Ryanair is blaming the UK government after nearly 200 people were stranded in Portugal overnight. Does the airline have a point about the government’s red tape, or is Ryanair simply scapegoating for its (sometimes questionable) business practices?
In this post:
Ryanair’s drunk passenger diversion gets complicated
On Thursday, April 24, 2025, Ryanair flight RK1265 was scheduled to operate the 1,630-mile flight from Agadir, Morocco (AGA), to Manchester, United Kingdom (MAN), with a Boeing 737-800. Unfortunately the flight didn’t make it very far, though. A “drunken and aggressive” passenger caused issues shortly after takeoff, prompting a diversion to Faro, Portugal (FAO), only 469 miles from the origin.
The plan was for the jet to just drop off the passenger, and then continue the journey to Manchester. However, during the unscheduled stop, a mechanical issue was discovered, and the plane had to be taken out of service.
Ryanair made plans to have a replacement aircraft flown in to pick up passengers, but this is where the issue arose. Ryanair Group has multiple divisions, including Ryanair DAC and Ryanair UK. The former is the largest subsidiary operating most Ryanair aircraft, while the latter is a UK specific subsidiary, which was founded as a result of Brexit.
The original flight was operated by Ryanair UK, while Ryanair attempted to operate a rescue flight with a spare Ryanair DAC aircraft, since that’s what was available. This required special permission from the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), since the rescue flight would be operated by a different airline, technically.
However, the UK CAA refused permission for a Ryanair DAC aircraft to operate the rescue flight, forcing the airline to delay the flight overnight, and stranding 177 passengers overnight. The airline calls the CAA’s actions “unlawful and arbitrary,” and is threatening to take legal action.
The airline claims that the UK CAA’s anti-EU stance undermines the government’s efforts to restore efficiency and promote growth in the UK economy. The airline group is calling on the Prime Minister to intervene, and is demanding that the CAA remove these “bureaucratic roadblocks it has so unnecessarily created.”
As you might expect, Ryanair executives had a slightly less filtered take on this, with Ryanair DAC CEO Eddie Wilson describing what happened as “utter bull****.” Wilson went on to explain the following:
“Here’s the important thing: they could have said ‘yes’. They actually said ‘yes’ earlier that day from a flight from Girona. This is bureaucracy and red tape gone mad. The UK government say that they want their agencies to get rid of this red tape. It seems that we disturbed the CAA person who was in bed at the time because they have no out-of-hours facility for this.”
“It’s not a question of cost here because that disruptive passenger, we’re going to sue him too, to pay for all that additional cost. But it’s completely unnecessary. It’s not very pleasant to be on an aircraft with a drunken passenger who was hugely disruptive on that flight and quite threatening as well. So you do the right thing: you divert to Faro, you do the right thing by having a spare aircraft available to bring people home on time.”
“This is done routinely when there is an unplanned event. It’s a rescue flight. That’s what it’s about. It’s not like you’re trying to do something outside of regulation. It’s a common sense approach. We do the right thing. It goes on an identical Ryanair aircraft – same tail, same uniforms, same procedures, same everything – except computer says ‘no’ back at CAA headquarters.”
UK CAA responds to Ryanair’s accusations
So, what’s the UK CAA’s take on this? Here’s a statement the agency released:
“The UK CAA plays a key role protecting passengers as well as enabling growth in the UK aviation sector. We encourage UK operators to create strong resilience plans for when planes have to be grounded to minimise the impact on passengers. These plans need to be consistent with the legal framework that applies to UK aviation following EU Exit, which requires UK based companies to have sufficient UK registered aircraft to operate their schedule.”
“Ryanair has been well aware of this position for a considerable period of time. Ryanair UK has chosen to operate a flight schedule that requires 18 aircraft, but has only allocated 15 aircraft to its UK registered business to fulfil this schedule. Ryanair has prioritised the placement of aircraft within their other EU based business over the UK, leaving UK passengers at a higher risk of disruption.”
My take on this Ryanair & UK CAA dispute
I kind of sort of see both sides here. When it comes to this very specific situation, I of course think it’s disruptive to block a rescue flight like this, and leave people stranded, all over a technicality, when Ryanair was just trying to do the right thing (by offloading a disruptive passenger).
At the same time, bigger picture, I see what the UK CAA is saying. The UK obviously wants to preserve aviation jobs in the UK, and Ryanair UK was set up in order to comply with laws there. If Ryanair is some days having to replace multiple Ryanair UK aircraft with Ryanair DAC aircraft, it sounds like Ryanair needs to have more planes (and crews) that are UK based, rather than European Union based.
It seems like Ryanair is basically just looking for “one time exceptions” over and over, with no slack in its Ryanair UK schedule. Is it unreasonable for UK regulators to be looking out for jobs in the country? And how can the CAA compel Ryanair to have an appropriate number of aircraft based in the country, short of actually enforcing rules that pose challenges for the airline?
Totally unrelated to the core of this issue, but I am curious about one other thing. I know Ryanair is getting into the habit of suing passengers who cause disruptions, in hopes that it deters such behavior. For example, the Ryanair DAC CEO said “it’s not a question of cost here because that disruptive passenger, we’re going to sue him too, to pay for all that additional cost.”
Does anyone know how successful this ends up being? Like, most people don’t have tens of thousands in savings to pay for these diversions, so do these lawsuits end up being successful, and are people somehow compelled to pay? Or is the airline just trying to make a point?
Bottom line
A Ryanair flight from Agadir to Manchester diverted to Faro due to a disruptive passenger. While the intent was for the passenger to just be removed and for the flight to continue, a mechanical issue arose. Ryanair was going to send in a replacement aircraft, but the UK CAA didn’t give permission, due to the plane being registered to a different subsidiary.
Ryanair thinks this is absurd, and is asking the Prime Minister to intervene, and is threatening to sue. The UK CAA points out that Ryanair is making a habit of this, and doesn’t have enough aircraft registered in the UK, and that’s not good for jobs in the country.
What do you make of this incident? Do you side with Ryanair or the UK CAA?
Good for Ryanair to go after disruptive customers in the courts. Those who cannot pay can declare bankruptcy and have their credit record (and future employment potential etc. etc.) trashed.
Actions should always have consequences. This person ruined 200 plus people's vacation, cost them a day's worth of wages, etc etc etc. and for them not have to pay for this would be a travesty. And yes, it sends a clear warning message to would need disruptors.
The legal fees alone will sink them. Forget public defenders - they're for criminal matters, and won't involve themselves in civil suits.
The real villain here was brexit, an ill-advised and destructive process that turns out to have been juiced by foreign adversaries. I don't like Ryanair, but at least they apparently campaigned visibly against that enormous mistake.
As for this case, poor people stranded (and worse for me would be "I'm in Faro but wasn't planning to stay... dangit"). Next time, just tie up the disruptive person and turn them over to UK police?
Nothing in modern democracy is juiced by outside actors. If you are too myopic, under-informed or distracted to make an informed decision for you and your fellow citizens, that is on you.
We live at the apex of learning potential. If people act against that, it's for other purposes and for other reasons. I'd start with disinvestment in rational education—not solely a US problem.
The real villain here was the moronic, drunken, misbehaving chav who probably should have been denied boarding in the first place.
Same uniforms, same livery - but what has been mentioned here is it is likely that Ryanair DAC has significantly lower labour costs and overall costs. Ultimately the UK does not want an European registered airline operating service to an non European country and is of the view, like that of many countries that UK passengers should be flown to Morocco either via a Moroccan registered or UK reg. airline. Similar to how the US...
Same uniforms, same livery - but what has been mentioned here is it is likely that Ryanair DAC has significantly lower labour costs and overall costs. Ultimately the UK does not want an European registered airline operating service to an non European country and is of the view, like that of many countries that UK passengers should be flown to Morocco either via a Moroccan registered or UK reg. airline. Similar to how the US wouldn't allow a Canadian airline to ordinarily fly point to point US passengers to Mexico direct. Don't understand Ryanair's point about a similar diversion the same day from UK-> Italy, as a European based carrier would be fine.
You Brexit you buy it.
The point being that Ryanair have been ardently anti-Brexit from day one.
But what about the customer base? I've not been impressed by the intelligence of the folks that flies the UK equivalent of Spirit. Seems like a FAFO situation for a lot of sunburnt Brits who likely voted for Brexit. I'm sure a lot of other Europeans would agree.
Knowing the individual personalities involved on both sides of this dispute, it was no surprise that this confrontation eventually happened and it is just surprising that it took so long!
I'm really confused by a lot of the comments here. They seem to be chastising Ryanair when all they are doing is operating around the mess that is Brexit.
Ryanair has always been very anti-Brexit from day one. So all of a sudden commentators here are now pro-Brexit? Just because it inconveniences Ryanair? That's just pathetic.
That despicable Irishman is as bent as a nine-bob note. If one takes note of what many say about a certain U.S. politician, they will make excellent bedfellows.
Are you talking about O'Leary? Who is not mentioned once in the piece. Or Wilson? It's hard to know who your ire and casual cultural stereotyping is aimed at.
From the CAA background information on Ryanair ;
If this were an isolated incident, it would be common sense to allow an exception. But it seems this is a pattern, and the UK CAA is absolutely right to put its foot down.
Yes. There is some back story to this, Ryanair had been operating and planning to operate again this summer various "RK" routes on Ryanair DAC aircraft under exemptions. The CAA finally put a stop to it so Ryanair was forced to cancel various flights to Morocco etc. I imagine if this truly was an exceptional rare scenario then the CAA would approve it.
Ryanair could have (and often does) recrewed with a Ryanair DAC crew...
Yes. There is some back story to this, Ryanair had been operating and planning to operate again this summer various "RK" routes on Ryanair DAC aircraft under exemptions. The CAA finally put a stop to it so Ryanair was forced to cancel various flights to Morocco etc. I imagine if this truly was an exceptional rare scenario then the CAA would approve it.
Ryanair could have (and often does) recrewed with a Ryanair DAC crew but likely none on standby at that time of night at a small base
The flag of convenience carriers (RyanAir is a pioneer) love to exploit various different regulatory regimes when it suits them ... but then complain when their tax/wage/labor/contract avoidance schemes bite back at them, as it appears in this case.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Should have taken these costs/risks into account in the business model, especially as the world fragments, rather than assume the authorities will just roll over and give whatever...
The flag of convenience carriers (RyanAir is a pioneer) love to exploit various different regulatory regimes when it suits them ... but then complain when their tax/wage/labor/contract avoidance schemes bite back at them, as it appears in this case.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Should have taken these costs/risks into account in the business model, especially as the world fragments, rather than assume the authorities will just roll over and give whatever exemptions to policy are expedient.
The main thrust of Ryanair's argument in this case is that the decision to not grant an exemption was made arbitrarily, rather than within the framework that is outlined by the CAA.
There are plenty of businesses, including Ryanair, that exploit various regulatory regimes. But they all do so within the framework of laws, regulations and processes that are applied in a non-arbitrary way.
Exactly correct - the CAA is changing the rules as they go along. Nonsense like this is what deters investment. If regulating bodies are seen to operate capriciously (or in this case, perhaps even conductively), it erodes business confidence.
*vindictively
The other side of the coin is that all of the other prior decisions to grant exemptions were made arbitrarily and that Ryanair knew this and exploited the arbitrariness of these waivers as it suited them, and is now pushing back against the application of the rule as written.
Incidentally, you seem to advocate for regulators to have no wiggle room to apply common sense to situations that are unforseen ("arbitrariness") and our completely rigid....
The other side of the coin is that all of the other prior decisions to grant exemptions were made arbitrarily and that Ryanair knew this and exploited the arbitrariness of these waivers as it suited them, and is now pushing back against the application of the rule as written.
Incidentally, you seem to advocate for regulators to have no wiggle room to apply common sense to situations that are unforseen ("arbitrariness") and our completely rigid. That would be a scary one to live in.