Ryanair Furious After UK Blocks Rescue Flight Over Technicality

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?

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?