'Farce of an airline' - well they are doing a pretty good job at running their apparent 'farce of an airline' and to be honest I have the upmost respect for them.

Try flying out of the same airport as them and that respect can fade fairly fast, of course there's a lot of great pilots there, but there's a damn lot of cocky and selfish pilots there, and I've nothing but disrespect for the management, either way though, going by the reports from some of my friends in ryr at the rate at which pilots are leaving, the airline will be gone within 18 months anyway.....

Interesting how people are so quick to jump on ryanair, yet they are a world leader in safety, innovation,efficiency. They are being copied world wide, in how the aircraft are flown, and procedures they adopt. Yes the customer experience is somewhat different from what you get on virgin Atlantic, ba etc, and not be my choice of operator for flying anywhere long on(I like my comfort and happy to pay for it) but if they did first class, I'd happily fly on a Ryanair anyday, as I'd know I was flying on one of the safest operations going.Company politics one thing...the actual operation another...any ATCO in uk will tell you, the best airline to work with are ryanair.

I completely agree with James and knowing friends who fly for them I find your politics Rónán a tad ridiculous... Back to the main topic which is that the passenger load out on the NGX and to make it customisable to suit airlines seating methods be it 189 or otherwise.

Interesting how people are so quick to jump on ryanair, yet they are a world leader in safety, innovation,efficiency. They are being copied world wide, in how the aircraft are flown, and procedures they adopt. Yes the customer experience is somewhat different from what you get on virgin Atlantic, ba etc, and not be my choice of operator for flying anywhere long on(I like my comfort and happy to pay for it) but if they did first class, I'd happily fly on a Ryanair anyday, as I'd know I was flying on one of the safest operations going. Company politics one thing...the actual operation another...any ATCO in uk will tell you, the best airline to work with are ryanair.

Oh, I've nothing against their safety record, it's impeccable and fair play to them for it, but moreover their style of management and how they've managed to reduce the T&C's of their pilots over the years, having a detrimental effect on the industry as a whole is what bothers me. Then there are those pilots that Ryanair has to seem a very high concentration of, who will jump you in requesting push back when there are still PAX on the tarmac, request an expedited take off clearence and then proceed to hold smack bang in the middle of the runway waiting, as, and I quote; "We didn't know the cabin wasn't ready..." causing me to go around oh so many times, [of course it ain't all ryr pilots, they just don't seem to condemn this kind of attitude from within] So I shall jump on Ryr for that, with regards to the pax service, in that regard, you get what you pay for and no more, that's that, and I have no gripe with them on that front.... [sorry if this seems political, but my motives really aren't, you have my word] Rónán,

Is it bad I know so many guys who work for RYR who actually do those exact things you just stated and if anything I just sighed in slight amusement (tongue in cheek)... its what they do so lets move on from all this politics shizzle and lets say even other airlines use 189 too, not just RYR ...For the record I'm not protecting RYRs side, in fact I've also been 'cut up' if thats a word for it on a taxiway by a RYR 738 multiple times as well as had the runway incursion and had to go around so I know what the style is and at the time curse and swear myself...

Dublin based crews by any chance? Noticeable difference than that of other bases.But anyhow as post originally states, I also agree, be good to be able to set pax numbers as a airline cfg option,with the weight differences reflected in the model and fmc calculations. Imagine this the same for the the 600 and 700 models to used by various airlines.

Yeah indeed James ;) ach gotta love them for it, I find it a bit funny now...

Hey Guys,I hate to switch gears back to the original topic - but to me the actual pax quantity numbers available in the FMC or load manager program are irrelevant. Here's why... In Flightsim, pax are no more than weight in the airplane, right? We just change weights so we can experience the aircraft performing differently at the different weights. So just load your airplanes with weight in mind instead of passenger numbers. I've actually flown a NAX flight in FS, and I got all 189 pax smashed in there by loading the airplane to a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW). Somewhat on the heavy side, I called each passenger 240lbs of payload (body, luggage, etc). In the bizjet world we typically consider each passenger to be 200 lbs of payload. Also erring on the side of heavy I gave the airplane itself a figurative OEW or BOW of 94,200 lbs. So I loaded the plane in the FMC to a ZFW of 139560 [(189 x 240) + 94200 = 139560] by manipulating the pax and cargo values to ensure CG stayed in the ballpark. I don't even care what my end passenger count is in the FMC... as long as my ZFW is what I calculate the plane should weigh with my desired passenger load. Hopefully I've explained that so it makes some sense... -Tony

Hey Guys,I hate to switch gears back to the original topic - but to me the actual pax quantity numbers available in the FMC or load manager program are irrelevant. Here's why... In Flightsim, pax are no more than weight in the airplane, right? We just change weights so we can experience the aircraft performing differently at the different weights. So just load your airplanes with weight in mind instead of passenger numbers. I've actually flown a NAX flight in FS, and I got all 189 pax smashed in there by loading the airplane to a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW). Somewhat on the heavy side, I called each passenger 240lbs of payload (body, luggage, etc). In the bizjet world we typically consider each passenger to be 200 lbs of payload. Also erring on the side of heavy I gave the airplane itself a figurative OEW or BOW of 94,200 lbs. So I loaded the plane in the FMC to a ZFW of 139560 [(189 x 240) + 94200 = 139560] by manipulating the pax and cargo values to ensure CG stayed in the ballpark. I don't even care what my end passenger count is in the FMC... as long as my ZFW is what I calculate the plane should weigh with my desired passenger load. Hopefully I've explained that so it makes some sense... -Tony

Yes makes sense, but becomes quite a bit of work, when using other load sheet software etc...also is weight disrtibuted differently by FMC when adding pax over cargo.

Hey Guys,I hate to switch gears back to the original topic - but to me the actual pax quantity numbers available in the FMC or load manager program are irrelevant. Here's why... In Flightsim, pax are no more than weight in the airplane, right? We just change weights so we can experience the aircraft performing differently at the different weights. So just load your airplanes with weight in mind instead of passenger numbers. I've actually flown a NAX flight in FS, and I got all 189 pax smashed in there by loading the airplane to a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW). Somewhat on the heavy side, I called each passenger 240lbs of payload (body, luggage, etc). In the bizjet world we typically consider each passenger to be 200 lbs of payload. Also erring on the side of heavy I gave the airplane itself a figurative OEW or BOW of 94,200 lbs. So I loaded the plane in the FMC to a ZFW of 139560 [(189 x 240) + 94200 = 139560] by manipulating the pax and cargo values to ensure CG stayed in the ballpark. I don't even care what my end passenger count is in the FMC... as long as my ZFW is what I calculate the plane should weigh with my desired passenger load. Hopefully I've explained that so it makes some sense... -Tony

Rather than doing all this, I'd prefer to just actually type the number into the FMC. Makes life a breeze, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what the 'FMC Menu' was meant to do.