Ryanair 'to cut frills further'

From BBCi:

Ryanair 'to cut frills further'


Ryanair is ordering planes without reclining seats, says a report
Ryanair is taking the "no-frills" concept a stage further - by
ordering a fleet of planes without reclining seats or window blinds,
it is reported.
The Sunday Times says the budget airline hopes to make savings of more
than £1.3m a year by removing all remaining "non-essential" items.

In the long-term, says the paper, the firm hopes to go further by
making all passengers carry on their luggage.

This could save the firm 20% of costs, said chief executive Michael
O'Leary.

"Think about it. People are happy to carry a bag onto buses so why not
onto airlines? It could be revolutionary," the paper quoted him as
saying.

"Most of the space in airports is devoted to baggage handling. It's
not just a question of staff. It would mean smaller airports, simpler
facilities and lower charges."

The Sunday Times has calculated the money Ryanair could save with the
stripped-down fleet:


By using non-adjustable seats, it would save about £1.3m a year in
repair bills to the reclining type

Removing window blinds would save about £130,000

Removing Velcro headrests and replacing them with ones paid for by
advertisers could save £100,000 - and earn the same

Ditching seat pockets would reduce cleaning costs, and shorten the
plane's turnaround times.
The carrier has expanded rapidly and made big profits in recent years.

But its share price recently tumbled after it issued its first profit
warning, following a drop in passenger numbers.

The announcement came a day after the airline said it must repay
millions of pounds in subsidies that the European Commission had found
to be illegal.

Its full-year profit is forecast to drop by about 10%, but still be
215m euros (£148.4m; $271m).


--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:rleu20drrir1rc506q45vnk1s6n4i1g82o@...
> From BBCi:
>
> Ryanair 'to cut frills further'
>
>
> Ryanair is ordering planes without reclining seats, says a report

Is this really going to save any money? The non-recline
seats must be so non-standard that the unit-cost could be greater
than the reclining version.
Having said that, it's a righ PITA when the person in front reclines
their seat, so I don't think it's a bad thing for short flights

> Ryanair is taking the "no-frills" concept a stage further - by
> ordering a fleet of planes without reclining seats or window blinds,
> it is reported.
> The Sunday Times says the budget airline hopes to make savings of more
> than £1.3m a year by removing all remaining "non-essential" items.
>
> In the long-term, says the paper, the firm hopes to go further by
> making all passengers carry on their luggage.

And I wonder what percentage of people checking in will
become 'disabled' when asked to carry their luggage?

> This could save the firm 20% of costs, said chief executive Michael
> O'Leary.

20% of the total cost of running an airline is baggage handlling?
I don't think so, 20% of airport handling fees maybe


> "Think about it. People are happy to carry a bag onto buses so why not
> onto airlines? It could be revolutionary," the paper quoted him as
> saying.

and how is this baggage going to be stowed in the hold?

> "Most of the space in airports is devoted to baggage handling. It's
> not just a question of staff. It would mean smaller airports, simpler
> facilities and lower charges."
>
> The Sunday Times has calculated the money Ryanair could save with the
> stripped-down fleet:
>
>
> By using non-adjustable seats, it would save about £1.3m a year in
> repair bills to the reclining type
>
> Removing window blinds would save about £130,000
>
> Removing Velcro headrests and replacing them with ones paid for by
> advertisers could save £100,000 - and earn the same

emphasis on *could*. To save money you can see now see adverts
on the back of train tickets.

Oh you can't, because no-one want to advertise this way

tim


> Ditching seat pockets would reduce cleaning costs, and shorten the
> plane's turnaround times.
> The carrier has expanded rapidly and made big profits in recent years.
>
> But its share price recently tumbled after it issued its first profit
> warning, following a drop in passenger numbers.
>
> The announcement came a day after the airline said it must repay
> millions of pounds in subsidies that the European Commission had found
> to be illegal.
>
> Its full-year profit is forecast to drop by about 10%, but still be
> 215m euros (£148.4m; $271m).
>
>
> --==++AJC++==--

> >From BBCi:
> >
> >Ryanair 'to cut frills further'
>
> Don't you think some things are just *too* cheap, and you would rather
> pay a few quid more just to get some kind of service:?
>
> On the trip I dio, I would welcome am extra £20-40 on the price, if it
> felt I wasn't some kind of cattle. Unfortunately, only Ryanair fly to
> my destination :<
>

I don't , think how many people without luggage you could cram on a 737 if
all were standing..

I have no problem with how far Ryanair cut the frills, as long as they
trade in an honest and open way, then people can make a choice. The
reason I despise Ryanair is their deceitful advertizing and publicity.
For example their comparing of fares from A to B on one airline with
fares from A to somewhere up a country lane 100 km from B on Ryanair.
Or their claims to be so much more efficient than other airlines when
a significant part of their lower costs is down to the subsidies they
get. I noticed in the UK press that they have already sunk to the
level of placing adverts accusing the European commission of banning
low fares. As usual the quality low fares carriers are able themselves
to make something out of Ryanair's histrionics. Virgin Express said
they would happily start up services from Charleroi without the need
for subsidies if Ryanair pulled out, and Basiqair sent out mailings
saying the talk of the end of low fares certainly didn't apply to
them.
--==++AJC++==--

"AJC" <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:rleu20drrir1rc506q45vnk1s6n4i1g82o@...
> From BBCi:
>
> Ryanair 'to cut frills further'
>
>
> Ryanair is ordering planes without reclining seats, says a report
> Ryanair is taking the "no-frills" concept a stage further - by
> ordering a fleet of planes without reclining seats or window blinds,
> it is reported.
> The Sunday Times says the budget airline hopes to make savings of more
> than £1.3m a year by removing all remaining "non-essential" items.
>

I dont have a problem with that as it is short haul flights.

> In the long-term, says the paper, the firm hopes to go further by
> making all passengers carry on their luggage.
>

I wonder what security will say about having to scan large suitcases. I cant
see it being allowed.
But they could incease the hand-luggage allowance to 18Kg like most US
carriers and that would probably encourage more to not check luggage.

> This could save the firm 20% of costs, said chief executive Michael
> O'Leary.
>
> "Think about it. People are happy to carry a bag onto buses so why not
> onto airlines?

No, I'm not happy to carry a bag onto buses, that's why I use my car. When I
have to use a bus and carry a bag on it's because I have no choice.

> It could be revolutionary," the paper quoted him as
> saying.
>
> "Most of the space in airports is devoted to baggage handling. It's
> not just a question of staff. It would mean smaller airports, simpler
> facilities and lower charges."
>

Only if all airlines did it.

>
> Ditching seat pockets would reduce cleaning costs, and shorten the
> plane's turnaround times.

But they would end up with more rubbish dropped on the floor

In message <c0qmat$17e1i1$1@ID-201440.news.uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
<missltoemissltoe@m> writes
>
>Fortunately I didn't suffer that when I flew home with AA on Friday. (and
>another wonderful breakfast, fresh fruit, french toast with sausage,
>tomatoes etc, warm croissant with jam and butter, cheese and biscuits, dried
>fruit, nuts,)
>
Are you sure it was breakfast? Much safer just to say 'meal' ;-)
--
Malcolm

"Malcolm Loades" <news-abuse@justmay.be> wrote in message
news:+PZ$UmI99NMAFwtZ@news.posting...
> In message <c0qmat$17e1i1$1@ID-201440.news.uni-berlin.de>, Miss L. Toe
> <missltoemissltoe@m> writes
> >
> >Fortunately I didn't suffer that when I flew home with AA on Friday. (and
> >another wonderful breakfast, fresh fruit, french toast with sausage,
> >tomatoes etc, warm croissant with jam and butter, cheese and biscuits,
dried
> >fruit, nuts,)
> >
> Are you sure it was breakfast? Much safer just to say 'meal' ;-)
>

But there was a choice of omlette instead of the freedom toast - If you
wanted High Tea :-)

In article <YRQXb.14428$q%6.5422504@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>,
Po Box 557 <rli@uboot.com> wrote:
>i really didnt think they could really cut down the word no
>frills anymore, but this takes the biscuit. What next reduced
>fares for x amount of pax who stay behind and clean up the a/c???

Stelios has already thought of that one . . . watch out for your
sweet wrappers if you rent from Easyrentacar, otherwise you'll
not be seeing your deposit back ;-)

Angela

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 10:26:48 +0100, AJC <ajc@wxs.nl> wrote:

[ Snip ]

>"Think about it. People are happy to carry a bag onto buses so why not
>onto airlines? It could be revolutionary," the paper quoted him as
>saying.

'cos it matter rather *where* the bags are put on an airplane, and not
on a bus?

Does this joker understand that weight and balance (emphasis on the
latter) is something that the people in row 0 care about?

>"Most of the space in airports is devoted to baggage handling. It's
>not just a question of staff. It would mean smaller airports, simpler
>facilities and lower charges."

Has this joker *been* to an airport? Or perhaps he's confused between
"most" and "some"!

[ Snip ]

>Ditching seat pockets would reduce cleaning costs, and shorten the
>plane's turnaround times.

And would increase fines for non-provision of the safety information
card...

[ Snip ]

>--==++AJC++==--

Malc.

> >Ditching seat pockets would reduce cleaning costs, and shorten the
> >plane's turnaround times.
>
> And would increase fines for non-provision of the safety information
> card...
>

Maybe the safety card could be stuck permanently on the back of the seat
in-front, not sure what would happen in the first row.