I know I've regularly seen a flight attendant go into the cockpit while one of the pilots steps out for the bathroom or whatever. Did not realize this wasn't the norm in Europe.
My understanding of the purported reasoning behind the reversal was:
- They required airlines to implement cameras to monitor the hall leading up to the cockpit so that the pilot in the cockpit can verify who is requesting entry (without this, they still must follow the rule — Ryanair chose not to retrofit, so they continue to use attendants who can look out the peephole).
- In testing, they decided that the extra time that the cockpit door was unsecured during the switchovers in tight spaces was more dangerous than trying to solve the suicidal pilot issue with better mental health monitoring.
(My own note, we know that suicidal actors have no problems taking weapons to their copilots or whatever attendant is stuck looking out the peephole, e.g. FedEx 705.)
"On April 7, 1994, Federal Express Flight 705... was the subject of a hijack attempt by Auburn R. Calloway, a Federal Express employee facing possible dismissal for having lied about his flight hours.
"Calloway boarded the scheduled flight as a deadhead passenger carrying a guitar case concealing several hammers and a speargun. He planned to crash the aircraft hoping he would appear to be an employee killed in an accident, so his family could collect on a $2.5 million life insurance policy provided by Federal Express..."
What is it with people who get all nitpicky about Ryanair charging on a per use basis? Maybe they should have a kind of all inclusive, flat rate, where you pay for food, drink, signed seating, extra luggage, etc. whether you use them or not?
What am I missing? You’re also clearly free to not fly with them. All I hear is bitching.
> What is it with people who get all nitpicky about Ryanair charging on a per use basis?
People book with Ryanair expecting the advertised price, then get caught out by added fees for what typically comes standard.
> Maybe they should have a kind of all inclusive, flat rate, where you pay for food, drink, signed seating, extra luggage, etc. whether you use them or not?
They could keep the same pricing model and just flip the UX - show initial base price including standard amenities, then give discounts/refunds for opting out so it's a pleasant rather than unpleasant surprise. But they won't, because they rely on drawing people in with the low price and then sunken cost/escalation of commitment taking over.
> What am I missing? You’re also clearly free to not fly with them. All I hear is bitching.
Customers complaining is part of how that choice works. People have a bad experience (large unexpected fees at check-in, too late to change plans), make the bad experience known, and that drives decisions of future customers.
- They required airlines to implement cameras to monitor the hall leading up to the cockpit so that the pilot in the cockpit can verify who is requesting entry (without this, they still must follow the rule — Ryanair chose not to retrofit, so they continue to use attendants who can look out the peephole).
- In testing, they decided that the extra time that the cockpit door was unsecured during the switchovers in tight spaces was more dangerous than trying to solve the suicidal pilot issue with better mental health monitoring.
(My own note, we know that suicidal actors have no problems taking weapons to their copilots or whatever attendant is stuck looking out the peephole, e.g. FedEx 705.)