Dave_C, I agree it's not a particularly desirable situation - that's why I'm not defending Ryanair. The training situation (i.e. only training to pass the test and not doing any near enough practical training) seems to be particularly bad - very worrying in fact. But even then, you only saw one or two bad pieces of advice in how many months of full time training?

I was just trying to show how incomplete evidence can be presented in such a way to lead viewers to a certain conclusion. For example the only evidence that the No.1 did nothing about the situation is that our undercover crew didn't see them do anything about it. Given the observed chaos during turnaround/boarding, she could easily have missed the No.1 doing something about it, couldn't she? Now you can make assumptions about the likelihood of that, based on subjectivity or preconceived thoughts built up and encouraged earlier in the programme, but that's exactly the kind of stuff that these type of programmes rely on for their effectiveness.