Ryanair - 6
Why do airports insist on charging airlines for passengers coming through their doors.
When you catch a train do you pay 3 euro to go through the train station?
When you go to a shopping center do you pay to shop there?
Of course not so I don't see why an airport should charge for pax.
Why oh why do airports see passengers as an easy source of revenue that has to be squeezed for all its worth?
Unfortunately HHN will probably go down the BAA route where fees go up every year
I think you'll find HHN was built by the american tax payer and was gifted to the state of germany when the US Air force pulled out. So no massive capital works program there to pay for. Yes you have to upkeep the airport pay staff etc but why does that mean that every year that the prices have to rise unreasonably.
The charges for running the premises should be built into the landing charges and other fees levied on the airline that the airline pays to use the airport. It also raises money from renting terminal space to airlines and shops as well as car parks etc. What HHN is doing is double dipping. Charging RYR to use the airport and also then charging again to put a pax through that airport. Its like network rail charging you the rent like you said and then asking for another 5 quid at the door to help them build their new terminal.
The money used to expand the airport should come from the charges levied to the airline and shops within the airport. I as a pax shouldn't have to pay every time an airport decides it needs a nice shiny terminal with hundreds of shops (which also pay for rent to help keep the place running)
If we take BAA as an example the fee increases for the last couple years have far outstripped inflation by a huge amount thus where is the value for the pax? They are also getting rent from the shops in the terminals and to top it off take a % of their earnings. Nice little earner if you can get it.
The charges for running the premises should be built into the landing charges and other fees levied on the airline that the airline pays to use the airport. It also raises money from renting terminal space to airlines and shops as well as car parks etc. What HHN is doing is double dipping. Charging RYR to use the airport and also then charging again to put a pax through that airport. Its like network rail charging you the rent like you said and then asking for another 5 quid at the door to help them build their new terminal.
The money used to expand the airport should come from the charges levied to the airline and shops within the airport. I as a pax shouldn't have to pay every time an airport decides it needs a nice shiny terminal with hundreds of shops (which also pay for rent to help keep the place running)
If we take BAA as an example the fee increases for the last couple years have far outstripped inflation by a huge amount thus where is the value for the pax? They are also getting rent from the shops in the terminals and to top it off take a % of their earnings. Nice little earner if you can get it.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tarascon - France
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems logic that airports need revenues to sustain construction,existance and growth.But I fail to see the huge differences charged for basically nil service like in Marseille's Lowcost terminal or HHN's hangar type operation,and charge a whooping 32 € (MRS ) for half an hour usage of their terminal.(where you can't even sit down ..)
Airports can raise and do raise revenue through auxillary services,rental of shops,parking-lots,Internet-usage,restaurants etc.similar to many lowcost airlines.
Airports can raise and do raise revenue through auxillary services,rental of shops,parking-lots,Internet-usage,restaurants etc.similar to many lowcost airlines.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: .where ever I lay my hat ..is my home.
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavidJohnson...Well Said!!!
Bills have to be paid and it is no use saying that the airport should be earning enough from the passenger spend at the airport to finance developments.
Airlines like Ryanair have made HUGE profits over the years from the airports over the years by benefiting from reduced airport charges & marketing schemes all on the basis to establish a route. Ryanair has no problem 'charging' the passenger to carry a bag or to book a seat etc. In old days this was okay when airports had Duty Free but these days Ryanair passenger spend f**k all at airports. They arrive with their sandwiches, might but a cup of coffee, use public tranport / book Group A cars for 6 people at €15 per day, ensure their bags weigh 15kg or carry their 2 weeks clothes in a rucksack on their backs and the only thing left in the airport is their bags of rubbish. They walk out the door as soon as they land and return on ETD -45mins on day of departure.
Airports have wages to pay, equipment needing upgrading, governments heaping on charges on Electricity & rates, all sort of fees to government agencies just to be allowed operate with no idea of how they are to be raised excetra excetra excetra!!. Ryanair won't accept any increase in airport charges and then spit out their dummy when airports go direct to the public (whilst sneaking in increases in their fees willy nilly)
Eventually airports have to stand up and make a stand or else they will close down - hence the need to see additional charges.
As the poet and singer Bobby Zimmerman would say.."the times they are a-changing" !!
Bills have to be paid and it is no use saying that the airport should be earning enough from the passenger spend at the airport to finance developments.
Airlines like Ryanair have made HUGE profits over the years from the airports over the years by benefiting from reduced airport charges & marketing schemes all on the basis to establish a route. Ryanair has no problem 'charging' the passenger to carry a bag or to book a seat etc. In old days this was okay when airports had Duty Free but these days Ryanair passenger spend f**k all at airports. They arrive with their sandwiches, might but a cup of coffee, use public tranport / book Group A cars for 6 people at €15 per day, ensure their bags weigh 15kg or carry their 2 weeks clothes in a rucksack on their backs and the only thing left in the airport is their bags of rubbish. They walk out the door as soon as they land and return on ETD -45mins on day of departure.
Airports have wages to pay, equipment needing upgrading, governments heaping on charges on Electricity & rates, all sort of fees to government agencies just to be allowed operate with no idea of how they are to be raised excetra excetra excetra!!. Ryanair won't accept any increase in airport charges and then spit out their dummy when airports go direct to the public (whilst sneaking in increases in their fees willy nilly)
Eventually airports have to stand up and make a stand or else they will close down - hence the need to see additional charges.
As the poet and singer Bobby Zimmerman would say.."the times they are a-changing" !!
Yes, the US tax payer did build the airfield and runway at HHN. Uncle Sam did not however pay for the terminal building - which cost a chunky pile of cash.
HHN when it opened as a non-military airport had pretty much no commercial traffic and being in the middle of nowhere is far from major urban centres. Airlines knew it was remote, and thus had littole inclination to fly there.
The strategy chosen was to charge (and still charge) the airlines very low landing fees, to incentivise them to come to HHN, set up a sizable operation and hopefully start basing airframes and crew at HHN. This strategy has worked in that HHN now has a non-trivial amount of commercial flying going on. However, HHN has been losing money for years.
The owner has a choice - either to subsidise HHN, or to find a way of raising more revenue.
Some rents on shops, restaurants, car rental firms, etc...are either determined by leases with pre-set rents. Other rents are short term - but raise them too fast, and the companies running the shops just decide to close the stores and pay no rent !
AFAIK, landing fees to airlines are not being raised substantially, meaning MOL cannot make a huge fuss on this angle. Instead, pax are being forced to pay more to the airport, so that HHN becomes a profitable airport, and the roof can be weather-proofed.
Yes, it is annoying having to pay the extra 3 euros, but the money has to come from somewhere. HHN is a business, and cannot be run at a loss forever.
HHN when it opened as a non-military airport had pretty much no commercial traffic and being in the middle of nowhere is far from major urban centres. Airlines knew it was remote, and thus had littole inclination to fly there.
The strategy chosen was to charge (and still charge) the airlines very low landing fees, to incentivise them to come to HHN, set up a sizable operation and hopefully start basing airframes and crew at HHN. This strategy has worked in that HHN now has a non-trivial amount of commercial flying going on. However, HHN has been losing money for years.
The owner has a choice - either to subsidise HHN, or to find a way of raising more revenue.
Some rents on shops, restaurants, car rental firms, etc...are either determined by leases with pre-set rents. Other rents are short term - but raise them too fast, and the companies running the shops just decide to close the stores and pay no rent !
AFAIK, landing fees to airlines are not being raised substantially, meaning MOL cannot make a huge fuss on this angle. Instead, pax are being forced to pay more to the airport, so that HHN becomes a profitable airport, and the roof can be weather-proofed.
Yes, it is annoying having to pay the extra 3 euros, but the money has to come from somewhere. HHN is a business, and cannot be run at a loss forever.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is annoying having to pay the extra 3 euros, but the money has to come from somewhere
HHN could have become an official No 1. mid-European hub of FR (yes, with the connecting flights, its location is perfect). By becoming a hub, HHN would have been given a chance to make more profit on services and thus probably nobody would have invented this Hahn-Taler fee. But now... Regrettably, it's impossible to succesfully breed flowers without watering them!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you'll find HHN was built by the american tax payer and was gifted to the state of germany when the US Air force pulled out. So no massive capital works program there to pay for. Yes you have to upkeep the airport pay staff etc but why does that mean that every year that the prices have to rise unreasonably.
Apart from that - do you really believe that all the military installations in Germany used by the US armed forces were paid for by the US taxpayers...? Of course they were not, they were most often paid for by the Germans (and not only the initial investments in infrastructure, but also contributions on an annual basis for having US forces in Germany).
Btw, Stansted used to be an US airport as well, just like Hahn.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Dublin/Ireland
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For years they said no new routes from Dublin over charges/fees,in steps Aer Lingus slowly building up their network until Ryanair could no longer ignore Dublin.What Hahn needs if possible is another airline to offer some competion to Ryanair.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: GREECE
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the "no-frills" model
It is fascinating to see that so many people have not understood the business model of MOL. And the Hahn-Taller is squarely against the business model of MOL.
His model is "zero ticket price". When there is a tax he did not predict then this must be added to the ticket price. A price going from 0.01€ to 3,00€ is a hell lot of an increase, and certainly is not "a free ticket" anymore. There goes the advertising of "free tickets", and what about other airports taking similar action? The model does not provide for 3€-10€ tickets. Especially if the route is not a monopoly. If it is, then the model gladly allows to add the tax to the price (maybe double the amount), and blame the bloody airport.
"Free tickets" are the core of FR advertising, cannot be dropped. If it is necessary to raise revenue, will not drop the "free tickets", will simply raise "ancillary revenue" to whatever level needed. Even improvising new types of "ancillary revenue". FR cannot abandon "free tickets", it would rather charge for the hand-luggage (or the oxygen mask even). Before that they must "teach a lesson" to any airport threatening their model.
Do you know what is the concept of "a bus with wings"? It means primarily "a subsudized bus", and certainly not "a no-frills bus". Subsidized by who? That is the real question. (cut the screams of Alitalia etc. being subsidized, subsidy is the core of MOL model).
Folks, there is no such thing as a "free ticket". Please bear it in mind, all those who consider themselves poor, and aspiring for a future with free tickets in their lives. If it was commercially (no charity) succesful, would it not also apply to a "free meal" for everyone interested in the world? So, why not pay (subsidized by) the airports? Why not the taxpayer (in general , not the air-passenger). Maybe it is time to consider that someone is actually paying for these "free tickets". Who do you propose should pay?
.....the passenger?
If yes, bye-bye MOL business model.
So, FR is in a hurry to become a monopoly (or duopoly as MOL frankly admitted) in the European LCC market before subsidies are erased. Eventually they will, but in monopoly there is no need for a free ticket anymore, the model changes comfortably.
His model is "zero ticket price". When there is a tax he did not predict then this must be added to the ticket price. A price going from 0.01€ to 3,00€ is a hell lot of an increase, and certainly is not "a free ticket" anymore. There goes the advertising of "free tickets", and what about other airports taking similar action? The model does not provide for 3€-10€ tickets. Especially if the route is not a monopoly. If it is, then the model gladly allows to add the tax to the price (maybe double the amount), and blame the bloody airport.
"Free tickets" are the core of FR advertising, cannot be dropped. If it is necessary to raise revenue, will not drop the "free tickets", will simply raise "ancillary revenue" to whatever level needed. Even improvising new types of "ancillary revenue". FR cannot abandon "free tickets", it would rather charge for the hand-luggage (or the oxygen mask even). Before that they must "teach a lesson" to any airport threatening their model.
Do you know what is the concept of "a bus with wings"? It means primarily "a subsudized bus", and certainly not "a no-frills bus". Subsidized by who? That is the real question. (cut the screams of Alitalia etc. being subsidized, subsidy is the core of MOL model).
Folks, there is no such thing as a "free ticket". Please bear it in mind, all those who consider themselves poor, and aspiring for a future with free tickets in their lives. If it was commercially (no charity) succesful, would it not also apply to a "free meal" for everyone interested in the world? So, why not pay (subsidized by) the airports? Why not the taxpayer (in general , not the air-passenger). Maybe it is time to consider that someone is actually paying for these "free tickets". Who do you propose should pay?
.....the passenger?
If yes, bye-bye MOL business model.
So, FR is in a hurry to become a monopoly (or duopoly as MOL frankly admitted) in the European LCC market before subsidies are erased. Eventually they will, but in monopoly there is no need for a free ticket anymore, the model changes comfortably.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
needed as a hole in the head?
The independent.ie's new comment on the FR bid to acquire Aer Lingus:
With the previously united front of shareholders and management who had opposed the Ryanair bid now hopelessly split and Mannion's position looking more vulnerable with every passing day, the likelihood must be that an increased Ryanair bid for Aer Lingus will prevail.
Which is very bad news for Ryanair shareholders. Yes, Aer Lingus has over €800m of cash on its balance sheet, but it also has one of the bolshiest workforces in the country. While Ryanair, its promise to recognise the Aer Lingus trade unions notwithstanding, would no doubt hope to convert the Aer Lingus workforce to its lean, mean, non-union way of doing things, what are the odds on the reverse happening?
Aer Lingus would be a poison pill for Ryanair. It needs the aggro of sorting out Aer Lingus about as much as it needs a hole in the head. The sooner the comrades can be persuaded to start singing from the same hymn sheet again, the better -- for Ryanair that is.
Which is very bad news for Ryanair shareholders. Yes, Aer Lingus has over €800m of cash on its balance sheet, but it also has one of the bolshiest workforces in the country. While Ryanair, its promise to recognise the Aer Lingus trade unions notwithstanding, would no doubt hope to convert the Aer Lingus workforce to its lean, mean, non-union way of doing things, what are the odds on the reverse happening?
Aer Lingus would be a poison pill for Ryanair. It needs the aggro of sorting out Aer Lingus about as much as it needs a hole in the head. The sooner the comrades can be persuaded to start singing from the same hymn sheet again, the better -- for Ryanair that is.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: nirvana
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is the Indo though...their Lisbon poll this morning seems to add up to 107%
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDI is having a press conference next week - you can bet some of the HHN A/C will find its way there. HHN is a tricky airport - its so far from anywhere that its difficult to market. There is a huge influx of PAX originating from the area - but FR need to concentrate on two-way traffic. One props up the other when one is going through a decline period.
Eu01 - while your idea of a hub and spoke system sounds good, FR will never adopt it within the next 5 to 10 years. It simply doen't fit with the model. Point to point efficient service. FR are really building on their three main areas. Punctuality, baggage (actually arrives with you) and fares. This mix is there marketing tool - not simply fares alone as most think. FR will get you from A to B, ontime, with your bag and for as cheap as they can deliver it to you. Hub and spoke would ruin this, so unfortunately it just doesnt fit with the model.
Expect two new A/C in EDI this summer.
Eu01 - while your idea of a hub and spoke system sounds good, FR will never adopt it within the next 5 to 10 years. It simply doen't fit with the model. Point to point efficient service. FR are really building on their three main areas. Punctuality, baggage (actually arrives with you) and fares. This mix is there marketing tool - not simply fares alone as most think. FR will get you from A to B, ontime, with your bag and for as cheap as they can deliver it to you. Hub and spoke would ruin this, so unfortunately it just doesnt fit with the model.
Expect two new A/C in EDI this summer.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: South West
Age: 35
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brs - 2009
Does anyone know if BRS will be receiving any more based aircraft this Summer alongside the two already based? The timetable suggests that there is a couple of days starting in April that will require 3 aircraft but nothing has been announced.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
based units
Jamesc909
Careful with the booking engine as things are changing constantly. BHX
now require five based units on five days from March after ALC was
upgraded to daily.
However strong local rumours claim bhx is staying very much as four
based units, Dinard can't be booked after 30/06 and some flights such
as GDN, NYO are showing just once weekly between April & June.
It all seems to add up to quite a lot of changes in the next few weeks.
A question to frfly - any news re bhx is?
Pete
Careful with the booking engine as things are changing constantly. BHX
now require five based units on five days from March after ALC was
upgraded to daily.
However strong local rumours claim bhx is staying very much as four
based units, Dinard can't be booked after 30/06 and some flights such
as GDN, NYO are showing just once weekly between April & June.
It all seems to add up to quite a lot of changes in the next few weeks.
A question to frfly - any news re bhx is?
Pete
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underperforming routes from Hahn. Surely Ryanair could start some routes from Frankfurt Main, or is this airport limited on slots? It would make sense in these times to start routes that are to more primary airport. This has been debated at length on here before and I know what the Ryanair model is about. But with a lot of new aircraft coming on stream and it sounds like there are limited opportunities based on what is said on here and the media would it not make sense to set up a few bases at primiary airports and make this work?
Afterall they do operate to quite a few primary and large airports and it would certainly work as Easyjet shows.
On a final note , I understood that when Hahn got its new terminal it cost €55m to build and set up, and I also thought that Ryanair provided some of the initial funding for this is this correct?
EI-BUD
Afterall they do operate to quite a few primary and large airports and it would certainly work as Easyjet shows.
On a final note , I understood that when Hahn got its new terminal it cost €55m to build and set up, and I also thought that Ryanair provided some of the initial funding for this is this correct?
EI-BUD
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could this be the first step to FR long haul ?
Maybe Niagara Falls could be a new Base !!!
With all the new airframes due and the prodicted cut in based A/C
at HHN who knows what might be i the pipeline ?
Could we soon see feeder flights from the UK to a Niagara Falls (BASE) ???
Maybe Niagara Falls could be a new Base !!!
With all the new airframes due and the prodicted cut in based A/C
at HHN who knows what might be i the pipeline ?
Could we soon see feeder flights from the UK to a Niagara Falls (BASE) ???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Unfortunately HHN will probably go down the BAA route where fees go up every year
Inflation occurs in both airport charges and also in the supermarket. Those staff working at the airport want a pay rise each year to cover the increased cost of living. This means the airport has to increase charges. How many airports in the world regularly decrease their charges ?
Hi davidjohnson6
I dont think that too many people will be looking for pay increases this year? We are headed for deflationary times if we are not there already.
It is not as simple as costs go up so charges at airports must follow, a big increase in activity can give rise to a reduced cost per unit. Hence and airport may agree with Ryanair if they say double their passenger throughput they will give them a discount on each passenger charge.
For example take a small airport, it may cost as much to handle 3 planes in an hour as it does to handle one.
So in these instances it is understandable how in order to get the business airport charges may go down, and if the airport management view potential new business from a marginal costing point of view a lower fee may be warranted.
Unfortunately HHN will probably go down the BAA route where fees go up every year
Inflation occurs in both airport charges and also in the supermarket. Those staff working at the airport want a pay rise each year to cover the increased cost of living. This means the airport has to increase charges. How many airports in the world regularly decrease their charges ?
Hi davidjohnson6
I dont think that too many people will be looking for pay increases this year? We are headed for deflationary times if we are not there already.
It is not as simple as costs go up so charges at airports must follow, a big increase in activity can give rise to a reduced cost per unit. Hence and airport may agree with Ryanair if they say double their passenger throughput they will give them a discount on each passenger charge.
For example take a small airport, it may cost as much to handle 3 planes in an hour as it does to handle one.
So in these instances it is understandable how in order to get the business airport charges may go down, and if the airport management view potential new business from a marginal costing point of view a lower fee may be warranted.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 48
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair have already acknowledged that Hahn is one of their two loss making bases (the other being Shannon).
They did that comment because they just wanted to pressurise them to decrease their costs, and because they were anticipating the taxes increase in HHN. A clear evidence is that few months after the comment, they announced the closure of VLC because the base were loosing too much money (whereas as always, they said in their financial report that the new bases VLC and ALC were performing very well lol). I guarantee you that there are many others bases which are loosing a huge amount of money, and especially this previous year.
I am also glad to see that they finally drop 1 daily rotation on PIKBOH. 1 year ago, Sean Coyle announced than this route were doubling daily capacity to accomodate business PAX daily return. I had a big laugh because only sean coyle (thanks for ryanair he's gone) could consider PIK BOH as a business route lol
But this example is quite interesting: how much money did they loose last year on this route because of this stupid choice?
And now imagine the others BOH routes are also underperforming. Then what would do Ryanair? of course, meeting with BOH, and ask for more subsidies/lower cost, or... they left!!!
And this is what happened in VLC:
- very poor new routes (eg. VLCOPO, VLCMLA, VLCSCQ etc)
- very poor revenue management
- very poor customer service
With that, it's very hard to earn money, and rather than admiting their errors, they just blame the airport and left it
This is definitely an easy/no brain way to do (lost) business
How could they hope to make money with MADVLC, MADALC, BRIMLA, CRLLIG, a base in BRE etc etc???
Ryanair is definitely the low brain airline
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could they hope to make money with MADVLC, MADALC, BRIMLA, CRLLIG, a base in BRE etc etc???
Ryanair is definitely the low brain airline
Ryanair is definitely the low brain airline
The MADALC route for example is so poorly timed that it could not accomodate a day return passenger as the departures from ALC Are like after 2 in the afternoon and after 9/10 at night. I suspect that they must only be able to secure a reduced cost on this route once it is at off peak times and hence is no real threat to Iberia.
This is a scheme that Manchester Airport were using (not sure how they do it now), a reduced cost for off peak slots. Maybe in the summer Ryanair will move to a full business schedule as this route is a busy one for Iberia and Spanair. and these are never cheap!