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

Murphy_The_Cat

agarnett wrote: »

I know ................... lucky you:p

Some times, less can be more

agarnett

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

Some times, less can be more

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 :wall:

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? :rotfl:

Murphy_The_Cat

agarnett wrote: »

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? :rotfl:

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:beer:

fifeken

agarnett wrote: »

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.

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.

agarnett wrote: »

I wouldn't agree I'd simply banged on . . . .

I would say you'd done nothing apart from bang on.

adindas

fifeken wrote: »

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.

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

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?

Pollycat

fifeken wrote: »

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.

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 :whistle:) 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

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

To civilise = to cross-subsidise?

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?