# Can we have the old Ryanair website back?



## BOXtheFOX (25 Feb 2008)

The new Ryanair website is up and running. Unfortunately at first glance it is not as good as the older website, for the customer that is. Previously you were able to click on "find lowest fares" and be shown a month of choices. On the new site you can only see two days before and two days after.  Unless I am missing something?


----------



## Guest120 (25 Feb 2008)

This proves that change is not good.


----------



## ubiquitous (25 Feb 2008)

What Ryanair say...
[broken link removed]




> Ryanair.com Now Available
> 
> The new Ryanair.com is now up and running ahead of schedule, below are some of the new enhancements for customers:
> 
> ...


----------



## lasno (25 Feb 2008)

The Ryanair site is very slow today. As for finding lowest fares, if you select the "book now" option at the top of the home page and then tick "my travel dates are flexible" the fares for 6 days are displayed. 
However I found the old system displayed more fare options.


----------



## Daddy (25 Feb 2008)

Anyone know if the 1 million seat sale tomorrow is confined to UK as the site states 1p seats ?


----------



## BOXtheFOX (25 Feb 2008)

Site very very slow today. Seems to be taking ages for the pages to turn. I hope this is only due to pressure on their site today......but then again I thought that was one of the reasons why they were upgrading their site to stop this type of thing happening.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2008)

I can see it now:



> For a small fee you can now expedite Ryanair.com page refreshes:
> 
> 20 seconds+ FREE!
> 10-20 seconds: €5
> 1-10 seconds: €10


Maybe I should pitch this one to _Mick _himself?


----------



## Lauren (25 Feb 2008)

Clubman...classic...u are bold!


----------



## WhoAmI (25 Feb 2008)

Better break out the oul' wallet so - looks like the site (the bookings site, that it - homepage still active) has fallen over! BIIIIGGGG timeouts, etc.


----------



## ClubMan (25 Feb 2008)

Doh! 


> Error
> *An Error Has Occurred*
> 
> An error condition exists which is preventing you from continuing. You may wish to start over and try again.
> ...


No doubt _MickO _will blame the _DAA_, minister, air traffic controllers, _EU_ etc.


----------



## Simeon (25 Feb 2008)

Geez! Am I the only one that thinks O'Leary is a superhero. Has everyone forgotten the 'good old days' when you paid two times the average weekly wage to fly return from Blighty? Ok, so you got a fairly decent breakfast on the early flights .......... and a bite and a drink on the later ones ...... and two full time ground hostesses at the exit/entry door and lots of 'final calls' if having a bit of a session in the departre lounge. But give me todays way of doing business any day. Just think how good and cheaper it would be without the extra security.


----------



## storm (25 Feb 2008)

*Http/1.1 Service Unavailable
*

How handy for ryan air when theyre selling cheap €10 flights


----------



## rmelly (25 Feb 2008)

I thought they might improve the UI of the site as part of the upgrade but it is as tacky as ever. Have to say I'd be ashamed to have any responsibility/input into that site. And let's not start on it being php based, it's poor JavaScript, it's WAI compliance issues and it's poor localisation to name a few flaws.

Someone should tell then that they can have a decent looking site that is still performant.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2008)

I would have said "basic" but is this "tacky" look and feel not actually part of _Ryanair's_ branding at this stage? I am not being facetious. Their website has a distinctive look and feel and people recognise it almost immediately. More so that more polished/professional looking sites. Just a thought....


----------



## fintans (26 Feb 2008)

rmelly said:


> I thought they might improve the UI of the site as part of the upgrade but it is as tacky as ever. Have to say I'd be ashamed to have any responsibility/input into that site. And let's not start on it being php based, it's poor JavaScript, it's WAI compliance issues and it's poor localisation to name a few flaws.
> 
> Someone should tell then that they can have a decent looking site that is still performant.


 
I assume you are a computer geek and like to talk in that funny speak beloved of 'techies'  - can you translate the above jargon/acronyms into plain english for us mere mortals when you have a minute? Cheers.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2008)

fintans said:


> I assume you are a computer geek and like to talk in that funny speak beloved of 'techies'  - can you translate the above jargon/acronyms into plain english for us mere mortals when you have a minute? Cheers.


----------



## EvilDoctorK (26 Feb 2008)

I dont' know if it's just me but the new site is awfully slow - really terrible performance issues on it .. taking up to a minute between page loads in the booking process.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2008)

Did you not pay the new charge?


----------



## efm (26 Feb 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Did you not pay the new charge?


 

Ohhhhh tsk tsk tsk Clubman...pimping your own posts?????

I thought you were above such base self aggrandisements


----------



## EvilDoctorK (26 Feb 2008)

Also I thought that one of the points of this upgrade was to comply with regulatory requirements regarding displaying all inclusive pricing 

Unless I'm missing something the (excruciatingly slow) booking engine still displays the fares in the same way as before ?


----------



## efm (26 Feb 2008)

EvilDoctorK said:


> Also I thought that one of the points of this upgrade was to comply with regulatory requirements regarding displaying all inclusive pricing


 
AFAIK Ryanair always denied that this was the reason behind the upgrade - whether you believe them or not is another matter!


----------



## falcon7xs (26 Feb 2008)

Glad to see Ryanair have extended the online check in period to 5 days.

However on the negative side they now apply the handling fee on the free flights offers so you end up paying 8 euro for visa  plus 2 cent.

Previously they didnt charge anything at all to your card for the real bargain 2 cent fares!All good things come to an end i guess.

The site is very slow today and I havent received a confirmation e-mail...

Anyone else experiencing the latter issue?


----------



## rmelly (26 Feb 2008)

fintans said:


> I assume you are a computer geek and like to talk in that funny speak beloved of 'techies' - can you translate the above jargon/acronyms into plain english for us mere mortals when you have a minute? Cheers.


 
basically it's rubbish.

Poor technologies used, and used poorly, it isn't (fully) usable by impaired users (e.g users with screenreaders etc), poor code from what can be seen in source code, and if you switch to the French page (or other language) a significant amount of the text is still in english.


----------



## mathepac (26 Feb 2008)

Just listened to part of Mick O'Leary's interview with Matt Cooper on FM106 on the way home and the bottom line is "trust us it'll all be grand by next week-end, sure didn't we finish the swap over a day early anyway, the travelling public are delighted with us and our 1p flights, Matt and [the other named contributer]  to the interview are talking rubbish, and aren't we the biggest and the best anyway"

To paraphrase Mick, the website was sourced from Accenture, cost 2m and was specifically installed to cater for evergrowing volumes of transactions, 20k per hour, and offers a more complete and user-friendly booking experience.I can't comment on this last claim as I am not now nor have I ever been a Ryanair customer.


----------



## WhoAmI (26 Feb 2008)

mathepac said:


> Just listened to part of Mick O'Leary's interview with Matt Cooper on FM106 on the way home and the bottom line is "trust us it'll all be grand by next week-end, sure didn't we *finish the swap over a day early* anyway...




Of course they did, of course they did, just like all their flights arrive at their destinations 5-20 minutes ahead of schedule, even though they still only have a 25-minute turnaround window, blah blah blah...

Not that I'm cynical or anything...


----------



## mathepac (27 Feb 2008)

rmelly said:


> basically it's rubbish.
> 
> Poor technologies used, and used poorly, it isn't (fully) usable by impaired users (e.g users with screenreaders etc), poor code from what can be seen in source code, and if you switch to the French page (or other language) a significant amount of the text is still in english.


*Health Warning : May not be suitable for non-techies.*

If you want to see how appallingly bad the new (or any other) site is, use the iCab browser to access it. iCab uses a little "smilie" icon on the bottom left of the window and if it shows as a "frownie" clicking on it pops up a window with a list of the non-compliance issues it detects.

You can find iCab here http://www.icab.de/

I have no connection with iCab.


----------



## jrewing (27 Feb 2008)

For the past 20 mins, I have been trying unsuccessfully to get past the page where you specify bags/insurance etc which leads onto the final payment page. Is anybody else finding it impossible to complete a booking ?


----------



## andrew1977 (27 Feb 2008)

I booked 8 different sets of flights to the Uk last night, all went through no problem and got my itinerary confirmation almost instantly.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (27 Feb 2008)

10 p.m. and the site appears to have crashed. I can't even view what's on offer.


----------



## Stronge (28 Feb 2008)

I am trying to look at some flights to Malaga in May from Dublin but only two days are coming up at a time.  When I press the next week button just the two days come up again  even though there are flights every day.  I am really fed up with the site, I liked to use the "find the Lowest fare" section the new way is so frustrating. I looked all over the site as I wanted to send them an email but no address to be found and thats for an Airline that does all its business on line!


----------



## eileen alana (28 Feb 2008)

Stronge said:


> I am trying to look at some flights to Malaga in May from Dublin but only two days are coming up at a time. When I press the next week button just the two days come up again even though there are flights every day. I am really fed up with the site, I liked to use the "find the Lowest fare" section the new way is so frustrating. I looked all over the site as I wanted to send them an email but no address to be found and thats for an Airline that does all its business on line!


 

Try the following link, I posted it earlier to another poster, it gives contact details for Ryanair.
http://www.ryanaircampaign.org/contact.html


----------



## divadsnilloc (29 Feb 2008)

I find I'm having the same problem where you are only getting the choice of 2 days in any particular flight, especially when I know that there are flights to this particular destination every day. Let's hope it's only a blip otherwise you're going to be spending a lot of time browsing for every day!! Maybe Ryanair's web hosts get commission for the length of time the site is active!!


----------



## Complainer (29 Feb 2008)

mathepac said:


> J
> To paraphrase Mick, the website was sourced from Accenture, cost 2m


Hasn't the self-same Mick been known to castigate the entire management consulting industry from time to time? Seems like he's prepared to drop a million or two when he needs them. Maybe he should have contacted the two students again!

One of the most telling stories that Ruddock has uncovered concerns the establishment of the Ryanair website. O'Leary was suspicious of the web at first, but, persuaded that a web-based sales operation meant cutting out travel agents and generating more cash, he went for it. He wanted a simple and above all cheap site. Ryanair likes things cheap. Says Ruddock: 'He did not want to be surrounded by computer consultants with ponytails and cargo pants.'
 The first quotes that O'Leary got from conventional web design companies came in at about £3m. Instead, he went to two students: 17-year-old secondary-school pupil John Beckett and dentistry student Thomas Linehan, 22.
 The pair had done work experience one summer at Gateway Computers but were complete novices. They were bemused and flattered to be considered and quoted £17,500, £16,500 and £15,500 for various options. O'Leary went for the £15,500 option. The pair then created one of the most successful websites in commerce. It can suck money out of consumers faster than a nuclear-powered vacuum cleaner.
 How were they rewarded? When it was finished, O'Leary tried to hardball the kids into taking £12,000, rather than the £15,000 agreed and for which a purchase order had been issued. Such behaviour is typical of the way he does business: no sentiment, no breaks, no humanity - just a cold, unrelenting focus on the bottom line.
​Taken from [broken link removed]


----------



## amgd28 (25 Mar 2008)

Getting the same error Clubman got. Trying to book flights for a conference in the UK (which to be honest I should have booked ages ago), but cannot get past the first page without seeing the following



> *Error*
> An Error Has Occurred
> 
> An error condition exists which is preventing you from continuing. You may wish to start over and try again.
> ...



I can't believe that a month on and there are still these issues


----------



## Complainer (26 Mar 2008)

Of course if this happened with a public body, we'd have all the usual moaners complaining about lazy and incompetent civil servants and claiming that this stuff would never happen in the private sector, and a little dose of free market competition would fix all this.


----------



## Guest127 (27 Mar 2008)

Hate the  new site.   For somebody like me whose is practically totally flexible the new site is a  pain in the you know what.    I used to log on before and just key in a date /destination at random and add another date usually around 20 days further on for the return leg and you could see at a glance where the cheapies were.  Thus I was able to get return to Barca for 1c before taxes and 9.99 to Rome before taxes (and equally it  provided the spur I required to get up and go.)  Was trying today for a flight later in the year and gave up after half an hour as I couln't spot the cheapies. Maybe they just weren't there but its very hard to know.  know that you can't fly everywhere on a cheapie but at least you could see at a glance if there was anything available. No. Don't like it at all.


----------



## Marcecie (27 Mar 2008)

cuchulainn said:


> Hate the  new site.   For somebody like me whose is practically totally flexible the new site is a  pain in the you know what.    I used to log on before and just key in a date /destination at random and add another date usually around 20 days further on for the return leg and you could see at a glance where the cheapies were.  Thus I was able to get return to Barca for 1c before taxes and 9.99 to Rome before taxes (and equally it  provided the spur I required to get up and go.)  Was trying today for a flight later in the year and gave up after half an hour as I couln't spot the cheapies. Maybe they just weren't there but its very hard to know.  know that you can't fly everywhere on a cheapie but at least you could see at a glance if there was anything available. No. Don't like it at all.




Cuchulainn,
do you click on book now on front screen then tick dates flexible it shows a week at a time that way, not perfect I know, I don't like it also but it does not stop me looking.


----------



## Guest127 (28 Mar 2008)

thanks Marcicie , will try that next time.


----------



## Stronge (30 Mar 2008)

I have been trying to have a look at some flights this morning - went through the book now tab put in my dates etc and the next screen that appears has no flights listed and it says select flight etc!! Ihad a look at a few destinations and it was the same story. Are Ryan air interested in customer feed back? or do they just carry on regardless!


----------



## BOXtheFOX (13 Jul 2008)

There's Michael slagging off the Aviation Authority yet his own Ryanair website is in a terrible mess. 
I cannot get the site to stay on Ireland. it keeps defaulting to the U.K. site when I click on "click here for more routes".
I can only choose "next day" when browising for flights. "Next week" seems to have disappeared.
His "News" is not loading.
Lots of other annoying things as well.
Maybe just as well that they have nothing to do with the radar system at Dublin Airport.


----------



## rmelly (13 Jul 2008)

Well at least the website is not potentially putting lives at risk - unlike the IAA's incompetence.


----------



## Complainer (16 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> Well at least the website is not potentially putting lives at risk - unlike the IAA's incompetence.


As I understand it, the decision to shut down the airport was chosen specifically because it did NOT put lives at risk, but don't let the facts get in the way of another round of unfounded public sector bashing.

Let's not forget that the radar system was designed, supplied and supported by (shock horror) a private sector company.


----------



## Stronge (16 Jul 2008)

I am trying to have a look at a few flights on the Ryanair site, you can not see a week together all that comes up is one day even though I click "flexible dates" you then go through the next day and click  next day etc which is very tedious! Is there some problem or has it been like this for a while?


----------



## budapest (17 Jul 2008)

It's been like this since the end of June.  Ryanair claim that they're working with their suppliers to rectify it, but it seems to be taking them quite a while.


----------



## rmelly (17 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> As I understand it, the decision to shut down the airport was chosen specifically because it did NOT put lives at risk, but don't let the facts get in the way of another round of unfounded public sector bashing.


 
So you have complete faith in the IAA? They had system failures while planes were in the air (radar blackouts for over an hour etc) - they did put lives at risk. They should have been able to switch to a backup system within minutes or even seconds if they were properly prepared.

As for the 80%, clearly they don't have full faith in the system otherwise they'd be running at normal capacity. If they don't have full faith in the system, then I believe they were taking chances with passengers lives by using it at all. Of course there is alternative - switch to the backup.



> Let's not forget that the radar system was designed, supplied and supported by (shock horror) a private sector company.


 
To the required specifications of the IAA, who saw no need for a backup system etc. The system worked as expected for 4 or 5 years, so I wouldn't blame the supplier without specific information - do you have specific information?

Do we know anything about the service history? Were any recommendations from the supplier ignored e.g. backup system, parts replacement, length between servicing, diagnostics equipment etc.


----------



## Complainer (17 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> To the required specifications of the IAA, who saw no need for a backup system etc. The system worked as expected for 4 or 5 years, so I wouldn't blame the supplier without specific information - do you have specific information?
> 
> Do we know anything about the service history? Were any recommendations from the supplier ignored e.g. backup system, parts replacement, length between servicing, diagnostics equipment etc.


Lots of unanswered questions there. It is interesting to note that you didn't feel the need to get answers to those questions before you attributed blame solely to the IAA, but you seem to expect anyone who challenges your unfounded rant to have all the answers? Note quite a balanced, analytical approach there.



rmelly said:


> So you have complete faith in the IAA? They had system failures while planes were in the air (radar blackouts for over an hour etc) - they did put lives at risk. They should have been able to switch to a backup system within minutes or even seconds if they were properly prepared.
> 
> As for the 80%, clearly they don't have full faith in the system otherwise they'd be running at normal capacity. If they don't have full faith in the system, then I believe they were taking chances with passengers lives by using it at all. Of course there is alternative - switch to the backup.


I know SFA about radar systems (similar to yourself, I guess). Here's what I do know. IAA declined a backup system on grounds of cost, which were in the order of €115 million. No doubt, if they had proceeded with this, they'd have been slammed as wasting public money. And if they don't, they get slammed for not having a backup. Damned if you do and damned if you dont.


----------



## rmelly (17 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Lots of unanswered questions there. It is interesting to note that you didn't feel the need to get answers to those questions before you attributed blame solely to the IAA, but you seem to expect anyone who challenges your unfounded rant to have all the answers? Note quite a balanced, analytical approach there.


 
I'm getting a bit tired of these personal attacks, but regardless...

My response is just as balanced as your own. I saw no mention of the backup issue in your initial response, but you seem to be aware that the IAA turned it down. In that case they must accept a significant share of the responsibility, regardless of the actual problem, and you chose to ignore that little nugget which I believe to be core to the issue.



> I know SFA about radar systems (similar to yourself, I guess). Here's what I do know. IAA declined a backup system on grounds of cost, which were in the order of €115 million. No doubt, if they had proceeded with this, they'd have been slammed as wasting public money. And if they don't, they get slammed for not having a backup.


 
So they ARE responsible...they made the decision.



> Damned if you do and damned if you dont.


 
They made a decision, they were wrong. Maybe others would have slammed them for wasting money, I wouldn't have.

I stand by my original comment - not having a backup by choice was incompetent, using a system that could potentially fail even at reduced capacity potentially put lives at risk.


----------



## Complainer (17 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> I'm getting a bit tired of these personal attacks, but regardless...


If you've a problem with any post, click on the red triangle on the top right to report it to the moderators. If you read my post carefully, you'll find that it attacks your views and positions, but not your person.



rmelly said:


> My response is just as balanced as your own. I saw no mention of the backup issue in your initial response, but you seem to be aware that the IAA turned it down. In that case they must accept a significant share of the responsibility, regardless of the actual problem, and you chose to ignore that little nugget which I believe to be core to the issue.
> 
> So they ARE responsible...they made the decision.
> 
> They made a decision, they were wrong. Maybe others would have slammed them for wasting money, I wouldn't have.


Your lack of knowledge demonstrates that your position is not based on solid ground. If (for example) they declined the backup system because it exceeded their budget allocation from Government, then perhaps you would redirect your ire elsewhere. 



rmelly said:


> using a system that could potentially fail even at reduced capacity potentially put lives at risk.


It is clear from your posts that you don't know enough about radar systems to come to this conclusion. It may well be that the nature of the fault was directly related to capacity, and that the system was entirely safe at reduced capacity levels. It may well be that other manual services were available to ensure safety. I'm first to confess (again) that I know SFA about radar systems. I'm not saying that IAA are blameless. But I know enough to when unfounded criticisms are made.



rmelly said:


> I'm getting a bit tired of these personal attacks, but regardless...
> 
> My response is just as balanced as your own. I saw no mention of the backup issue in your initial response, but you seem to be aware that the IAA turned it down. In that case they must accept a significant share of the responsibility, regardless of the actual problem, and you chose to ignore that little nugget which I believe to be core to the issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## rmelly (17 Jul 2008)

2 posts and you've managed to muddy the issue by attempting to deflect the responsibility to 2 completely different parties (supplier then government) without any facts to back either up, and little or no more information than I have. Good job.


----------



## rmelly (17 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> But I know enough to when unfounded criticisms are made.


 
Do you not believe there was a potential safety issue when the system went down unexpected on a number occasions? I don't know much about radars, but without it I would have thought that for those periods there was an increased chance of planes crashing into each other, given that pilots rely on the controllers for directions once they are within a certain distance of the airport or while 'stacked'.


----------



## DeclanP (17 Jul 2008)

Anyway, Ryanair are doing cheapo flights to Tererife at the end of September. rmelly and complainer could do with a break!!!


----------



## Complainer (17 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> 2 posts and you've managed to muddy the issue by attempting to deflect the responsibility to 2 completely different parties (supplier then government) without any facts to back either up, and little or no more information than I have. Good job.





rmelly said:


> Do you not believe there was a potential safety issue when the system went down unexpected on a number occasions? I don't know much about radars, but without it I would have thought that for those periods there was an increased chance of planes crashing into each other, given that pilots rely on the controllers for directions once they are within a certain distance of the airport or while 'stacked'.


You're quite correct insofar as I have little or no more information that you have. That's why I have refrained from attributing blame anywhere. I'm simply trying to point out that you have no grounding in fact for your rush to judgement on who should be blamed. You might get some more information from this news article;


----------



## rmelly (17 Jul 2008)

You're missing the point - systems fail, it is to be expected, efforts are made to incorporate reduncancy in the hardware & software infrastucture e.g. RAID, multiple power supplies, multiple NIC's, clustering, load balancing, hot failover etc.

In this case, the lack of a backup system was a fundamental mistake on the part of IAA. You can be 100% certain that Thales recommended it, but for some reason IAA chose not to avail of this. 

Lets give the IAA the benefit of the doubt and assume that cost was the issue. Basically it boils down to the IAA failing to make a sufficiently compelling business case to the government to get the funding. These guys are supposed to be the experts, if they couldn't come up with a disaster scenario like last week then there is something seriously wrong in there.

From the incidents last week, and the fact that they now plan to source a backup solution, it is obvious that it should have been there to start with.

Someone has to accept responsibility, in my opinion it is the responsibility of the IAA.


----------



## Complainer (17 Jul 2008)

Yes indeed - efforts were made to incorporate reduncancy in the hardware & software infrastucture. The news article did state that "the root cause of the hardware system malfunction as an intermittent malfunctioning network card which consequently overcame the built-in system redundancy". I'd guess that Thales probably did recommend the backup system - wouldn't you if you were selling €100m of kit? 

It is clear that you've never negotiated with Government to get funding. It takes a little bit more to justify €100m spend than 'come up with a disaster scenario'. With that type of spend, the Government has choices between spending the €100m on a backup radar system to cover the one in a million chance of failure, or building a new hospital for example. 

What happened in Dublin Airport last week was not a 'disaster'. No-one died. There is no evidence (despite your wild claims) that lives were at risk. It was a bit problem, and lots of people were seriously inconveniced, but it was not a disaster.

You can (and presumably will) sit as the hurler on the ditch with little knowledge of the actual facts and hurl blame around at will. It is clear to any balanced reader that your claims are not based on evidence.


----------



## rmelly (17 Jul 2008)

I just lost my response, and am not inclined to retype it, so a couple of points:

1. In computing terms what happened  - a failure of a key system is considered a disaster, hence disaster recovery procedures etc.
2. They now plan to implement a backup system - strange that there is now a justification for it when there appears not to have been a month ago.
3. In your opinion who is actually responsible for what happened, in light of the fact that had a backup system been in place the disruptions wouldn't have occured.

And finally, I leave you with a quote from the Transport Minister:



> Anything that affects the country’s air transport system *can put passengers’ safety at risk* so the IAA must be certain the software is fully functioning before the airport is allowed to return to full capacity


 
[broken link removed]


----------



## BOXtheFOX (18 Jul 2008)

Yeah, But could we have the old Ryanair website back while you guys swap emails?


----------



## Arion (18 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> I thought they might improve the UI of the site as part of the upgrade but it is as tacky as ever. Have to say I'd be ashamed to have any responsibility/input into that site.
> 
> And let's not start on it being php based, it's poor JavaScript, it's WAI compliance issues and it's poor localisation to name a few flaws.
> 
> Someone should tell then that they can have a decent looking site that is still performant.



I know I've started late into this converstation, but I had to laugh when I saw this. For starters their new booking site isn't PHP based - it looks to be ASP.NET. Maybe that would explain the performance issues, as well as the various WAI / localisation issues you mention.

Just out of curiosity what localisation issues have you come across?


----------



## rmelly (18 Jul 2008)

Arion said:


> I know I've started late into this converstation, but I had to laugh when I saw this. For starters their new booking site isn't PHP based - it looks to be ASP.NET.


 
Try doing a search for .php in the source - there are hundreds of occurances.



> Maybe that would explain the performance issues, as well as the various WAI / localisation issues you mention.


 
Hardly - what difference would it make? Do you understand what WAI issues are? If not try running it through WebKing or similar.



> Just out of curiosity what localisation issues have you come across?


 
Have you switched to the French or German version? Half of the text that should be localised is in English, and is not consistently localised.


----------



## Complainer (19 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> I just lost my response


Did you not keep a backup? What a disaster! What kind of incompetence is this? Were any lives put at risk in missing out on your response? 



rmelly said:


> 2. They now plan to implement a backup system - strange that there is now a justification for it when there appears not to have been a month ago.


 No, they don't. You really should dig a bit deeper before posting. The ' enhancement to the failure recovery system' [broken link removed]is not a €115 million backup system. It is an ' enhancement to the failure recovery system'. 

But regardless, this is typical of the kind of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario I outlined above. If they did nothing in response, you'd be complaining that they had done nothing. If they do implement improvements, you complain about why they couldn't see into the future and implement improvements.



rmelly said:


> 3. In your opinion who is actually responsible for what happened, in light of the fact that had a backup system been in place the disruptions wouldn't have occured.


I don't know enough about the true facts of the situation to attribute blame. To do so based on a few press reports would be completely inappropriate. It's a pity that ignorance of the facts hasn't deterred others from attributing blame.



rmelly said:


> And finally, I leave you with a quote from the Transport Minister:
> 
> [broken link removed]



Perhaps you should have read the full sentence in that quote from the Times before you quoted it, given that it takes the opposing view to yourself, i.e. 


> Anything that affects the country’s air transport system can put passengers’ safety at risk so the IAA must be certain *the software is fully functioning before the airport is allowed to return to full capacity*


----------



## rmelly (19 Jul 2008)

> I don't know enough about the true facts of the situation to attribute blame. To do so based on a few press reports would be completely inappropriate. It's a pity that ignorance of the facts hasn't deterred others from attributing blame.


 
Yet you attempted to deflect the blame to the supplier and the government...



> Perhaps you should have read the full sentence in that quote from the Times before you quoted it, given that it takes the opposing view to yourself, i.e.


 
I did read the quote, I quoted in reference to the initial intermittent failures (rather than the 80% capacity) where I stated there was a potential safety issue from the system being unexpected unavailable. Read it again as follows. Intermittent failures...'affects [sic] the country’s air transport system and can put passengers’ safety at risk'.


----------



## Complainer (20 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> Yet you attempted to deflect the blame to the supplier and the government...


Actually no, I didn't attempt to deflect blame. I did throw out a couple of 'what-if' scenarios to show the huge gaping holes in your arguments. I have consistently refrained from allocating blame, as you'll find if you go back and reread my posts.


rmelly said:


> I did read the quote, I quoted in reference to the initial intermittent failures (rather than the 80% capacity) where I stated there was a potential safety issue from the system being unexpected unavailable. Read it again as follows. Intermittent failures...'affects [sic] the country’s air transport system and can put passengers’ safety at risk'.


Sorry for my misunderstanding. I think I get it now. The game is to pick some words at random, and put them together with selectively chosen words from the article to suit your argument. So here goes;

"Wild unsubstantiated biased claims" "can put passengers’ safety at risk"


----------



## rmelly (20 Jul 2008)

Complainer said:


> Actually no, I didn't attempt to deflect blame. I did throw out a couple of 'what-if' scenarios to show the huge gaping holes in your arguments. I have consistently refrained from allocating blame, as you'll find if you go back and reread my posts.
> 
> Sorry for my misunderstanding. I think I get it now. The game is to pick some words at random, and put them together with selectively chosen words from the article to suit your argument. So here goes;
> 
> "Wild unsubstantiated biased claims" "can put passengers’ safety at risk"


 
Ridiculous. I seem to recall being accused of playing with words in a previous thread...

I'm glad to see that in your opinion no individual or organisation was responsible - typical public sector attitude. Did these delays even happen or did we imagine the entire episode?

If you don't consider intermittent radar failures fall under 'Anything that affects the country’s air transport system ' then I really don't know what to say. I asked you to read the quote in that context, not to misquote.


----------



## lasno (21 Jul 2008)

Forgive me but this thread is supposed to be about the Ryanair website. It has turned into a private conversation.


----------



## Stronge (22 Jul 2008)

I am  checking out  flights for September to Malaga and  I have a look at the prices a couple of times a day and was wondering do Ryan air know that I am checking out these dates? I am sure that they know how many "hits" are on the site but do they actually know what dates people are looking at? When you could look at a week together I felt it was not as obvious what dates you were looking at. If there are lots of hits on certain dates they might not reduce the price on those dates.


----------



## Mumha (22 Jul 2008)

Stronge said:


> I am checking out flights for September to Malaga and I have a look at the prices a couple of times a day and was wondering do Ryan air know that I am checking out these dates? I am sure that they know how many "hits" are on the site but do they actually know what dates people are looking at? When you could look at a week together I felt it was not as obvious what dates you were looking at. If there are lots of hits on certain dates they might not reduce the price on those dates.


 
That's a great question ! I'd love to know that myself. It is absolutely possible but Ryanair's website is such a bucket of wotsit, I'd be surprised if they had that capability yet. They might have a basic ability though.


----------



## BOXtheFOX (30 Jul 2008)

I think that the problems with the site are actually getting worse than better. It's a nightmare trying to use it, especially today with their new sale on.


----------

