PDA

View Full Version : Ryanair celebrates its 140 millionth passenger


havana_club69
20th Apr 2006, 17:03
Not sure where to post this but thought it might make interesting reading!!!!

Today Ryanair celebrated its 140 millionth passenger with,
entirely free of charge, a toilet bag.

The no-frills airline, together with Southwest and Easyjet, has
been voted one of the world's worst airlines for in-flight
amenities

However, Ryanair said that it is proud that it doesn't waste money
on freebies they believe such as ill-fittting socks, fold- up
toothbrushes and undrinkable plonk. They believe that they give
passengers amenities they really want which are low fares, fewest
lost bags, no cancelled flights and, of course, toilet bags

Ryanair Spokesperson, Lorna Farren, said: "It's interesting to
note that in the same poll, BA was ranked number one for in-flight
amenities. This is because BA are busy giving out useless freebies
whilst at the same time hitting passengers for a 35 fuel
surcharge on top of high fares, frequent delays and cancellations.

This comes after British Airways plan to cut fares to places such
as Berlin, Paris and Barcelona by up to 50pc according to reports

ExSimGuy
21st Apr 2006, 11:02
Not sure where to post this but thought it might make interesting reading!!!!
Well, It could be News:eek:

Or, it could be just a Rumour,:confused:

Or maybe, it's just a Jet Blast :E

Wyler
21st Apr 2006, 12:11
The toilet bag will come in very handy while he's being detained and questioned at Prestwick.

Flying Lawyer
21st Apr 2006, 13:44
"The no-frills airline ....... has been voted one of the world's worst airlines for in-flight amenities." Since Ryanair promotes itself as a no-frills airline which prides itself on keeping ticket costs down, that's hardly surprising. :rolleyes:

We flew with Ryanair to Venice last Friday morning. No in-flight amenities other than the opportunity to buy snacks if we'd wanted them, but we knew that when we bought the tickets. At the price I paid (even when booking the previous evening), no complaints from us.
Both outbound and return flight on Monday night departed and arrived on time - if not a little ahead of schedule.
Two very satisfied customers.
Even when deciding on the spur of the moment to go away for the weekend , booking literally only a few hours before the outbound flight and travelling to/from Venice on Easter weekend, the tickets still cost only £315 each incl taxes. (I've no doubt the better planners amongst my fellow pax paid much less.)

A month ago, I paid £20 more than that just to fly one-way from Cologne to London with a major carrier. I could have waited another 6 hours for a lo-co no-frills flight but the time saved was worth the extra cost on that occasion. The seats were more comfortable with greater leg room, there was a 'free' inflight snack (roll and coffee), and there were more Cabin Attendants on board in order to serve the snack - but all that costs money.

I simply don't understand people who want the price advantage of flying with no-frills carriers yet expect the frills offered by 'full price' carriers.
IMHO, it's a case of 'Make your choice and pay accordingly.'

Onan the Clumsy
21st Apr 2006, 14:53
I flew to the south of France for two poonds roond trip. I thought it was a joke at first, but it was real.

Mind you, it ended up as about thirty quid with taxes, but you'd have to be a miserable old git to complain about that.

...Still this IS JetBlast :E

havana_club69
21st Apr 2006, 15:42
I simply don't understand people who want the price advantage of flying with no-frills carriers yet expect the frills offered by 'full price' carriers.
IMHO, it's a case of 'Make your choice and pay accordingly.'

I have the exact same view as yourself Flying Lawyer. Dont get me wrong, Ive flown Ryanair on numerous occassions and have never ever had a problem with them, regards being on time, staff, etc. I was just interested to see what people thought of the article.

AnEviltwinEr
21st Apr 2006, 16:14
http://www.ryanairsucks.com/ :E:E

(no, it's not a dead link.)

seacue
21st Apr 2006, 16:35
Southwest flies over 70 million passengers each year.

Concerning the amenities of SWA, I find Southwest's cabin service to be as good as or better than the other major domestic US airlines. SWA has larger seat pitch than some of the other major US airlines.

Whatever do my comments have to do with Ryanair? Whose Board chairman is an American.

Stockpicker
21st Apr 2006, 17:21
I simply don't understand people who want the price advantage of flying with no-frills carriers yet expect the frills offered by 'full price' carriers.

Nobody expects frills for free, FL - on the other hand, there's a basic standard of service which I, for one, will not fly without - so I don't fly Ryanair. I love flying, and want to go on loving it. I'm happy to pay up for the difference in the experience I enjoy. To me, flying's glamorous - why try to fight it? I will pay for a service about which I can, in all honesty, complain when it doesn't meet my standards. In fact, my biggest worry is that the full-service carriers will dispense with the aspects of flying I really enjoy (a big part of which is interacting with their people who get to do this wonderful thing for a living) and in so doing, turn my regular EDI-London trip into a penance instead of a joy. Oh, and if whoever is my currrent employer won't pay for the carrier I want to use, I'll pay for the trip myself rather than go lo-co.

(suspect I've probably done enough to get this moved to the SLF forum but what the hey).

CarltonBrowne the FO
21st Apr 2006, 21:03
If Ryanair are now capped at 99 aircraft for the foreseeable future, expect to see some dumping of routes in order to free the aircraft for the more lucrative ones. If you're staying more than a week, is that return ticket a good buy?

colmac747
21st Apr 2006, 21:22
Wonder what the 150 millionth pax will get? A potato?

AnEviltwinEr
21st Apr 2006, 21:26
Wonder what the 150 millionth pax will get? A potato?

Nah. Too expensive. It would needed to be boiled, and things and stuff. Do you think the f/o's have time for that?

nop.

Some water'll be allright. Cheap and fast. The ryanair-way.

The Real Slim Shady
21st Apr 2006, 21:31
If Ryanair are now capped at 99 aircraft for the foreseeable future,

107 at the last count and of course that's airborne at any 1 time ;) ;)

Flying Lawyer
21st Apr 2006, 21:59
Stockpicker

I fully understand your point of view and, to a large extent, agree with you. Making a choice and paying accordingly was my point.
eg I wouldn't fly long haul with a lo-co carrier/on a charter flight. I choose to pay more for more. Short haul, I'm not bothered and choose the cheapest convenient flight. You prefer 'full service' which Ryanair doesn't offer, so you choose not to fly with them. Free market choice by us both.
However, I have read posts on Pprune and comments elsewhere which IMHO clearly show that some people expect too much of lo-co carriers.

"my biggest worry is that the full-service carriers will dispense with the aspects of flying I really enjoy"
Interesting point.
I too would be sorry to see the more 'glamorous' option disappear but, at the moment, we have a choice which I think is great.
However, if the full-service carriers are to survive, I think some airlines (eg BA) need to make significant reductions in costs which IMHO could be achieved without reducing the quality of service - inflight cabin costs being an obvious example. How they got themselves into such a mess I don't know. Maybe previous bosses weren't strong enough to take on the union? Some progress has been made; time will tell whether WW will make more. The newer lo-cos have the advantage of not carrying enormous historic debt which costs serious money to service but, just as (perhaps even more) important, they have the advantage of not being bound by ridiculous historic agreements.

Unless costs are cut, major carriers will continue to disappear.
The alternative is to increase ticket price but, in a competitive market, that's easier said than done.

Contrary to common misconception (even within the industry judging by comments sometimes made even on this website), airlines in general operate on minute profit margins which are virtually unheard of in any other sector.

G-CPTN
21st Apr 2006, 23:00
Ryanair.
Are THEY the ones with the outside loos?

CarltonBrowne the FO
22nd Apr 2006, 00:30
As I understand it the IAA has (in the past month or so) capped Ryanair's AOC at 99 aircraft- hence all the wet leases. Used 737-800s are starting to appear on the market...

Metro man
22nd Apr 2006, 03:55
As long as you understand and accept what you are getting for the money they are fine. Bring a thermos of coffee, a sandwich, and a book or portable DVD player along with you and sit back and enjoy the savings.

If you want full inflight service and are happy to pay the extra on a normal airline that's fine too.

I don't see many road tests in car magazines comparing base model Fords with top end German luxury cars, but both do the same job. As long as I get what I've paid for I'm happy.:)

Stockpicker
22nd Apr 2006, 21:35
In fact, FL, I think the biggest millstone BA now carries is its pension fund deficit - a great deal of which is caused by the highly dubious (and I speak as a Chartered Accountant!) FRS17. I recall a meeting with John Rishton shortly after he took on the job at BA, when this normally mild-mannered chap was positively incandescent on the mooted mark-to-market rule. The irony is that it represents a very cautious view of an obligation that may never reach the heights implied by the accounting standard. All power to John, he did a great job on the conventional debt on BA's balance sheet.

It would be even more of a shame, to my mind, if the cabin crew who have already suffered so much are made to pare back the service even more to service what may be a purely notional debt.

To get back on topic, this will of course not be an issue for most lo-co operators, including FR, who have a much higher rate of turnover in CC.

Flying Lawyer
23rd Apr 2006, 00:08
I wasn't suggesting 'full service' carriers should pare back the quality of inflight service; sorry if I gave that impression.

FRS17 is certainly controversial. I remember reading the conflicting arguments pre and post introduction but didn't (and don’t) know enough to judge which side was correct. But, like it or not, that accounting standard is here to stay (for the foreseeable future) so companies have no choice but to adjust to cope with it.

I stand by my view that full service carriers have no realistic alternative but to cut costs if they are to survive. Most of their balance sheets weren't exactly healthy even before FRS17, and increasing ticket prices isn't a realistic option in such a competitive market. Some tickets (eg trans-Atlantic) are arguably too cheap, but it's the most competitive route so there's not much scope there.


(Re Rishton - I thought it was a pity he resigned when he didn’t get the top job.)

ATRIXO
27th Apr 2006, 01:15
Agree, that it is value for money and long may it continue. However, if you do have a problem with your booking as opposed to your flight service for example; it costs 10p per minute on the phone, which the 'barely English speaking' staff maximise at your expense and ultimately cannot rectify. Odd considering anyone else who sells on line or by post is regulated by the Distance Selling Regulations and other applicable consumer safeguards.