Ryanair return booking question?

[jack_essex]

I have a quick question regarding booking a return flight. I have so far booked a return trip from STN - DUB - STN on the same day. I am also going to book a return trip later in the day dep STN - DUB incase the earlier flight is delayed, canx and then also the first flight back from DUB - STN the next day for the same reason (if the last flight back from DUB is canx). Is there any problem using the DUB - STN (if required) if we had not flown the STN - DUB on the same confirmation? I don't want them to canx my itinerary if I did not fly the first flight? Did I make that sound really complicated?


Thanks

[PAXboy]

Yes you made that sound complicated!!

It sounds as if you have booked extra sectors - some of which you will not use - in order to be sure of being able to make the round trip in one day?

If so - then you have accepted to throw away all sectors on which you do not travel, for the surety of travel. My guess is that, if all of these are made on separate bookings under separate references - then they are not linked and no cancellation will take place. RPT THIS IS MY GUESS.

Usually, it is only the legacy carriers that proactively cancel return sectors when the outbound was not used but to find out - you will have to wait here for an answer, or phone FR. Which might be difficult!!

[Final 3 Greens]

Jack

AFAIK all Ryanair flights are booked as single sectors, even if you book a "return."

So you should have no probs.

If you wish to reassure yourself, go into Ryanair's t&cs and check for yourself.

[jack_essex]

Thanks for your replies. I have been looking on the website and the T&C's but cannot find what I am looking for. I have only booked the extra flights as a back up so will hopefully not have to use them. I wouldn't have thought they would cancel if you do not fly the first sector as this would affect the load factor surely? Even if you do not fly they still count you in the flight load factor.

[A2QFI]

As a frequent Ryanair passenger, but always returns, I note that my two flights are booked and on the computer with 1 reference. If you have booked 4 flights and only have 2 references I think you just might be vulnerable, but I doubt it. In your position I would be happier with 4 flights and 4 references. Please let us know how you get on!

[johnref]

I have booked Ryanair in past (and EasyJet) - had a change of plans which meant taking a different initial routing - but have still used the return leg of the original booking as my home trip even though I didn't use leg 1.

In fact some of the Ryanair flights are now some cheap we book a couple of options now just as an insurance against holdups going to airport.

[chrism20]

I've missed my outbound flight with FR before and had to buy a single with EI, I was still able to use my return portion with FR though.

I used a conventional check in desk and nothing was said.

FR count their load factor from booked tickets and not actually bums on seats so by the looks of it as long as you have paid your fare they aren't really interested whether you fly or not, they would however prefer you were on board benefiting from the hard sell of newspapers, tea, coffee, scratchcards, perfume, baggage space in the hold etc etc which is where they make their cash.

[oldlag53]

As I understand (I stand to be corrrected!) at some airports (LPL is an example), RYR are too cheap to pay for computerised check-in, so all the staff get is a computer printout of the booked pax list. Soo all they do is check your name off the list and hand you a piece of cardboard!!

[XSBaggage]

It really doesn't matter. FR treats each sector individually. If you miss your outbound nothing will flag up on the return sector or anything.
As oldlag53 says, FR use manual check in (the flight still must match with the manifest in the res system though when the sales desk close the flight and remove no shows) but its not to do with saving money. FR used to be computerised at PIK I remember but they went to manually ticking off the list because it is a lot faster. FR don't care what system the handling agent uses so long as their res system is updated after check in. So lists and cardboard it is!
XSB

[WHBM]

FR don't overbook of course - except they do.

Turning up on spec at the airport, plans had changed, ticket desk (manned by handling agent) said flight was full (to my surprise) but "they never get everybody turning up", proceeded to sell me a £140 single for a 35-minute sector, all out of the FR reservation system, and off I went. Check-in by no means closed, in fact I had to use it of course. Other than having a boarding sequence in the last group there seemed no way I could have been picked out at the gate on the offchance that everyone turned up. But maybe it's true, they never do.

One day Ryanair will cotton on and start to selectively overbook for additional revenue.

[AdamC]

Did it myself the other week, no problems at all, nothing got cancelled..

They proberbly sell your seat to some poor soul in the airport for 300 euros!

[slim_slag]

Ryanair say they don't overbook, handling agent on check in desk say they do. Wonder who to believe......... If FR overbooked and denied boarding you would be certain there would be threads on the subject and I've never seen one yet. Their operation is so tightly timed I doubt they would want to sell seats at the last second, it would mess up their whole system.

[Vasto1M]

Ryanair do oversell their flights, not very often granted, but I have seen Monday morning Dublin flights sold to 7 more people than would fit on the plane.

[slim_slag]

Ryanair is possibly the only airline in Europe that does not overbook its flights; therefore Ryanair has eliminated the possibility of passengers being involuntarily denied boarding as a result of overbooking. However if for technical or immigrant requirements, it becomes necessary to accommodate passengers on another flight, Ryanair will seek to prioritise the needs of those passengers whose flight was disrupted and minimise the delay for passengers effected.

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/about.php?sec=charter

Section 9

[slim_slag]

Have googled madly during my morning coffee and can find no hard evidence than FR overbook, in fact I can find none whatsoever.

Did find this pdf though http://www.aerlines.nl/issue_32/32_K...verbooking.pdf from aerlines magazine which may or may not be a decent mag, but the article has a professional looking approach.

As we all suspected, airlines overbook to make more money, and it is claimed that in 2004, the net benefit to Lufthansa in revenue was E126 million. That's quite a decent wedge, all at the expense of inconvenienced passengers of course, but then we have to remember we are dealing with airlines

They crunch the numbers, and say on a 150 seat flight (must be a few years ago) to maximise revenue, FR should overbook by 5. They don't appear to do that.

One of the conclusions drawn by the paper is

Ryanair..... management teams seem to have decided that the goodwill earned from avoiding involuntary bumps is a better longterm strategy than maximizing revenue in the short term

So there you go

[The Real Slim Shady]

Only time I have seen the airplane "overbooked" is on a DUB when it can be "booked" to 193. The extra 4 are the 4 spare jumpseats which are available for staff passengers travelling on duty and ticketed.

The aircarft are not overbooked for the sales to the public.

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by slim_slag

As we all suspected, airlines overbook to make more money, and it is claimed that in 2004, the net benefit to Lufthansa in revenue was E126 million. That's quite a decent wedge, all at the expense of inconvenienced passengers of course, but then we have to remember we are dealing with airlines

With respect, if you want get a little dig in at airlines, could you tell us what you would prefer them to do?

Airlines know that if they overbook too much they'll face a DBC bill, which they'd like to avoid (both the direct cost and the inconvenienced passengers). But they also know that some of the booked seats are going to fly empty. In 2004, LH carried about 51 million pax and made E10.5bn in revenue, so if your number is correct, overbooking was a bit over 1% of their revenue.

Looked at another way, they could have kept their revenue constant without overbooking if each of their passengers had paid an extra E2 or so "no-overbooking surcharge" (hey, there are bogus wheelchair surcharges and inflated fuel surcharges, why not another bogus category ) Would increasing the fares slightly be preferable in your view? Or should the airline just let the seats fly empty and accept lower revenues?

C.

[Dogs_ears_up]

As we all suspected, airlines overbook to make more money, and it is claimed that in 2004, the net benefit to Lufthansa in revenue was E126 million. That's quite a decent wedge, all at the expense of inconvenienced passengers of course, but then we have to remember we are dealing with airlines

Of course Airlines overbook to make more money: This is well established and seems to be a surprise only to you. Airlines also fly pax and freight to make more money. In fact, Airlines only exist to make "more money" - the same is true of every commercial business in the world. Do you expect Airlines to operate in a way that makes them less money because it suits your personal views?

Airlines overbook in order to maximise yield. They have every right to do so. If a flight departs with every seat occupied then the system has worked as it should. A problem arises only when there are more people booked than seats at the time of departure. When this happens, there are (rightly in my view) various mechanisms that click in to protect and/or compensate the customer. Therefore it follows that the €126 mentioned above was not a contribution made "at the expense of inconvenienced passengers" since the overwhelming majority were not inconvenienced at all - they received the seat that they paid for (and in some few cases, will have been upgraded)

Overbooking works! It works successfully, in thousands of cases, every day. Because you don't have visibility of the success rate, only of the failure rate, it is hard see the true picture. Overbooking is a sensible business decision taken by managers to ensure the survival and profitability of their businesses. There is not one person reading this who would change that policy were they to be running an airline. Which brings us back nicely to...

we have to remember we are dealing with airlines

Actually, you just have to remember that you are dealing with businesses in a modern world. If you are naive enough to expect airlines to behave differently to any other business then it is probably best for you to avoid commenting on business related airline matters in public forums. Whilst imperfect in many ways, as are all industries, it is the Airline industry that enables you to travel at an affordable price and in relative safety and (occasional) comfort: It is also an airline industry bulletin board that generously provides you with a forum to snipe anonymously at that industry.

[slim_slag]

Ho ho.

The forum is here to allow passengers to comment. Those are the people who pay your wages, remember

If I was selling hairdryers, what would you say if I was taking orders on the internet but I knew there was a significant chance I could not deliver the product? I also take the money in advance. Most people would want me shutting down.

Why should airlines be any different?

As for business ability, FR don't appear to overbook, and appear to be making loadsamoney. So spare me the 'airlines need to make money' tear jerker

[Dogs_ears_up]

slim_slag

You need to slow up and think before posting further, to avoid further embarrassment.

Those are the people who pay your wages, remember

No suggestion that I, or any other airline employee have forgotten this - in fact, it's just another cheap shot, and in this case, irrelevant to the topic being discussed: You're personalising and applying emotion, presumably as distraction away from the weakness of your stated position.

but I knew there was a significant chance I could not deliver the product

Please re-read my previous post. The whole point is that there is NOT a "significant chance": There is, in fact, (sorry to let facts intrude) a statistically very, very small chance that the product cannot be delivered.

Your comparison with internet pre-payment is inappropriate. Almost everything ordered on the internet involves money taken in advance. I wouldn't need to want your internet business to be shut down - based on your comments, the business would collapse in fairly short order, of its' own accord.

FR don't appear to overbook, and appear to be making loadsamoney

.

Correct, but worth noting that their passenger profile is different to legacy carriers, and this can affect the overbooking profile: Additionally, a significant portion of their revenue is generated by ancillary services. Nonetheless, if they have managed to make their model work without the need for overbooking (unlikely, but possible) then good for them.

so spare me the 'airlines need to make money' tear jerker

There you go again - Do you have any idea how such statements undermine your own position. Airlines DO need to make money - that is why they are in business. It's not a "tear jerker" to anybody but you, it's just a fact. Airlines are market driven - if their product is wrong, they will unltimately fail, at which point in the future, slim_slag the unheralded guru of the industry will stand up and say "I told you so! - If only you'd listened to me!"

Until then, we'll just have to tolerate the sniper in the hills - at least we can take comfort in the knowledge that he is inaccurate.