Ryanair - 6
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Confirmation email
I booked a Ryanair flight yesterday evening and still have not received the confirmation email. Stupidly enough I did not take note of my confirmation number. Anyone know what I should do to get my confirmation number? Is it usual to still have not got a confirmation email a full day after booking?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cork, Ireland
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it usual to still have not got a confirmation email a full day after booking?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: germany
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair advising customers may find their confirmation showing ADT in the name and not to worry. 10 days after the "upgrade" they still have not sorted out their "minor" problems. 
No low fares finder! What are they at!! Bring back the old website!!
No low fares finder! What are they at!! Bring back the old website!!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't tell me I'm biased or dislike Ryanair. I do like them. In fact that's why I'm concerned. In my opinion some aspects of their policy are very unwise and that could cost them dear. Why do I think so? Just take a look at some bad signs.
The trend is worrying for Ryanair (or at least I would feel uneasy in their position). My assertion is that they should start to care much more about what their passengers have to say. Nobody cannot decide by force where the passengers' streams should go. The carrier should plan the route network basing on some research not just on the wishful thinking (and the airport deals). It will not fill the planes. Neither the 1-penny flights. A time to reassess an rethink some issues, maybe? With the route policy on the upfront, don't you think?
No-frills airline Easyjet saw passenger numbers rise by 22.4% in February with its planes also flying fuller.
Total passengers carried rose to 3.24m from 2.65m. Easyjet's own passengers rose 14.8% to 3.04m from 2.65m the year before. The load factor rose by 1.4 percentage points to 84.3% for its own fleet and 1.8 percentage points to 84.6% overall.
Total passengers carried rose to 3.24m from 2.65m. Easyjet's own passengers rose 14.8% to 3.04m from 2.65m the year before. The load factor rose by 1.4 percentage points to 84.3% for its own fleet and 1.8 percentage points to 84.6% overall.
Low-fares airline Ryanair Holdings PLC said it carried 20 pct more passengers in February than a year earlier, but added that its load factor during the month fell by two percentage points.
The Irish carrier's passenger traffic during the month rose to 3.84 mln from 3.21 mln last February, while its load factor fell to 75 pct from 77 pct.
The Irish carrier's passenger traffic during the month rose to 3.84 mln from 3.21 mln last February, while its load factor fell to 75 pct from 77 pct.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fr load factor
I can see your concern, but I'm not sure a 2 point drop in load factor calls for a time to majorly rethink Ryanair's route policy. I think people forget, FR have 189 seats to fill, compared to EZY's 156, 33 seats is a lot. FR are carrying 142 pax on average compared to EZY's 132.
You also must remember this is the winter we are talking about. FR will smash EZY in the summer with their PAX numbers due to those extra 33 seats.
Ryanair's policy at the present seems to be expand rapidly into new markets, with 2 a/c bases in order to push competition into failing. It's actually just very clever business. MOL was right to say that in a few years time there will only be 2 major LCC's, FR and EZY. The others dont have the brand power or strength in markets outside of their own to compete. Ryanair are simply now pushing this into reality. Centralwings will be the first to go, followed by other small and struggling airlines; that will either be swallowed up by larger airlines or just left to bleed money. Ryanair will begin to slowly push into competing markets, such as holiday routes (EDI -ALC/PMI/AGP, STN-PMI/ALC etc.) in order to drive competition out.
Its a shame to see smaller LCC's disappear, but its just a cold hard fact of business. FR and EZY are the Tesco and Asda's of the skies......
You also must remember this is the winter we are talking about. FR will smash EZY in the summer with their PAX numbers due to those extra 33 seats.
Ryanair's policy at the present seems to be expand rapidly into new markets, with 2 a/c bases in order to push competition into failing. It's actually just very clever business. MOL was right to say that in a few years time there will only be 2 major LCC's, FR and EZY. The others dont have the brand power or strength in markets outside of their own to compete. Ryanair are simply now pushing this into reality. Centralwings will be the first to go, followed by other small and struggling airlines; that will either be swallowed up by larger airlines or just left to bleed money. Ryanair will begin to slowly push into competing markets, such as holiday routes (EDI -ALC/PMI/AGP, STN-PMI/ALC etc.) in order to drive competition out.
Its a shame to see smaller LCC's disappear, but its just a cold hard fact of business. FR and EZY are the Tesco and Asda's of the skies......
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The load factors in 2008 are 2% less than 2007, which were 2% less than 2006. Easyjet are expanding more slowly but keeping the planes fuller. Traveling light without bags is more of a summer thing. I am sure Ryanairs load factor will track around 2% below last years and Easyjet will do just as well as the year before.
An early Easter means everyone is going to well in March. The Airlines must like well spaced hols.
An early Easter means everyone is going to well in March. The Airlines must like well spaced hols.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like EZY will do a lot better than FR in 2008. EZY forecasting 20% increase in profit FR forecasting 50% drop in profit
Key points so far this year
1. Load factor. FR 75% EZY 85.3% and the higher the load factor the higher the yield.
2. FR are carrying a lot more passengers but 10million are the 1p-£10 tickets (lost leader)
3. Fuel hedging 2008, EZY 30% FR 0%
4. Cost control. FR have the best cost control of any airline in the world but their cost have been going up and EZY cost have been coming down and with no fuel hedging in 2008 by FR, EZY could end up with the lower cost per passenger.
5. EZY forwards bookings looking very good. FR web site with its poor performance would have cost them passengers.
Key points so far this year
1. Load factor. FR 75% EZY 85.3% and the higher the load factor the higher the yield.
2. FR are carrying a lot more passengers but 10million are the 1p-£10 tickets (lost leader)
3. Fuel hedging 2008, EZY 30% FR 0%
4. Cost control. FR have the best cost control of any airline in the world but their cost have been going up and EZY cost have been coming down and with no fuel hedging in 2008 by FR, EZY could end up with the lower cost per passenger.
5. EZY forwards bookings looking very good. FR web site with its poor performance would have cost them passengers.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The load factors and routes
I would not see the load factor issue very dramatically, albeit the trend is indisputable. For that the route policy should be blamed among other things; some opportunities could have been exploited better, no doubts about it.
Anyway, I think there are several ways to fill the planes better. More thorough analysis and research – it's the cheapest way to carry it through. Also, less hasty decisions and more logical thinking would bring some ”miraculous” profits (and fuller planes) too. As one of our members has pointed it out: why start HHN-BLL when Legoland was just closing (while in Summer could have worked), why to link frosty with windy and so on. An other example: SNN-LCJ did not have bad load factors at all (growing), but the route were terminated just as the construction of a big Dell factory in Lodz started (Dell have their main European manufacturing facility in Limerick). Too hasty conclusions, too little knowledge of facts. The User pee can already observe high LF's and unusually high prices on the BGY-TMP route and surely is impatient why after this success nothing more is coming ”from North to South” (PSA-TMP, CIA-TMP, MRS-TMP or alike). Isn't he right? So the route decisions cannot be hasty, but some quick reactions should be taken where appropriate.
I will carry on. The seasonal variations. While e.g. Malta could be flown to year-round, for a low-cost carrier it's better to intensify flights there in the periods other than Summer season. In Summer you can make money flying on short routes as well, while in Autumn an Winter you have some ”spare capacity” and you can fly from even more destinations to Malta in spite of the long distances.
An other ”forbidden” issue is the justification of connecting flights. While all true LCC's provide just the ”point-to-point” tickets and the connecting flights ”from anywhere to anywhere” would bring a total chaos to the system, FR has enough potential to make some innovations in that question as well. It makes sense to designate just one centrally-located airport (like Frankfurt Hahn for example) and to carefully select some routes that could be interconnected. Why bother? Because it is very unlikely that some minor airports would ever be able to provide enough passengers to fill the 189 seats on the daily base to a single selected destination. For example Växjö will probably lose its NRN link, there is not enough passengers to keep it alive, I guess. However, 1 daily flight to HHN around midday and cautiously selected connecting flights [with long connection times] WOULD bring pax. I'll simulate it, let me take just the mentioned VXO as an example (randomly, I have probably never been in Växjö, believe me):
With just one daily flight HHN-VXO-HHN, say: HHN 12:30 – VXO 14:15/ 14:40 – HHN 16:25 you can SAFELY create several connecting flights, e.g.
Anyway, I think there are several ways to fill the planes better. More thorough analysis and research – it's the cheapest way to carry it through. Also, less hasty decisions and more logical thinking would bring some ”miraculous” profits (and fuller planes) too. As one of our members has pointed it out: why start HHN-BLL when Legoland was just closing (while in Summer could have worked), why to link frosty with windy and so on. An other example: SNN-LCJ did not have bad load factors at all (growing), but the route were terminated just as the construction of a big Dell factory in Lodz started (Dell have their main European manufacturing facility in Limerick). Too hasty conclusions, too little knowledge of facts. The User pee can already observe high LF's and unusually high prices on the BGY-TMP route and surely is impatient why after this success nothing more is coming ”from North to South” (PSA-TMP, CIA-TMP, MRS-TMP or alike). Isn't he right? So the route decisions cannot be hasty, but some quick reactions should be taken where appropriate.
I will carry on. The seasonal variations. While e.g. Malta could be flown to year-round, for a low-cost carrier it's better to intensify flights there in the periods other than Summer season. In Summer you can make money flying on short routes as well, while in Autumn an Winter you have some ”spare capacity” and you can fly from even more destinations to Malta in spite of the long distances.
An other ”forbidden” issue is the justification of connecting flights. While all true LCC's provide just the ”point-to-point” tickets and the connecting flights ”from anywhere to anywhere” would bring a total chaos to the system, FR has enough potential to make some innovations in that question as well. It makes sense to designate just one centrally-located airport (like Frankfurt Hahn for example) and to carefully select some routes that could be interconnected. Why bother? Because it is very unlikely that some minor airports would ever be able to provide enough passengers to fill the 189 seats on the daily base to a single selected destination. For example Växjö will probably lose its NRN link, there is not enough passengers to keep it alive, I guess. However, 1 daily flight to HHN around midday and cautiously selected connecting flights [with long connection times] WOULD bring pax. I'll simulate it, let me take just the mentioned VXO as an example (randomly, I have probably never been in Växjö, believe me):
With just one daily flight HHN-VXO-HHN, say: HHN 12:30 – VXO 14:15/ 14:40 – HHN 16:25 you can SAFELY create several connecting flights, e.g.
- GRO-VXO-GRO (GRO 08:30 HHN 10:25 >< 12:30 VXO 14:15; VXO 14:40 HHN 16:25 >< 19:30 GRO 21:20)
- or BGY-VXO-BGY (BGY 08:15 HHN 9:35 >< 12:30 VXO 14:15; VXO 14:40 HHN 16:25 >< 21:05 BGY 22:15)
- or CIA-VXO-CIA (CIA 08:20 HHN 10:15>< 12:30 VXO 14:15; VXO 14:40 HHN 16:25 >< 20:00 CIA 21:45)
- or STN-VXO-STN (STN 07:15 HHN 09:30 >< 12:30 VXO 14:15; VXO 14:40 HHN 16:25 >< 18:10 STN 18:30)
Last edited by eu01; 10th Mar 2008 at 04:54.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LF's, routes and flight patterns (cont.)
What damn flight patterns, you might ask. If W-patterns, is it something new? Ryanair has just a few W-patterns in the entire schedule and doesn't seem to like them at all. But no, I don't mean exactly that, I have built quite a different model. Why bother? Because if the load factors should be better, the carrier can win some passengers not only by rethinking its route policy (where to fly and which airports to use), but also by making some changes in the flight schedule philosophy. So hereby I present you with ”the delta revolution” or a triangle flight pattern model.
Let's assume we have an airport in X-town, it will be our base. Then there are two other non-base airports Y and Z that are in the cities big enough to be linked with X with a once-daily flight. The LF's on these routes are meagre however, probably still good enough to continue flights between the cities, but far from the target set for the routes. The cities Y and Z are served by the X-airport based planes, flights are carried out around mid-day. A group of tourists living in X-city has a day-off and would like to visit either Y or Z-town. It would, however require 2 days off and a hotel. No way, the potential passengers resign. What the carrier can do? In my theory, the schedule could be changed to accommodate that kind of passengers as well. It would require that X-based aircrafts make its early-morning and late-evening flights according to a triangle pattern, e.g.
Let's continue: From X you can make a day-trip now, but to Y only, not yet to the Z-city. We can try to make it happen, however.
If the schedule above were valid on Mondays and Wednesdays, you can change the flights' directions on Tuesdays and Thursdays
This example is meant to show you that there are many other ways to fill the planes than 1 penny flights. MOL is a visionary, undoubtedly. But the vision should involve much more than just money-guard issues. Some finesse, please!
Let's assume we have an airport in X-town, it will be our base. Then there are two other non-base airports Y and Z that are in the cities big enough to be linked with X with a once-daily flight. The LF's on these routes are meagre however, probably still good enough to continue flights between the cities, but far from the target set for the routes. The cities Y and Z are served by the X-airport based planes, flights are carried out around mid-day. A group of tourists living in X-city has a day-off and would like to visit either Y or Z-town. It would, however require 2 days off and a hotel. No way, the potential passengers resign. What the carrier can do? In my theory, the schedule could be changed to accommodate that kind of passengers as well. It would require that X-based aircrafts make its early-morning and late-evening flights according to a triangle pattern, e.g.
dep. X 6:30 – 7:30 arr. Y; dep. Y 7:55 – 8:55 arr. Z; dep. Z 9:20 – 10:20 arr. X.
dep. X 19:30 – 20:30 arr. Z; dep. Z 20:55 – 21:55 arr. Y; dep. Y 22:20 – 23:20 arr. X.
What do we have here? Still once-daily flights, but now you can depart from X in the morning, you can spend the entire day in the Y- destination city (arr. 8:55 dep. 21:55). Moreover, without the long W-patterns you are able to easily connect 2 non-base airports (Y and Z) – a new link without a new base. dep. X 19:30 – 20:30 arr. Z; dep. Z 20:55 – 21:55 arr. Y; dep. Y 22:20 – 23:20 arr. X.
Let's continue: From X you can make a day-trip now, but to Y only, not yet to the Z-city. We can try to make it happen, however.
If the schedule above were valid on Mondays and Wednesdays, you can change the flights' directions on Tuesdays and Thursdays
dep. X 6:30 – 7:30 arr. Z; dep. Z 7:55 – 8:55 arr. Y; dep. Y 9:20 – 10:20 arr. X.
dep. X 19:30 – 20:30 arr. Y; dep. Y 20:55 – 21:55 arr. Z; dep. Z 22:20 – 23:20 arr. X.
Now the passenger living in X can make a day-trip to Y on Mondays and Wednesdays or to Z on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The dweller of Y-town can spend an entire day in X on Tuesdays and Thursdays or in Y on Mondays and Wednesdays. The day-trip from Z could be made to X on Mo, Wed and to Y on Tue and Thu. Load factors rise.dep. X 19:30 – 20:30 arr. Y; dep. Y 20:55 – 21:55 arr. Z; dep. Z 22:20 – 23:20 arr. X.
This example is meant to show you that there are many other ways to fill the planes than 1 penny flights. MOL is a visionary, undoubtedly. But the vision should involve much more than just money-guard issues. Some finesse, please!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Milan MXP
Age: 48
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryanair website error BGY-GSE timetable
There is a error on Ryanair website. If you try to book BGY-GSE from April this is the result:
BGY-GSE 17:20-19:45 246
GSE-BGY 17:20-19:45 246
The return flight have the same time and it's not possible because this route is operated by a BGY plane based.
If anyone of Ryanair read this forum, please check. Thank you
BGY-GSE 17:20-19:45 246
GSE-BGY 17:20-19:45 246
The return flight have the same time and it's not possible because this route is operated by a BGY plane based.
If anyone of Ryanair read this forum, please check. Thank you
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Grrrr
Age: 17
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eu01, I think you need to brush up on your IATA codes. LCY = London City Airport. Interesting to slam a full 738 on that runway 
FCO = Fiumicino. Not really a harp airport either.
FCO = Fiumicino. Not really a harp airport either.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Europe
Posts: 970
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice to have a watchful reader, thanks! (LCJ, CIA of course, corrected).
@cesare.caldi There are some last minute flight schedule changes coming from the BGY base, effective from the end of March, I think it's the result of that.
@cesare.caldi There are some last minute flight schedule changes coming from the BGY base, effective from the end of March, I think it's the result of that.
Last edited by eu01; 10th Mar 2008 at 05:12.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In pondering the relative forecast profits for EZY and RYR is their selection of different sized aircraft a factor? EZY with 73Gs/319s have around 150 seats whereas RYR have 180+ on their 738s. Thus it is harder for RYR to fill their aircraft than it is for EZY when looked at at a simplistic level. As times become harder will RYR regret not having smaller aircraft in their fleet, especially with their concentration on smaller airports which may be more vulnerable to a recession?
Health warning: no knowledge involved in the above paragraph, just pontification.
Health warning: no knowledge involved in the above paragraph, just pontification.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you're right. FR's response to this has been to add low frequency routes to all of their new bases. This way they don't outweigh demand with supply. However, an exception to this would be the new EDI BOH route from late September. Two flights a day seems highly optimistic in my mind. Yes, they are trying to compete with flybe on their SOU route here, however, flybe only have 78 seats, and these are hardly ever full.
189 seats is slightly too many, however, that is where EZY and FR will differ now in their business model. EZY are after the Business PAX, with high frequencies, a business product etc etc. FR are primarily after leisure, VFR pax. These pax are more willing to fly at random frequencies (generally speaking).
The only advantage of 189 seats is when they are full in the summer, they will make a killing, maybe not on the fare, but on the extras. You have around 33 extra passengers to make baggage fees, check-in fees, travel insurance, car hire, hotels, on board sales, PB and much much more (dont forget the scratch cards!!)
189 seats is slightly too many, however, that is where EZY and FR will differ now in their business model. EZY are after the Business PAX, with high frequencies, a business product etc etc. FR are primarily after leisure, VFR pax. These pax are more willing to fly at random frequencies (generally speaking).
The only advantage of 189 seats is when they are full in the summer, they will make a killing, maybe not on the fare, but on the extras. You have around 33 extra passengers to make baggage fees, check-in fees, travel insurance, car hire, hotels, on board sales, PB and much much more (dont forget the scratch cards!!)