzzLondonGetEverything” thing to say that gets the likes and claps.
BA fly via London but they fly from several airports. They do the same as any hub and spoke airline globally. I don’t really see why people think they are uniquely disadvantaged. You don’t live in the capital city, it’s got its positives and negatives.
Boquete, Panama