Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Megan F
    • By MSE Megan F 21st Jun 17, 5:17 PM
    • 128Posts
    • 43Thanks
    MSE Megan F
    0 WOW
    Ryanair sits hen party in FIFTEEN separate rows as outrage over seating policy grows
    • #1
    • 21st Jun 17, 5:17 PM
    0 WOW
    Ryanair sits hen party in FIFTEEN separate rows as outrage over seating policy grows 21st Jun 17 at 5:17 PM
    A hen party has hit out at Ryanair's controversial 'random seat allocation' policy after the budget airline assigned each of the 15 passengers in the group a middle seat - and seated them in 15 separate rows.
    ’ 'Ryanair sits hen party in FIFTEEN separate rows as outrage over seating policy grows' '

    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
    [/CENTER]

    Follow the Forum on Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest
    Join the MSE Forum
    New forum user? Watch our New to the Forum? Youtube guide
    Get the Free Martin's Money Tips E-mail
    Report inappropriate posts: click the report button
    Point out a rate/product change
    Flag up a news story: news@moneysavingexpert.com
Page 14
    • adindas
    • By adindas 7th Jul 17, 7:35 AM
    • 3,197 Posts
    • 1,531 Thanks
    adindas
    Do tell us where the £1 seat allocations are.
    Originally posted by buglawton
    Sorry typo original has been edited to £2.
    • Murphy_The_Cat
    • By Murphy_The_Cat 7th Jul 17, 8:06 AM
    • 19,469 Posts
    • 25,439 Thanks
    Murphy_The_Cat
    I know ................... lucky you
    Originally posted by agarnett
    Some times, less can be more



    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 7th Jul 17, 1:55 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    Some times, less can be more
    Originally posted by Murphy_The_Cat
    Yes but here on MSE, it very much depends on the eye of the beholder and the beholder's appetite for learning something new, as opposed to a pre-disposition to ridicule and mischief, I guess. There are lots on MSE who read but do not post.

    So I thought "cop out" was a little strange as a description of my writing.

    A cop out is a poor excuse for not doing anything, or perhaps an excuse for avoiding responsibility. I don't think I have done nothing. I don't think I have avoided any responsibility. I have noticed something and given a large number of other people the chance to think about it in detail. I have developed my own thoughts and shared them. Is there a rule that says if you introduce an idea you have to prosecute it?

    I have repeated my original core concerns for re-emphasise when I thought the thread needed it. I wouldn't agree I'd simply banged on without developing arguments further to try to help more people understand. I have gone out of my way to try to explain in the hope that different "hooks" might interest a broader audience. I have certainly banged the drum more than once to bring the thread direction round to something more than the easy "Shock horror Ryanair Jekyll and Hyde upsetting passengers again - are we really surprised and good on them" type posts!

    I lately conclude that safety and safety regulation in some major areas of national interest are government political levers which don't get touched in some cases from one decade to the next - sometimes scarcely touched in fact over a number of decades. So maybe now this is more a Discussion Time thread? MSE themselves chose the forum to use, I think?

    So with that background, what is the point of little old me reporting a breach of CPUTRs to OFT / CAA or reporting I can (too) see the bleedin' obvious emergency evacuation uncertainties which Department of Transport or IAA or EASA presumably know more about than anyone? Do they nod through changes such as those that caused this thread to exist? Those authorities obviously know change has occurred (else they are a waste public funds and office space). So far they don't seem sufficiently minded to have got involved in agreeing that change, nor in warning of risk improvement requirements or enforcement action to prevent unwanted detriment to passengers? I surely can't cause them to enforce anything by making a complaint as an individual

    I am certainly amazed that my "essay" got requoted in full by a poster. Can we get points for it? Was there anxiety to make sure readers knew which post looked like an essay this morning? Was there a doubt?
    • Murphy_The_Cat
    • By Murphy_The_Cat 7th Jul 17, 2:38 PM
    • 19,469 Posts
    • 25,439 Thanks
    Murphy_The_Cat

    I am certainly amazed that my "essay" got requoted in full by a poster. Can we get points for it? Was there anxiety to make sure readers knew which post looked like an essay this morning? Was there a doubt?
    Originally posted by agarnett
    My point being that a short post, detailing the salient points can have a more positive effect than a long article that some/most people would give up on.

    have a good weekend



    • fifeken
    • By fifeken 7th Jul 17, 3:16 PM
    • 2,139 Posts
    • 1,104 Thanks
    fifeken
    When I book a flight and do not book a seat that is one sales transaction. If I get tempted into reconsidering the seat purchase on another occasion, that is a separate transaction.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    In your opinion. As above, if you had any conviction in your belief you would stand behind it in court. This one isn't safety related so unlikely to be picked up by any of these authorities so go for it yourself. Let us know how you get on.

    I wouldn't agree I'd simply banged on . . . .
    Originally posted by agarnett

    I would say you'd done nothing apart from bang on.
    • adindas
    • By adindas 7th Jul 17, 3:44 PM
    • 3,197 Posts
    • 1,531 Thanks
    adindas
    In your opinion. As above, if you had any conviction in your belief you would stand behind it in court. This one isn't safety related so unlikely to be picked up by any of these authorities so go for it yourself. Let us know how you get on.

    I would say you'd done nothing apart from bang on.
    Originally posted by fifeken
    That is also the way most of the budget airlines which require fee for guaranteed seat allocation work.

    Moreover there is increasing number of major airlines following this method.

    Are they all breaking the law ????? It can not be right ...
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 7th Jul 17, 5:24 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    The thread didn't start as safety related. It started by reporting the continuing outrage of customers affected by Ryanair's new (since 15th May) deliberate splitting up of groups to supposedly twist their arm into paying to sit together again.

    I have now experienced it first hand in four flights.

    fifeken, you can call black white if you wish, but some of us are clear about what constitutes a transaction and what constitutes a breach of CPUTRs. Some of us don't fancy ourselves as gunslinging cowpokes who dare to burst into bars in the Wild West. We just intuitively know black from white, and right from wrong. I know ... it's frustrating, and I am sure we commiserate

    And then safety. You don't seem to want to think about emergency evacuation. Fair enough, don't. But some of us do know a little about it and we also have enough experience to assert that it is blindingly obvious that if you start cramming a cabin full of baggage with very little in the hold, evacuating passengers are likely to hesitate and a good proportion will try to take some or all of theirs as they evacuate, especially if they are unsupervised at the middle exits. There are youtube videos for other airlines showing that's what many passengers tend to do, even when there is less cabin baggage than Ryanair. We also know that around 1/3rd of all evacuation is unsupervised via 737-800 overwing exits and they are small hatches so a log jam will occur if baggage is in the escape mix in the middle.

    Add in the number of people who will hesitate to leave the aircraft until they have an idea that their partners or friends are safely able to get out at the other end of the plane where Ryanair stuck them as part of its aggressive seat sales tactic, and you quickly have a situation where very valuable evacuation time is wasted.

    When a full Ryanair plane empties normally at destination, it always takes a minimum of around 10 minutes with a constant stream down two sets of stairs. That is usually with passengers seeking and competing a bit to get out quite briskly. 90 seconds is of course almost 5 times quicker, but there are accepted differences. There are escape shutes of course, plus the overwing exits are additional to the front and rear doors.

    You might lend a thought also to up to four disabled passengers per flight. I'm not sure the 90 second test takes them into account?

    We already know that shorter model 737 have only two overwing exits not four. So I can only guess that it's a fair assumption that it was decided that two was not enough for 737-800, and that's likely because two would not allow the maximum 90 seconds evacuation test to be achieved at Boeing.

    We might fairly assume that the original 737-800 90 second test with 189 passengers compared to say 148 typically in 737-700, is a close run thing with each aircraft being used in a traditional operation as envisaged by Boeing when they designed the type series.

    Ryanair is not 737-800 in a traditional use. I accept it is more and more becoming the norm so Ryanair might not be the only airline with a similar problem, but I can't simply dismiss it as of no consequence to evacuation times. Ryanair may have more 737-800 than almost any other world airline, but it wasn't exactly designed specifically for the way they use it. I don't think it was designed for the way Norwegian use it on their typical 5000km flights from Scotland and Ireland to the US either, but that's another story!

    Clearly it is likely that if a representative test of all that abnormal baggage in the cabin coupled with the new group deliberate split up of seating were designed, the evacuation would be on the verge of or beyond the 90 second limit.

    You cannot logically deny the safety degradation risk, but you did anyway. Your choice - but one has to wonder why you don't want to see it so much that you bother writing to say it isn't true.

    You question my conviction and two or three of you have been "banging on" about me needing to take my assertions to court. What proportion of disputes about anything, or complaints about anything for that matter actually get settled in court? Until recent developments, not even banker fraud got settled in UK courts! Regulators preferred to take a cut of the ill-gotten gains and let fraudsters go uncharged and walk free to continue to enjoy the lion's share.

    So since you urge it, have you ever been to a court and argued your own case about anything? I'm familiar with the inside of the justice system thanks, but are those of you who are banging on about me not using it?

    I am pleased to see adindas now asking the question now about whether more than one airline may effectively have made its aircraft not airworthy by the way they have altered their use in such a way as to degrade emergency evacuation times. It is a fair question. It might depend whether you believe there was enough margin in the Boeing tests originally to take up a bit of slack with the latest varied operational styles?

    My feeling is not really. What's yours now?
    Last edited by agarnett; 07-07-2017 at 6:11 PM.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 8th Jul 17, 9:31 AM
    • 17,350 Posts
    • 44,190 Thanks
    Pollycat
    In your opinion. As above, if you had any conviction in your belief you would stand behind it in court. This one isn't safety related so unlikely to be picked up by any of these authorities so go for it yourself. Let us know how you get on.

    I would say you'd done nothing apart from bang on.
    Originally posted by fifeken
    Pretty much my opinion too.

    And as agarnett (and his predecessor on this thread Forever blowin bubbles - such a shame all those verbose posts were deleted ) can't seem to find anything that proves their claim of 'unlawful' - specifically relating to 'bait and switch tactics', I'll leave it until they can.
    • adindas
    • By adindas 8th Jul 17, 10:55 AM
    • 3,197 Posts
    • 1,531 Thanks
    adindas
    Looking into the style and willingness to write such a long essay, I believe "Forever blowin bubbles" and "agarnett" is the same person ...

    But although s/he deleted his/her posts, in many cases I have quoted his/her posts so people could still see what s/he has been writing.

    Safety is an ultimate issue and shall not be compromised. If they have safety concern, the vast majority of people will stop flying with these airlines until the safety issue is fixed.

    But here these small group of people who keep banging about the safety, acknowledge openly they keep flying with these airlines.

    My conclusion here so far is that all these small group of people are interested is to see that the paying for guaranteed seats pricing strategy to be replaced with blanket seat fixed price added into the ticket price. So those who do not need it will cross subsidizing those who need it.

    They are trying to take (influence people) with them to maximize impact.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 8th Jul 17, 6:53 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    To civilise = to cross-subsidise?
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 9th Jul 17, 11:00 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    Oh and just to clarify, I too find it useful that snippets of deleted posts exist, and I wonder if we have forgotten some of the angles raised in them - a week is a long time in politics / yesterday's newspapers and all that!

    So adindas, have you thought any more about the emergency evacuation angle?
    Last edited by agarnett; 09-07-2017 at 11:03 AM.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 9th Jul 17, 1:18 PM
    • 17,350 Posts
    • 44,190 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Oh and just to clarify, I too find it useful that snippets of deleted posts exist, and I wonder if we have forgotten some of the angles raised in them - a week is a long time in politics / yesterday's newspapers and all that!

    So adindas, have you thought any more about the emergency evacuation angle?
    Originally posted by agarnett
    I'm sure you remember every word of Forever blowin bubbles' posts.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 9th Jul 17, 2:23 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    I remember the gist, but no, far from every word because I recall there were rather a lot, a bit about unlawful misleading and aggressive commercial practice, but majoring mostly on likely degradation of emergency evacuation times, I think, and questioning what sort of regulatory oversight actually occurs when airline baggage and seat allocation policies are deliberately changed in a way that is different to what the original aircraft designers and manufacturers expected.

    I would genuinely like to know if the majority of the flying public still don't care in the grand scheme of things. That is given the suggestion that emergency evacuation times are now on or beyond the 50 year old 90 second limit due to changes of the various airline use cases for handling cabin baggage and seat allocation, and also the ever increasing numbers of ageing and special category of passenger travellers commonly now present in cabins.

    I mean once upon a time, even in airliners, it was fairly important to make sure that passengers' and their baggage weights were accurately assessed before loading. For many years UK airlines by agreement with CAA used weight estimates of I think an average 80kg for male and average 65kg for female passengers.

    Ryanair still quotes "Weight and Balance" as a reason why you should stay exactly in your allocated seat during the critical phases of takeoff and landing, and it also states you aren't supposed to take more than 10kg in your main cabin bag, but Ryanair knows that its engines, flight control adjustment and airframes can take up quite a lot of slack, so even if you are a rotund giant, it doesn't ask you if you happen to weigh more than 110kg in your underpants

    My feeling is like so many things in our modern lives, the masses probably don't even want to start to think about horrible scenarios like emergency evacuation of an aircraft unless something very nasty happened on a flight just like theirs in the last few days. Let three weeks pass, and as we see with the other horrible scenario, it has dropped off the front page, and largely out of the public consciousness just like the New Orleans Levee failures. I know I risk sounding like one of those "told you so" armchair experts who think if they spout enough predictions then one day they'll be able to say they were right all along! I promise you I am not of that ilk, and have no such desire.

    Look at the differences in improved motor vehicle safety in the last 50 years - seatbelts in the back as well as the front! Airbags. Passenger safety cells, crumple zones, automatic emergency braking to name a few. Sure, richardw was right to point out days or weeks ago that materials approved for use in aircraft cabins have become much more carefully regulated, and we know navigation and automated landing equipment is a lot better, but 737 has been around all those 50 years and apart from the extra couple of hatches over the wings for 737-800/900, there's still the same limited number of exits. Yet the number of seats is very much higher than earlier models, load factors are much higher and the amount of potentially combustible baggage material now regularly carried inside the cabin is perhaps far more in bulk than the old-fashioned combustible cabin lining and seat materials that got removed by regulation.

    I understand mass reluctance to question. I understand government reluctance not to rock too many corporate boats especially in areas where global standards seem to have been set and where if we made ourselves too different with red tape, our countries' more important businesses, whether it be Eire or UK or any other, may look uncompetitive, but I do think that complacency must be avoided and that corporates should be encouraged to behave with civility, and with progressive ideas about real safety improvement, which is why I'll witter on for a bit longer on this if MSE allows.
    Last edited by agarnett; 09-07-2017 at 3:14 PM.
    • fifeken
    • By fifeken 10th Jul 17, 7:16 PM
    • 2,139 Posts
    • 1,104 Thanks
    fifeken
    agarnett - I agree current policies affect evacuation times, but I don't claim selling methods are a safety hazard (post #270 unless more cuts are made). You might do other users a favour by spending more time reading and less writing.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 10th Jul 17, 11:28 PM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    I am sorry fifeken, I am not entirely with you on the crux of your question?

    You agree current policies affect evacuation times. I obviously take it you agree that degraded (lengthened) likely emergency evacuation times are a safety issue?

    But you are making a distinction between degraded emergency evacuation times generally I think, and current selling methods which I argue do naturally degrade emergency evacuation times? Is that right?

    If I get you right, you are saying that selling seats in the way Ryanair currently does, does not degrade safety? And selling baggage space in the hold and encouraging more baggage in the cabin instead does not degrade safety?

    In the first example in the above paragraph, if you wish to argue semantics, I might almost agree with you, because it isn't the sold seats but the "free"/gratis seat allocation process which splits up groups and thereby degrades likely emergency evacuation times.

    And there is also actually a link back from this unwanted safety effect which means that the commercial practice of overtly manipulating customer decisions is in my opinion an unlawfully aggressive commercial practice. A bit like the old double-glazing salesman's "20% discount - but only if you sign tonight", except that the likely responses by many customers to that kind of treatment will cause more groups to be split up ("I'll be blowed if I need to pay to sit next to the missus for just an hour" which would likely degrade emergency evacuation times in that cabin). The aggressive practice of "We'll split you up if you don't pay to sit together" has a reduced safety effect by those who give Ryanair the finger on that!

    In my second example, because Ryanair has long encouraged baggage in the cabin rather than the hold, and because most cabin baggage is combustible, I would expect most commentators to agree that emergency evacuation times are likely degraded by the long term policy of encouraging the bulk of passenger baggage to get carried inside the cabin rather than the hold. My assertion is primarily and naturally because of the likelihood of more smoke and fire earlier in the evacuation (if a fire affects the cabin). I assert a secondary affect which is a likely tendency for a significant proportion of evacuation passengers to try to take baggage with them out of the plane if they are not in the hold.

    (Text removed by MSE Forum Team)
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam5; 11-07-2017 at 12:16 PM.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 11th Jul 17, 9:54 AM
    • 17,350 Posts
    • 44,190 Thanks
    Pollycat
    I am sorry fifeken, I am not entirely with you on the crux of your question?
    Originally posted by agarnett
    I don't believe fifeken asked a question.
    agarnett - I agree current policies affect evacuation times, but I don't claim selling methods are a safety hazard (post #270 unless more cuts are made). You might do other users a favour by spending more time reading and less writing.
    Originally posted by fifeken
    No question marks there.
    Just 2 statements.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 11th Jul 17, 10:22 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    Oh dear.

    The point Pollycat is that in the context of this thread, the two statements are ostensibly inconsistent, which begs the question but without need for a question mark to emphasise the begging bit - subtle eh?

    By making those two statements as fifeken did, there's actually a further question as to how fifeken deduced that I had misread something fifeken had written about selling methods. Fifeken did say in post#270 that the selling tactic of introducing a switched price was not safety related. I disagree. That is why I said fifeken was calling black white.

    Maybe it is less easy to see why it is a safety issue because like so much that is safety related in any sphere, it is indirectly so. You have to be able to consider it fully, and then see the danger. It is possible to consider it fully and not see the danger, so I could have been softer, but I had already given fifeken credit for being perfectly able to see what was safe and what wasn't. So I was punchy when I thought fifeken was denying the obvious. I apologise to fifeken if fifeken had not seen the indirect link that I am about to explain again:

    The selling tactic I think we were discussing was essentially bait and switch. I believe bait and switch is covered by the concept of unlawful misleading commercial practice but in this case as I have said, I believe it is also an unlawful aggressive market practice because it clearly causes a good number of passengers to make an unsafe decision in giving Ryanair the finger and choosing not to pay and sitting away from their travel companions.

    I could have made it a softer message but the selling tactic either leads to a degradation of safety or it doesn't, No one is arguing that it might lead to an improvement in safety, are they? Hence my use of black versus white.
    Last edited by agarnett; 11-07-2017 at 10:25 AM.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 11th Jul 17, 11:19 AM
    • 17,350 Posts
    • 44,190 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Bait and switch is unlawful pure and simple.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    The selling tactic I think we were discussing was essentially bait and switch. I believe bait and switch is covered by the concept of unlawful misleading commercial practice but in this case as I have said, I believe it is also an unlawful aggressive market practice because it clearly causes a good number of passengers to make an unsafe decision in giving Ryanair the finger and choosing not to pay and sitting away from their travel companions.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    Well, as you've gone from being pretty clear about bait & switch being 'unlawful pure and simple' to 'believing' it is in the space of 5 days I won't hold my breath for the proof.
    • agarnett
    • By agarnett 11th Jul 17, 11:50 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 534 Thanks
    agarnett
    Well, as you've gone from being pretty clear about bait & switch being 'unlawful pure and simple' to 'believing' it is in the space of 5 days I won't hold my breath for the proof.
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    Didn't big tobacco persist with interventions like yours for decades? No proof? There's no proof any of us actually exist beyond the digital containers of our own consciousnesses which are full of beliefs, but then again we keep banging heads, don't we, and arguing the toss even about how each others' heads work, so it's likely we are experiencing some sort of existence based on conflicting beliefs. Life is as pure and simple or awkward as you want to make it for yourself, or for others.

    Bait and switch isn't my term, and it isn't a neutral term. It is a term that describes the main tactic of a particular undesirable commercial selling practice which is a tactic as old as the hills. It is a misleading commercial practice and we have CPUTRs which ban those, don't we? They also ban aggressive commercial practices.

    (Text removed by MSE Forum Team)
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam5; 11-07-2017 at 12:17 PM.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 11th Jul 17, 12:03 PM
    • 17,350 Posts
    • 44,190 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Didn't big tobacco persist with interventions like yours for decades? No proof? There's no proof any of us actually exist beyond the digital containers of our own consciousnesses which are full of beliefs, but then again we keep banging heads, don't we, and arguing the toss even about how each others' heads work, so it's likely we are experiencing some sort of existence based on conflicting beliefs. Life is as pure and simple or awkward as you want to make it for yourself, or for others.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    Did anyone allege smoking tobacco was against the law?
    As in you're stating that Ryanair are using 'bait and switch' tactics and 'bait and switch' is unlawful (your quote).
    As I understand it, smoking is still lawful so your analogy is irrelevant.

    Bait and switch isn't my term, and it isn't a neutral term.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    'bait and switch; is the term you have used a number of times.


    It is a term that describes the main tactic of a particular undesirable commercial selling practice which is a tactic as old as the hills. It is a misleading commercial practice and we have CPUTRs which ban those, don't we? They also ban aggressive commercial practices.
    Originally posted by agarnett
    So why doesn't somebody put a stop to Ryanair using alleged bait and switch tactics?

    (Text removed by MSE Forum Team)
    Last edited by MSE ForumTeam5; 11-07-2017 at 12:17 PM. Reason: Quoting edited post
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,384Posts Today

7,376Users online

Martin's Twitter