Ryanair new seating trick

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

Nick_C wrote: »

With a 3-3 configuration, they should be seating couples as 2-2-2

The couple with the aisle seats would be separated only by an aisle, which most people would be happy with. The current system puts people far apart where they can't speak or share items. Seems deliberate to me.

They are put far apart because they haven't paid, so they are using them as individuals to fill up the spaces they deem least saleable. As soon as you choose not to pay, you are treated as two individuals by the system. The chances of it electing to put you together are negligible. I am surprised how people simply can't understand this.

Ganga

Why can people not accept that budget airlines are allowed to make a bit extra if possible,after all they charge for tea/coffee/food and hold luggage so why not seat selection.
As a comparison we flew to Cyprus with Thomson this year and extra leg room seats there and back cost nearly £100! our choice.
The bottom line is people would like to fly for free,it will not happen.
Also the post about safety being compromised if people sit apart is scare mongoring and as for not purchasing food/drink if separated- should not be allowed to travel.

Bogof_Babe

Is it allowed, once airborne and un-seatbelted, to move to a vacant seat that happens to be next to your family or travelling party?

I suppose they could argue that in an emergency they need to know which seats had occupants, but that is so unlikely that it would be a bit jobsworth to enforce it.

Pollycat

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

People don't pay to be seated across the aisle from each other. if they pay to be seated together, they want to be seated together. I would imagine far more adults want aisle seats than window seats so it makes no sense to put the non payers aisle-aisle. The non payers need to be put wherever is least saleable in the plane at the time of allocation, with absolutely no consideration to what they might like.

Some airlines that offer (offered?) 'seats together' at an additional charge (I'm obviously not talking about paying to choose specific seats) classed seats across the aisle and one behind the other as 'seats together'.
Lots of threads on TripAdvisor about it.
I'm not sure if any airlines now offer 'seats together' as an option anymore.

peachyprice

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

People don't pay to be seated across the aisle from each other. if they pay to be seated together, they want to be seated together.

Airlines consider being seated across the aisle from your travelling companion, including children, to be seated together.

zagfles

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

How does that work then? Is there not a flat rate for seat selection? You make it sound like some selected seats cost more than others?

They do. They show you a map of the plane and some seats cost more than others, and not just emergency exit/front extra legroom ones. There were loads of different prices for seats.

zagfles

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

That's such a small sample as to be meaningless.

Not according to the Oxford Univesrity statastician. 1 change in 540 million of being "random".

Of course though, it would make sense to give middle seats to non payers as soon as the aisle and the window had been filled though, and this probably forms part of the seat filling algorithm. If the only seats taken on the plane when yours are allocated are A1, A3, H1 and H3, then you and your wife (if you don't pay) are getting A2 and H2 - even if the rest of the plane is empty.

But AIUI people are getting middle seats even when the aisle/window are not yet allocated. I doubt many people travelling alone are choosing to pay for their seat, it's more likely to be those travelling in couples/groups. Obviously someone choosing A1 and H1 in your example must either be travelling alone or not want to sit with their companion(s).

Not as a deliberate attempt to split you up but because these are the two least valuable commodities on the plane.

Easyjet also make money from charging people for seats. But we've never been split up on Easyjet, even when travelling with 4 of us.

zagfles

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Is it allowed, once airborne and un-seatbelted, to move to a vacant seat that happens to be next to your family or travelling party?

I suppose they could argue that in an emergency they need to know which seats had occupants, but that is so unlikely that it would be a bit jobsworth to enforce it.

We've done it loads of times. Theortically the plane could become unbalanced eg if too many people on one side, but if they were really worried about that they'd weigh passengers (on some small planes they do weigh people and allocate you seats according to your weight).

You're probably best sitting in your allocated seat for take-off and landing, but once the seatbelt signs are off you could go and sit next to your partner, I did for most of one of our Ryanair flights a few months ago when the seat next to my wife was free.

zagfles

peachyprice wrote: »

Airlines consider being seated across the aisle from your travelling companion, including children, to be seated together.

Indeed, otherwise it would impossible to sit a family of 4 "together".

Nick_C

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

They are put far apart because they haven't paid

I completely agree. It's to encourage people to pay extra for a service that should not be chargeable.

I don't have a problem with budget airlines charging for optional services. On board catering and checked luggage cost the airline money, and there is a valid argument for only charging people for services they choose to use. But the airline has to provide you with a reserved seat. It doesn't cost them any more to keep people together than it does to separate them. Charging extra to keep you next to your travelling companion is unjustifiable.