Ryanair to Dispute Passenger's Claim He Was Sucked Out of Window
Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary says the airline will contest claims that a passenger was sucked out of a broken window on a July flight from Greece to Germany, acknowledging only that the man was sucked 'towards' the opening. US investigators are examining the incident, which left 61-year-old Ljubisa Karović severely injured.
Ryanair has said it will formally dispute claims that a passenger was sucked out of an aircraft window after the pane shattered mid-flight, setting up a legal and public-relations battle over one of the most dramatic incident accounts to emerge from European commercial aviation this year.
Chief executive Michael O'Leary told reporters that the airline contests the description of events, while acknowledging that the passenger was «certainly sucked towards the window». His remarks draw a deliberate distinction between being pulled in the direction of the opening and being drawn through it — a distinction that could prove central to how the case is handled.
The incident occurred in July on a Ryanair flight from Greece to Germany. Ljubisa Karović, 61, was severely injured when the window beside him shattered. Reports of the event described neck and shoulder injuries and prompted widespread coverage of how a cabin window could fail at altitude.
US investigators are examining the incident, adding an international dimension to a case that might otherwise have remained within European regulatory channels. Their involvement reflects the seriousness of the injuries and the unusual nature of the failure.
The flight originated in Thessaloniki, Greece, and was bound for Germany. The route is a busy seasonal corridor carrying tourists and business travellers between the eastern Mediterranean and central Europe, and the aircraft involved was operating a standard commercial service at the time.
Ryanair's decision to dispute the account rather than settle the narrative quickly is characteristic of O'Leary's approach to public controversy. The airline has historically contested claims it regards as exaggerated, and its willingness to challenge the wording of the passenger's account suggests it believes the physical evidence does not support the most dramatic version of events.
For the passenger, the distinction is unlikely to be academic. Karović is reported to have suffered severe injuries, and the question of whether he was partially outside the aircraft or pulled against the interior of the cabin could affect assessments of liability, compensation and the regulatory findings that follow.
The case also raises broader questions for the airline industry about cabin integrity and passenger safety. A window failure at cruising altitude is a rare event, and investigators will want to establish whether the cause was a manufacturing defect, structural fatigue, an impact from outside the aircraft, or some other factor.
Ryanair has not commented on the specific cause of the window failure. The airline's public position is focused on disputing the characterisation of what happened to the passenger, not on the condition of the aircraft itself.
How the dispute unfolds will depend heavily on the findings of the investigators examining the incident. Their conclusions could either support the airline's narrower account or reinforce the passenger's more alarming description, with consequences for Ryanair's reputation and for the wider debate over how airlines communicate during serious safety events.
For now, the two sides remain far apart on the central question of what happened beside seat level on a July flight from Greece to Germany — a disagreement that turns on a single word, and on what the evidence ultimately shows.
