Ryanair sits hen party in FIFTEEN separate rows as outrage over seating policy grows

mgdavid

Been away in warmer climes (I drove).
Only read the last 2 pages - cannot stop laughing, what a hoot!
Suppose should be encouraged that 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' is alive and kicking in a younger generation, but honestly, where do they get their entitlement from?
Must blame the education system for their lack of ability to discuss and answer straight questions, then reduce to sarcasm when cornered.
Truly pathetic (they know who they are).

photome

ScarletMarble wrote: »

I have never been on a plane with a hen or stag party. But if you sit them together, they would be noisy and cause distress to those on board. I know some friends that had the 'pleasure' of them and were threatened to be thrown off the flight before the plane took off due to their excessive swearing

Single sex group bookings - unless they are related such as a single mum and 2 daughters then they should be seated wherever. Families should not need to pay to be seated next to each other.

If hen/stag parties don't like this, may I suggest you have your do in the UK?

never read such rubbish

scd3scd4

Anyone see them on Watchdog last night?

Pollycat

Forever_blowin_bubbles wrote: »

No that isn't what the thread is about, but in my opinion any airline that does this is breaking the law because they are deliberately creating an untested undefined safety hazard in a passenger transport aircraft, plus of course, less importantly, they are again bending interpretation of the law as to what is acceptable as their quoted price offer when they then go on to charge extra at a later stage for something which even they until recently stated as a normal customer expectation. That's misleading practice. Furthermore the commercial practice is aggressive because it plays upon passenger ignorance of the safety implications of decisions they make when introduced to the airline's new seating allocation policy.

I didn't say that was what the thread was about.
My point was about you stating - in your opinion - that they were breaking 'more than one law'.

Forever_blowin_bubbles wrote: »

I have stated that I hold a strong opinion. I easily hold the opinion because aviation is familiar territory to me. You though seem set on oversimplifying and trivialising an aviation safety issue but do not seem to be familiar with aviation risks. The issue you are suggesting is completely undefined to the extent that you believe I am not entitled to publicly state my opinion on it, is simply an issue which unlike me, you seem to have made little effort to understand as yet.

You may hold a strong opinion but you appear not to be able to back up your 'opinion'.

Forever_blowin_bubbles wrote: »

You seem upset that I should publicly state I hold a strong opinion without providing a link to something in black and white that you or anyone else could hand to a prosecuting authority and expect them to run with it without needing to develop any further argument. Maybe you have some sort of hangup with journalistic rigours which I don't labour under?

I'm not upset at all.
When someone makes a statement on here it is usual to provide a link.

Forever_blowin_bubbles wrote: »

I am sorry but I am not about to do your research and your thinking for you. It's okay if you have to take time-out to read around the subject a little more - MSE'ers are a patient lot, especially if you can come back later and do a better and more disciplined job than the rest of us

Of course you're not about to do my research for me.
Because there is no link because there are no laws being broken.

Whether there should be laws is a different matter.

Given your inability to provide proof of the laws being broken (in your opinion) - despite being asked to do so numerous times, I think that's the end of my response to you.

Pollycat

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Anyone see them on Watchdog last night?

Same response that I posted on the other thread:

Pollycat wrote: »

I saw the interview with the pretty ineffectual Steph McGovern and Ryanair's head of Marketing (Kenny Jacobs).

He said there was no splitting up of passengers.
Whether you believe it or not is up to you.

A statistician said the odds of 4 researchers on the same booking on 2 return flights being split up were odds of 1 in 543 million.

"Ooooh, that's massive, isn't it", said the insightful Ms McGovern. :rotfl:

roddydogs

All this fuss about 2 euros to book, would they rather RA just put in on everyone?

antenna

roddydogs wrote: »

all this fuss about 2 euros to book, would they rather ra just put in on everyone?

yes please

Pollycat

roddydogs wrote: »

All this fuss about 2 euros to book, would they rather RA just put in on everyone?

No thanks.

antenna

If it is only one person, £2 min (could be more) for two people it is £4 (or more)......and for a family of 4 (no children) it is £8 min.....or more........
I am sick of people saying it is only £2......moneysavingexperts they are not.

Pollycat

antenna wrote: »

If it is only one person, £2 min (could be more) for two people it is £4 (or more)......and for a family of 4 (no children) it is £8 min.....or more........
I am sick of people saying it is only £2......moneysavingexperts they are not.

Did I misunderstand this post (below)?

antenna wrote: »

yes please

I thought you were suggesting that Ryanair should include the 'sitting together' charge in the base price.

If they did that, we'd all be paying the fee - and that isn't MSE if sitting together isn't important to you.