Already there, bought up all the best seats and awaiting you with anticipation
Its not me you want to watch out for, its Leo Hairycamel, hes hilarious, particularly on this thread, he normally doesn't respond to direct questions but hes biting on this thread for some reason.....
Its not me you want to watch out for, its Leo Hairycamel, hes hilarious, particularly on this thread, he normally doesn't respond to direct questions but hes biting on this thread for some reason.....
Perhaps that might be because this is a pivotal point and like those few hours between dark night and the light of dawn the inner child seeks to scare away the demons floating around Gigginstown
"Bíonn grásta Dé idir an diallait agus an talamh."
Enough ´mud´slinging!! What if, Fr is about to reduce it´s personeel which, I doubt will add up to the 600. But, it´s still a big company with 53 million pax´s and certainly a very large body of flight crew.The world economy has forced comany´s to take measures. One of them is, the reduction in it´s work force. What´s the difference, if United, BA,AZ or any other airline doing the same? Whether you like or not the likes of an FR that´s, something else! But, up till now I have not seen anybody offering an alternative sugestion to the problems airlines or any other company´s are going through. Let´s see what the barrel does!!!! ´Deo volente´these reductions will not happen.
I can only strenuously apologise for what I am about to do, as it's completely off topic, however it is one of the bugbears that used to get me in enormous trouble with my primary school headmistress, the scariest woman on the face of the known earth!
it's = meaning it is, for example 'it's bloody cold today!'
its = meaning belonging to it, for example 'reduce it´s personnel', which currently means 'reduce it is personnel' and not 'reduce the personnel who belong to it'
Company's is also incorrect; this, in its current context, means 'that which belongs to the company', for example, 'the company's profits', the plural of company is companies.
I will apologise again for one of the more anal threads on this forum, I assure you that I'm not a complete chopper in real life...just on this forum!
I don't, I'll hasten to add, know what Deo Volente means, I don't have a job and I only passed my IR yesterday (whoop) so don't take it too personally!!
Well I can't see and Oxford Aviation bashing on this page so I was assuming we were still on topic!
Just FYI, if other people haven't mentioned this already, my understanding of the Ryanair grounded fleet situation (may be different to the redundancies) is that they have grounded 15 every year for a few years now, they are simply grounding those again then not putting onto the line those aeroplanes that they're getting between now and the end of the year...
Sorry - RY grounded only 7 STN aircraft last winter, partly to try to 'discipline' BAA (who was radically increasing STN per pax charges, as permitted by its regulator, the CAA), and partly to reduce winter losses on seasonal 'sun' routes. Since then, fuel has risen by $60-80/bbl (depending on which month you pick), so the rationale NOT to fly a/c in the loss-making winter is even larger.
Secondly, $130/140/bbl fuel is, in my view, much more of a worry for long-haul airlines, simply because they are up there burning the tripled-price Jet A1 for 10-12 hours, not 1-2. LHR/SYD should sell for at least £1500 round-trip to cover the average cost per seat, but was recently on sale at circa £600 - so the base fare needs to DOUBLE in order to cover today's average cost. What will demand for seats do when the price is doubled? Collapse. Even if J travellers are not price-sensitive, the back of the bus will be very weak, and flights will start losing money because the economy cabin will no longer cover its direct average costs.
And what does Joe Public do when SYD/HKG/LAX etc become too expensive? He still takes his family on hols, but will go short-haul, not long-haul, to avoid the high fares. So, in my view, LCCs get some pax trading down into their market, replacing the pax who can't afford it at all.
I'd therefore be more worried about the long-haul business model than the LCCs' model at $130-140/bbl oil combined with recession. Even $100 oil and recession would be a huge problem for long-haul leisure travel. Read the financial press - that's not a wacky theory, it's consensus thinking.
Secondly, $130/140/bbl fuel is, in my view, much more of a worry for long-haul airlines, simply because they are up there burning the tripled-price Jet A1 for 10-12 hours
True, but FR utilise their aeroplanes for longer than 12 hours per day and we are going up and down like a wh*res drawers burning fuel at inefficient lower levels for a longer period during that 12 hours + than the 747 heading to LAX. Just my humble thought.
True, but FR utilise their aeroplanes for longer than 12 hours per day and we are going up and down like a wh*res drawers burning fuel at inefficient lower levels for a longer period during that 12 hours + than the 747 heading to LAX.
True about the fuel burn. But with an average of 6 sectors per plane per day. that is a potential of 1134 pax generating fairly decent revenue too... versus one 12 hour sector for the whale carrying about 400 pax.
I would be careful about prognosis who is going to suffer most from the high price of oil. If someone could really make reliable predictions, he should become easily a rich man on the stock market. But nobody can make them.
If you look at customer composition of different airlines, it becomes clear that a low cost base not necessarly means being well prepared for the time after cheap oil (whether this time is really over is another question, which nobody can answer).
Fact is, Ryanair seems on average to be the cheapest carrier due to its lowest cost base. Due to this, Ryanair has the biggest amount of pax who only travel because of this cheap price (and who accept therefore to start their flight from airports in the middle of nowhere).
Additionally, due to this low price, fuel is a much bigger part of the overall ticket price. When the fuelprice is raising, Ryanair's tickets rise much more than average.
This higher price increase on a percent basis hits the average Ryanair customer much more than the average BA customer, since the Ryanair customer only flew because of the cheap price at all. Additionally the average Ryanair customer might have a much smaller household budget, so he feels the fuel of his car and of its heating getting more expensive at the end of the month much more (he has much more less disposable income at the end of the month on a relative basis, so he refrains from weekend shopping trips to BCN).
In this complicated game of supply, price and elasticity of demand, it might well be that the leading flag carriers offering a top product to frequent travelers at a reasonable price might be the winners.
I wouldn't bet on anybody at the moment, but I guess MOL will have reason why he is grounding aircraft at a massive rate.
All fair points. However, if long-haul economy fares have to double to cover the fuel cost, along with recession/credit crunch/inflation/falling household income, many leisure pax will trade down to save money - "not LA this year, family, let's go to the Med". Short-haul in general picks this traffic up, partially compensating for the really cheap RY customer who stops flying because of the fare increase to cover fuel. My point is that long-haul does not have anything to replace the lost traffic, which is why I think it's more vulnerable in the coming downturn. I think there'll be some B744s joining RY's B738s on the ground for the winter.
All fair points. However, if long-haul economy fares have to double to cover the fuel cost, along with recession/credit crunch/inflation/falling household income, many leisure pax will trade down to save money - "not LA this year, family, let's go to the Med".
They could always holiday in LA, Sussex. Little 'Ampton that is.
No matter how many pax they have they are not covering the cost of the fuel to fly them. The more they fly, the more they lose.
This statement of fact is presumably made after referring to some facts and figures produced by Ryanair; would you care to share the scource with us mere mortals?
As much as some of you try to stereotype the passengers of Ryanair most of you fail by a wide margin. Your assumption that they are low income chavs who go on drunken shopping trips a few times a year is very wide of the mark.
These are facts, not spurious and inaccurate thoughts plucked from thin air as some of you choose to do. Most of the passengers on any of the flights to central or Southern France, Spain and Italy, for example, are owners of homes in the region. They are well-off, high income and regular travelers and hardly fit your fond image of them, I'm afraid. They are also very happy to be flying to these more remote airfields as they are closer, in many cases, to their homes. You think Ryanair flies to Bezier or Pau just for the fun of it?
They, like most sensible people, know that prices have risen and they are quite happy to pay more for their trip to their second home. Knowing that the fares are rising from a low baseline to a new, more realistic baseline, will not stop them from flying with Ryanair.
Indeed, those with houses in Florida are more likely to reduce the frequency of their trips than those in the South of France!
I agree completely with the last post,people still have to fly.
Also,Peter we,have you got figures to support your theories?ie pax loads,average ticket prices,operating cost per seat etc?or is this like your previuos thread...
Ryanair cancelling flights!!!!!!!
so they cancelled one flight,and gave you six days notice...hmmmm
i see they have now cancelled your thread, next post reads,
Pprune cancelling threads!!!!!!
but seriously peter,you need to put up some figures if you want us to believe!
Rubik is right about who travels on the low cost carriers. Whilst pax experience of these might be sometines that the chavs have been let loose, the CAA published a report about 18-24 months ago pointing out that the "working class" had not been liberated by low cost carriers, rather the middle class were simply taking 3 or 4 flight based trips whereas in the past they might have taken one. The Labour Govt. did not give too much publicity to the report as they had fondly believed that the low cost carriers were doing a service for their voters. Thus, the continued growth of Ryaneasy, (is there a good anagram of that?) is dependant on the middle classes being prepared to spend their disposable income on travel. The CAA also pointed out that Ryaneasy had not grown the market - they had simply nicked the growth that the chartered and legacy folk thought they were going to get.
Studi's point, that we do not know what is going to happen next, is spot on. However despite whatever we might individually wish (obviously the majority of us do not work for Ryanair), a lot of experts do think they will be amongst the survivors.
Look at the US, where the fuel price is hurting even more due to there being no currency gains partially offsetting the increase. The company that is doing best is Southwest. Whilst we all know there are lots of differences, particularly in company culture, fact is that Ryanair has openly based itself on the Southwest model.
Similar Threads 
Linear Mode
