MSE News: Budget airlines get kicking over card surcharges

2sides2everystory

oakhouse13 wrote: »

"Dunno. Is it important?"

You can do better than that.

Sorry oakhouse, I looked at your amazon jumper link twice and just couldn't really see what your point was - it looked to me like an obvious typo with a nonsense £7995 figure crossed out?? My second thought was well if this is an example of some other outfit misleading the consumer then it is a not a constantly visited webpage compared to the millions of clickthroughs on the Ryanair booking pages. Were you trying to suggest Amazon were guilty of something as blatant as Ryanair still are on the majority of their pan-Europe targeted booking pages?

Rafter, why don't you just not buy off budget airlines?

I think Rafter already said he does just that:-

Rafter wrote:

Why anyone would risk flying on one of their planes given the complete disregard they show towards their customers is beyond me.

However I disagree with both of you perhaps on this point:


Firstly, when a company is pointedly caught marketing contrary to CPRs then the onus is on that company to desist immediately and to start fully complying with the law. The onus is not on the customers to admire or reject the "front" (affrontery) with which the outlaw organisation persists by voting with their feet. Some of these outlaw organisations are very significant citizens in our country and elsewhere. The point is they should behave not like immature juveniles nor like ruthless bankers, but like responsible role model citizens who care about upsetting other reasonable citizens. They can pander to the market in lawful ways, but they should not pander to the mob.


Secondly, Ryanair in particular is a very unusually robust and consistent operator. It only operates a single series within a single aircraft type - the 737-800.


It could be argued that due to the pathfinding re-invention of the operating model there have been enhanced risks at times when ideas that were uniquely different to what went before were first implemented e.g. the 25 minute turnaround which puts a lot of pressure on pilots and aircraft and all operational personnel in fact.


However, that is a well tried and tested operational requirement now and with Ryanair's cheeky but very effective design and publication of flight schedules which include built-in contingency time and even allow aircraft to be airborne 20 minutes earlier than scheduled from some of the very accommodating lesser airports, and with the ability the 737-800 has to fly quite high even with shorter flights and higher load factors so it exploits jetstreams meaning it can sometimes even leave 10 minutes late and arrive 10 minutes "early", there is a definite USP in "ontime flights" with Ryanair that no other airline has quite managed to get its head around. Business travellers and leisure travellers can't help but appreciate it even if they hate the trumpet fanfares .


There are possibly other risks introduced from time to time by new procedures and some are as we have seen quite ugly e.g. the so called baggage gestapo. Another which I am a little concerned about is Ryanair's timesaving practice of queuing 150 passengers in restricted stairwells which were not designed for queuing. The discomfort risks may be slight e.g. of fainting/slipping/minor trampling whilst waiting in such conditions actually on gate stairs from the satellite down on to the apron. However I look around me when I am locked in like that and do worry a bit about firedoors being held open for extended periods and that if some fire did occur at the bottom whilst the door to the apron was still shut, could some disaster occur? Remote I know, but remember these areas were not designed for this.


I could go on, but all in all, the Ryanair model is broadly mature and although their "young" 737-800 fleet probably takes quite a beating in every sense compared to some fleets e.g. from their stated desire to fly through thick and thin (actually non-existent) ash to the shortest turnarounds in the business, I do at the moment feel it is one of the safest fleets to fly due to them having perfected it by practice and having proved it by presenting the pudding with relatively few upsets.


I feel they know what they are doing, but it doesn't stop me criticising as you never know, it might help them keep themselves on their toes, and also when I write a halfway balanced post like this I do hope they realise they don't have to be so a-rsey all the time when they get criticised for things like drip-pricing - all they need to do is take it on the chin and comply nicely - I am sure it doesn't really cost them to do so now, as their product has long since entered a more mature phase which I reckon their shareholders can rely upon


But then again, with us all getting heavier (yes there I go again!) maybe them controlling the weight thing with their 737-800 is still all important so they have to as they see it, keep us on our toes!


I read that the 737-800 normally has bags of surplus thrust to make it climb like a rocket even when quite heavy, but with Ranair's unusually high load factors (remember it can carry 189 passengers and does consistently carry 160+ on some routes, all those 10kg bags, hidden 2kg bottles not to forget 100kg sweaty pax begin to add up towards the limits they and the aircraft manufacturers set themselves.


I think I read that the plane with no fuel baggage or passengers is about 35 tonnes and unless they have quite long runways like Stansted, they don't often go over 60 tonnes gross. I don't know how much fuel it needs/uses but 189 x 100kg is already another 19 tonnes. If 189 heavyweight Brits had an extra 15kg or 16kg bag in the hold that would be a further three tonnes. Then the fuel still has to be loaded.


Interesting stuff that might drive some of the uglier imperatives of their business model, eh?

smala01

Rafter wrote: »

Why anyone would risk flying on one of their planes given the complete disregard they show towards their customers is beyond me.

R

I understand from an "inside" source that the maintenance / safety areas of the operation are the only areas that are not cut.

The planes are brand new and do not require much maintenance beyond the regular checks.

Whilst there is some pressures on the pilots to hit their time slots, there is no pressure on them to perform unsafe operations. For example, there is no pressure from management to peform a flight if something is broken. Also there is no pressure to land if the approach is not good even if this effects the "on time" schedule.

All planes are fitted with computers that monitor the plane operations. If it detects a parameter that is outside limits then an alert is sent to HQ and the pilot is disciplined. This acts as a potent reminder to the pilot to maintain "standard" proceedures at all times.

Whilst my source had many grievences with his company he did say "the safety culture is second to none."

Smala01

smala01

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I think I read that the plane with no fuel baggage or passengers is about 35 tonnes and unless they have quite long runways like Stansted, they don't often go over 60 tonnes gross. I don't know how much fuel it needs/uses but 189 x 100kg is already another 19 tonnes. If 189 heavyweight Brits had an extra 15kg or 16kg bag in the hold that would be a further three tonnes. Then the fuel still has to be loaded.

I understand the safety margin built into the load calculations is so large that varience in baggage / passenger weight is a non event. As for weight distibution (rather than total weight) there is a proceedure to close off the the first and last few rows to keep the weight as central as possible.

An enginner i spoke to made a very convincing argument that high utilisation improved reliabilty (in between service cycles) as eqiupment didnt suffer the number of warm up / cool down cycles per day of traditional operations.

The exception to this is engines which wear most on high power (take off) but are maintained/replaced based on this schedule (so no unexpected downtime)

Smala01

DisgruntledSmoke

I am just renting a new flat, and have had to pay a holding deposit to secure the property of one week's rent.

The agency charged 2% for credit card payments, so I said I'd pay by debit. They charge 1% for that!! Is this legal? I'm outraged, and am certainly not happy to pay that charge every month....jokers.

Help - any advice gratefully received! I'd like to complain to stop them doing it to other househunters too. Thanks.