The high price of low cost airlines

by Scott Carmichael on

Low cost airlines are awesome – they have completely changed the way people fly, but they also helped redesign the entire aviation world, sending a powerful wakeup call to the legacy carriers.

There is however a nasty side to them – in their drive to cut costs and keep prices low, they have started to alienate customers and take on a very nasty attitude.

When flying with a low cost carrier, you need to pay very close attention to their rules, regulations and fees.

A good example of the inflexibility of the low cost carriers (Ryanair in particular) comes from The Netherlands. When Mrs. Raaijmakers and her family arrived at Weeze Niederrehin airport, she was told that since she had not checked in online, she’d have to pay a EUR160 airport check-in fee (about $230). Since she did not have that kind of cash, the airline simply told her that her family could not fly with them, and departed without her.

Now in the defense of Ryanair, these rules are spelled out quite clearly, and are published right on the main page at Ryanair.com. That said – to tell a passenger that they can either pay, or miss their flight seems quite rude. A Ryanair spokesperson said that the airline is “sick and tired of people who don’t read the rules”, and that “not paying means not flying”.

Because Mrs. Raaijmakers will arrive later at her destination, she and her husband are going to lose their jobs (in a bar). When confronted with this, Ryanair said “that is not our problem”.

I’m not one to blame the consumer, and it doesn’t seem right to blame Ryanair for this either, but it really should be a valuable lesson for anyone trying to save some money by picking a low cost carrier – the hidden cost is that not paying attention will cost you a lot more in the long run. Things that make sense on legacy carriers (like checking in at the airport) do not work with the low cost carriers, so be sure to read their site and check up on user experiences on aviation web sites before clicking “buy now”.
%Gallery-66271%

%Gallery-68288%

Will passengers stand for latest Ryanair stunt?

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Just when you think Ryanair CEO Michael O’Leary can’t come up with another way to mess with his passengers, he takes away the seats. The European low-cost carrier’s latest way to cut costs and cram more people on planes is to stick them on stools with seatbelts. According to the Daily Mail, he’s even spoken with Boeing about making this happen.

The nice expression for this, used Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara, is “vertical seating.”

But, it’s not a sure thing. The Irish Aviation Authority needs to give him the green light. Something tells me that there has to be a safety issue buried in this. There just has to be. If not, well, let them stand.

The airline estimates that it could increase passengers per flight by 30 percent with the standing room approach and at the same time cut costs by 20 percent. That’s a pretty big gap between revenue and expenses – the sort of financial upside that most airlines have been unable to figure out.

New fees aren’t new, but airlines keep trying

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Cheaper fares are being offset by an array of extra fees, as airlines try to bring in some extra revenue in order to keep planes in the sky. And, to a certain extent, it’s working. United Airlines forecasts $1 billion in revenue from these fees this year – accounting for more than 5 percent of its revenue. But, as they try to find new ways to dig into your wallet, fewer and fewer new ideas are popping up, according to an article in MSNBC.

US Airways and United have found that the best new fee is just the same ol’ one: put one fee on top of an existing one. Passengers who pay their extra baggage fees online can avoid an additional $5 fee that’s assessed at the airport. United’s came into effect on June 10, 2009, with US Airways’ bringing it to life on July 9. AirTran is nailing passengers for the extra legroom of an exit row to the tune of $20. Again, it’s not new … it’s just new to AirTran’s passengers.

You don’t need to be big to think big. Smaller airlines are getting in on the game, too. Allegiant Air charges a $13.50 “convenience fee” for passengers wanting to buy their tickets online. This one actually is fairly new, as most airlines realize that they can save a fortune by using technology (who’d’ve thunk it?) to sell things instead of paying people more for a slower process. Spanish airline Vueling makes you pay for choice. Want to pick your seat? Pay €3 (around $4.50). Another €30 will get you an aisle or window – and an empty aisle seat beside you! That’s a deal I’d definitely pay for.

Of course, Ryanair remains the master. If you want to check in at the airport: €10 ($13.50). So, you decide to save some cash and check in online … €5. You can’t win!

Only a year ago, most passengers were able to dodge the fees, since you didn’t get slammed until you checked a third bag or sent an unaccompanied minor into the sky. Today, nothing’s sacred. Delta and AirTran claim not to have plans to charge for carry-ons … but why would they say that? Clearly, it’s crossed somebody’s mind.

The only way to beat the fees, it seems, is to fly first class. Hey, if you’re already paying a fortune, the airlines will probably want to treat you well.

Would you pay for an empty bladder?

by Tom Johansmeyer on

Aaron Hotfelder votes “Yes!” for Ryanair‘s pay-to-play approach to in-flight urination. I go with more of a “maybe,” as I tend to support anything that helps airlines bring in a bit more cash – after all, they need it. But, I can see why the average passenger wouldn’t be too thrilled about popping a few coins in the slot. Apparently, there are plenty of people out there with opinions.

TripAdvisor just conducted an online poll; 5,300 people responded. The results are as predictable as you’d expect. An overwhelming 78 percent of respondents are not interested in shelling out cash for the privilege of flushing. Can you blame ’em? When you stroll down the aisle toward that green light (i.e., “vacant”), you have one thing on your mind, and it isn’t the change in your pocket. Another 19 percent feel that pay-to-pee is reasonable … if the flight is cheap enough. The remaining 3 percent would be willing to pay regardless of the cost of the flight.

Thankfully, Ryanair tends to stay short-haul, so if you hit the bathroom before you board, you should be fine until landing.

%Poll-30989%

More crazy stories from the skies

Hey, you already pay to use the bathroom on flights: In defense of Ryanair’s proposed “pay to pee” scheme

by Aaron Hotfelder on

Before your head explodes with indignation at Ryanair’s recent proposal to charge passengers about $1.65 to use the bathroom on flights, let me inform you of something you may not have considered: You already pay to use the bathroom on every flight you take.

That’s right, American Airlines charges to use the bathroom, and so does Southwest, British Airways, Uzbekistan Airways, Rwandair Express, Trans Air Congo, and every other airline in the world. The cost of using the bathroom– and yes, there is a cost to using the bathroom– is included in your ticket.

But Ryanair’s proposed a la carte-style pricing on bathroom use, what Gadling’s Tom Johansmeyer refers to as “pay to pee,” transfers the bathroom cost from your ticket to the bathroom itself. And I, for one (literally, I think I’m the only one), applaud the airline’s move.

After all, why doesn’t it make sense that only those who use the bathroom should pay for it? Why should people who rarely use the bathroom on planes subsidize those who have the bladder capacity of frightened salamanders?

Before you accuse me of being a heartless capitalist (a charge I do not entirely deny), let me point out another bonus of the pricing scheme: Charging for bathroom use at the lavatory itself, rather than including it in the price of the ticket, will cause people to conserve resources.

How so? Well, when people are presented with the fact that going to the bathroom has an actual cost, they might decide to “hold it” for a while instead of downing five bottles of water before a flight and peeing every ten minutes. (Think about it: If your bathroom at home were somehow coin-operated, would you use it more or less frequently?) This means less water will be used for flushing and washing hands, and less paper will be used for drying hands and… that other thing paper is used for.

Sure, Ryanair’s proposal might make you feel like you’re being nickel-and-dimed to death yet again by an airline. First luggage surcharges, now you’ve got to pay to pee. But just as it’s more fair for people who check two bags to pay for it rather than be subsidized by other passengers who pack more economically, it’s also more fair for only those people who use the bathroom to pay for it.

As for me, I’ll hold it.