Yes. And your post is your bias showing through. That's OK though. That's how opinions work. A post on HN that isn't a strict statement of fact is always going to be affected by the posters biases. Discussion forums simply couldn't work otherwise.
Saying someone is biased is not a damning indictment of how terrible they are. It just means they've been affected by, and formed opinions based on, what has happened to them.
It's also ridiculous to state that a crash wouldn't impact their business.
If you just ignore the "significantly" bit, sure.
> If you just ignore the "significantly" bit, sure.
Okay, it's also ridiculous to state that a crash wouldn't significantly impact their business.
Your comments on this are so outlandish that I wonder if they're made in good faith?
I could suggest you're being paid to defend Ryanair online, but I can't imagine Ryanair paying someone to do that. They don't care about their reputation enough. Kind of like how they aren't too bothered about how it looks in the media when their planes catch fire or have to be intercepted by fighter jets.
Source?
This shows otherwise.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-safest-airlines-in-2020-...
Compare this to any other airline on the "safest" list. All EU airlines are extremely safe - it's a highly regulated market. None have the record or reputation of Ryanair, especially not at the scale they operate.
>> None have the record or reputation of Ryanair, especially not at the scale they operate.
Again, source?
> Safety is not a priority for them beyond meeting the absolute minimum requirements necessary to fly.
This is absolute nonsense. Safety is paramount at Ryanair - their reputation in industry is that they have the strictest standards of any airline operating in Europe, low-cost or not.
This is simply your own bias showing through.
It's also ridiculous to state that a crash wouldn't impact their business.