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?
It's not very easy to sue here in the UK, so good look with that lol. Also this Ryanair's fault for not complying with rules. A stupid rule it may be, but Ryanair basically wants an exemption and treated differently to other airlines.
It's funny, Ryanair's whole strategy is 'follow the rules, or you pay.' And NO EXCEPTIONS.
Yet here - they want ongoing exceptions, because they don't want to follow the rules. So yeah, they're in the wrong.
Sure, in a theoretical world where Britain was part of the EU, they could be more efficient with fewer planes serving the combined market. But that's not the situation they're operating in - one of the stupid obvious outcomes...
It's funny, Ryanair's whole strategy is 'follow the rules, or you pay.' And NO EXCEPTIONS.
Yet here - they want ongoing exceptions, because they don't want to follow the rules. So yeah, they're in the wrong.
Sure, in a theoretical world where Britain was part of the EU, they could be more efficient with fewer planes serving the combined market. But that's not the situation they're operating in - one of the stupid obvious outcomes of Brexit - so it's not relevant to their argument.
IF they were running with their required baseline of 18 planes, they may be granted an exception - more than they grant for their customers. But they aren't, so that's not justified. CAA - 1, Ryanair - 0.
Well put! 100%
I'm on Ryanairs side here. I fly them quite frequently (13 times this year) and it's really quite nice to fly on.
This seems like a dick move by the CAA to just be like fuck you and your passengers, given they had a spare aircraft available to get people home and it's not like they can control either a disruptive passenger or a mechanical issue.
Some people have extremely foul mouths on them …. so well suited to only travel on Ryanair.
So easily pleased and furthermore, will never, ever be accused of being a Lady.
Go coitus yourself, Tim.
Question: the disruptive passenger was very drunk and aggressive, why wasn't he denied boarding? The gate agents must have noticed his state of idrunkenness
I have no sympathy for Ryanair. They always skirted the rules just like they did with them Spanish airports that didn’t grant them subsidies or lower fees so they wouldn’t leave the airports. Every airport operator has gotten fed up with their sneaky moves lol
Ryanair's corner cutting is the immediate culprit, preceded by outside agitators manipulating the British public into a Brexit that was bad for Britain, bad for Europe and good for Russia.
The Detailed Flowchart:
- Charles de Gaulle - vetoes Britain's first application to join the EEC (1963), creating lasting national humiliation
- British Tabloid Press - decades of anti-EU stories featuring straight bananas and other mythical regulations
- Thatcher - while supporting...
Ryanair's corner cutting is the immediate culprit, preceded by outside agitators manipulating the British public into a Brexit that was bad for Britain, bad for Europe and good for Russia.
The Detailed Flowchart:
- Charles de Gaulle - vetoes Britain's first application to join the EEC (1963), creating lasting national humiliation
- British Tabloid Press - decades of anti-EU stories featuring straight bananas and other mythical regulations
- Thatcher - while supporting the Single European Act, ultimately fuels conspiracy theories about "a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels"
- Brussels - ignoring optics and delivering just enough grist for the conspiracy mill
- James Goldsmith - billionaire founder of Referendum Party who first financially backed Euroscepticism at scale
- Alan Sked + Nigel Farage - expanding the euroskeptic tent by adding xenophobia
- 2008 Financial Crisis + Austerity - created economic conditions ripe for populist exploitation
- MAGAs (Bannon, Mercer) - pours money into UKIP inflaming the nastiest parts of British society
- Arron Banks + Andy Wigmore - Failed businessman Banks suddenly receives an infusion of cash and begins holding meetings with Russian officials
- Cambridge Analytica - provides psychological profiling tools to target susceptible voters
- Russian Bots & Trolls - amplify divisive messaging on social media
- Tory Leadership - fails to effectively combat the toxic right
- David Cameron - shouldn't have called that vote
- BoJo - was a useful idiot
- Brexit
- Ryanair - always cheap and eager to skirt the laws, tries to minimize investment in British air fleet while trying to game the exceptions
Right on @Ryanair, Brexit, MAGA, the Russians and a few Useful Idiots!
Welcome to Brexit, Sir, I'm sorry.
Easyjet too, has to split into 3 companies, an UK one, ans EU one and a Swiss one and never shall they meet.
1. I'm not surprised at all as that is the worst airline in the world.
2. Ryan air cannot complain. Operating a plane by another airline has some procedure that they did not follow.
3. "Stranded passengers" sounds very bad but it's BS. It's not like they're going to die or stay in the cold overnight. It only means Ryan air has to pay for accomodation, an alternate flight, and compensation for long...
1. I'm not surprised at all as that is the worst airline in the world.
2. Ryan air cannot complain. Operating a plane by another airline has some procedure that they did not follow.
3. "Stranded passengers" sounds very bad but it's BS. It's not like they're going to die or stay in the cold overnight. It only means Ryan air has to pay for accomodation, an alternate flight, and compensation for long delay. But Ryan air, being the worst airline in the world, doesn't really want that. They prefer to take the government to court to have an excuse no to pay went passengers take them to court.
It's about time people stop flying with this company. I did
I doubt compensation would be due here - an unplanned diversion to offload an aggressive and potentially dangerous passenger would fall squarely within the “extraordinary circumstances” exception.
Ironically the EU does exactly the same in reverse in aviation and many other industries, so this is not unique to the UK government.
This is Ryanair at fault from the beginning! They should have a cleared and cleaned procedure to deal with intoxicated passenger and if they do, the gate agents should deny boarding this intoxicated passenger. So neither they don't have the procedure in place or the gate agents failed this task - not complying with the company's policy! This is their first defense in The Swiss Cheese Model but they failed!
Should they do breath tests at boarding or what do you suggest? Most drunk people don't show any symptoms before boarding (and most won't during the flight either). Half of that plane was probably "intoxicated" given the route.
Have you boarded a Ryanair flight (to or from the UK before)? While I can’t extrapolate based on a few flights, all my experiences (except the 6 person post covid flight) have been horrible, up to the highlight of a 6am flight 50% filled with (very clearly) drunk soccer supporters that flew straight from a night out and behaved horrible… Obviously extremely drunk before take off. Still can’t believe that flight didn’t get diverted. Let’s...
Have you boarded a Ryanair flight (to or from the UK before)? While I can’t extrapolate based on a few flights, all my experiences (except the 6 person post covid flight) have been horrible, up to the highlight of a 6am flight 50% filled with (very clearly) drunk soccer supporters that flew straight from a night out and behaved horrible… Obviously extremely drunk before take off. Still can’t believe that flight didn’t get diverted. Let’s be honest, it’s all about selling even more on the flights for them…
I sometimes consume enough myself on flights (quietly), so I’m definitely not in the camp “alcohol should be banned”!
After that flight I swore never to set foot on one of their planes again…
And yes, of course the occasional drunk person can always make it past the GA.
Every Ryanair flight I've been on smelled like a distillery. Sort of like the old navy days, most Ryanair passengers seem to need their ration of rum to get through the experience.
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.
What does one's credit record have to do with their employment potential? Unless we're talking a finance director, chartered auditor or something of the sort, that sort of sensitive personal data won't be available to potential employers and/or anyone else other than financial services providers.
Customer should go after Ryanair when they engage in deceitful practices then. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
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.
@Santos, what would you consider targeted misinformation campaigns funded by hostile foreign governments?
The real villain here was the moronic, drunken, misbehaving chav who probably should have been denied boarding in the first place.
“The real villain”, omarsidd, is well known by thinking people, it has nothing to do with your remoaners remorse about the democratic will of the British electorate. “The real victim” is democracy and those affected by the cowboy managerial style of the mad Irishman who heads Ryanair.
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.
I believe that the LLC passenger type in Europe is different compared to the US. In Europe, the network legacy carriers only really fly to destinations from their hubs. The low cost carriers are really the only ones that offer nonstop flights in many markets. That offers a huge convenience, because why not fly for 1.5 hours on a Ryanair plane vs spending 6 hours with transit flying a network carrier. Additionally, the network carriers...
I believe that the LLC passenger type in Europe is different compared to the US. In Europe, the network legacy carriers only really fly to destinations from their hubs. The low cost carriers are really the only ones that offer nonstop flights in many markets. That offers a huge convenience, because why not fly for 1.5 hours on a Ryanair plane vs spending 6 hours with transit flying a network carrier. Additionally, the network carriers often charge a lot more than LLCs in most markets (in my experience). That combined with my previous point makes it hard to make a case to not fly an LLC, especially if the flight is so short.
In the US, Spirit doesn't really fly any routes that it has to itself. It mostly flies in markets served nonstop by legacy carriers (or Southwest), with the proposition of a cheaper fare with nothing included. That's why most of their customer base is a certain type of consumer. The same isn't really true for Ryanair or Easyjet
LCCs aren't much/any cheaper during higher demand dates such as those around bank holidays. easyJet in particular can have some fares that comfortably exceed BA's, and flying Ryanair or Jet2 with luggage often works out more expensive than Lufthansa business class (which, for all its onboard faults, does grant airport priority and lounge access benefits). Direct flights are important to many people, the problem is that a lot of the routes only operate 2-3 times...
LCCs aren't much/any cheaper during higher demand dates such as those around bank holidays. easyJet in particular can have some fares that comfortably exceed BA's, and flying Ryanair or Jet2 with luggage often works out more expensive than Lufthansa business class (which, for all its onboard faults, does grant airport priority and lounge access benefits). Direct flights are important to many people, the problem is that a lot of the routes only operate 2-3 times a week so the benefit of time savings is often evaporated through the need to follow a rigid schedule dictated by the airline, and that's why I never fly them.
Folks, the facts are that Ryanair is a cattle class airline, run by a most abominable Irishman, for the good and benefit of Ryanair.
Ryanair cares nothing for the passengers, staff or any aviation regulators.
Passengers get what they deserve when they book a Ryanair flight …. pay peanuts expect to be taken for a monkey by Ryanair.
@AwroB13a , I don't necessarily disagree with the thrust of that argument, but I also don't think it's sensible to stereotype Ryanair passenger demographics as being particularly impoverished, ill-behaved etc. A 75 year old who doesn't speak a bunch of foreign languages will want to fly with them direct when visiting her grandchildren, and so will the London banker who's got a holiday home in rural France, hundreds of kilometres away from the nearest BA destination.
Comment away, but lose the casual bigotry. You've been flagged once already today. The nationality of whomever runs Ryanair is irrelevant, but you've made a point of calling this out in negative terms twice today.
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!
Both... sides?
The aviation industry lore goes crazy.
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.
This should be the topic of anything. There airline industry is very regulated for good reasons and Ryanair didn't follow procedure so was denied request. I was against Brexit but this has absolutely nothing to do with it. You cannot go against regulation in flight or there are accidents.
I completely justify the regulator. Ryanair was trying to cut a corner to save a pound over passengers safety so f*** them
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.