I've taken a number of Ryanair flights this year. Assigning the middle seats to non-paying passengers backfires sometimes.
I booked tickets with my girlfriend. Almost 50% of the seats were still available (this was a month before the flight), but all the middle seats were taken. We wanted to pay for seats beside each other, but that wasn't possible, because they gave away all the middle seats. When there are three seats on each side of the aisle, that means no two seats are available beside each other. So, we didn't pay, we just took the random seats, and then asked people to switch after we boarded. We probably could have paid for a window and aisle seat, then asked the middle person to happily switch, but if we're paying for seats, we shouldn't have to do that.
The article assumes that Ryanair always gives middle seats to the first passengers who check in and don't pay for middle seats. The eventual conclusion is that you should check in later to avoid getting the middle seat. I don't see why the R analysis and pretty visualizations are necessary for that.
Sadly the article lacks evidence that this is the algorithm Ryanair uses. They could equally well hold back the middle seats and offer them to the passengers most likely to pay for an upgrade. In fact, since on a full flight the hypothesized algorithm (give middle seats to the first passengers to check in) should not improve Ryanair's outcome over the old algorithm (give middle seats to the last passengers to check in) I'd guess they are indeed doing something like that.
The article specifically says that there is statistical evidence showing that Ryanair does, in fact, preferentially allocate base-fare paying users to middle seats. Though the article does not explicitly say that the evidence supports a particular variant of the algorithm, your particular alternative does not seem to alter the underlying reasoning here, which is that if you check in late enough, all the middle seats have been allocated. Once that happens, you are not going to be allocated a middle seat, regardless of how the airline allocates the remainder. (This could, however, change your odds of getting a middle seat earlier in the process, and whether a later check-in leaves you more prone to being bumped (which I assume Ryanair does unless it is forbidden by law) is another issue to consider.)
Update: I see that Ryanair does not overbook, which puts some perspective on the complaints about it - I don't care about meals but I do about the risk of being bumped.
Update 2: I overlooked one part of the alternative algorithm, but I think that it actually makes it less likely: if they are holding back middle seats on the chance of upselling to later arrivals, where are they going to put those people? It seems that they are likely to end up with a bunch of middle seats with no chance of upselling even to passengers who would have done so, or possibly having (even more) disgruntled passengers who paid to choose but got a middle seat anyway, depending on exactly how this scheme works.
Yes - this seems to support that claim: https://conversation.which.co.uk/travel-leisure/flight-airli... This also mentions that EasyJet claims to limit its overbooking to about 1%. You are probably aware that overbooking has become a problem in the US - I don't know whether European airlines are allowed to do it to the same extent.
Yeah, thanks to 261/2004 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Compensation_Regulation...) airlines generally have incentive to make sure people get to their destination ASAP. Although it's kind of a prisoner's dilemma at the gate when they ask for volunteers to take a later flight, if someone agrees to compensation which is less than the regulated amount the airline will of course take that.
At least if someone volunteers for less, no-one can claim to have been unfairly treated. I would argue that this is so even if the volunteer was unaware that the regulated amount was higher.
Overbooking doesn't seem to be a problem in Europe. In hundreds of flights I've never missed one because of overbooking and I don't know of anyone else missing one either. In the same time I've had 3-4 flights cancelled or rescheduled due to weather or mechanical issues.
The queues or electronic waiting lists for standby seats (people at the gate who aren't yet confirmed on this flight) are something I notice when travelling in the US that I don't really see in Europe.
You're right. I'm making an assumption of what Ryanair's system is based on the outrage people have at being deliberately assigned middle seats. Ryanair have admitted however that they prioritise window and aisle seats for paying passengers. My analysis took this to an extreme, which may not be the case.
And I agree, an R analysis is unnecessary but I've been telling people this conclusion for ages and they don't seem to get it!
Ryan air might use a system where the probability of getting a middle seat is biased upwards, but not quite guaranteed.
In that case, there has to be a critical point for the bias where it switches from "Better check in late" to "better check in early".
Because with no bias (the first simulation) we have "better check in early" and with maximal bias (second simulation) we have "better check in late".
I'd guess that this critical point depends on the proportion of pre-booked seats.
I wonder if Ryan air balanced the bias so it lies roughly at this critical point.
This comes with the 'upside' of being more fair, as this system can't be gamed by changing your check-in time.
Ryanair is a horrible airline. If you add up random costs you are confronted with during the whole process of flying with them they aren't even that much cheaper. With which I mean expensive meals/drinks, costs for suitcases, costs for checking in at the airport when you didn't have access to internet, etc. Leg space and general facilities are crappy and their handling of cancelled flights, etc is very poor. Whenever possible I don't fly with them en instead choose a more 'expensive' option.
> Ryanair is a horrible airline. If you add up random costs you are confronted with during the whole process of flying with them they aren't even that much cheaper. Withwhich I mean expensive meals/drinks, costs for suitcases, costs for checking in at the airport when you didn't have access to internet, etc.
Complete BS. Cost of expensive meals and cost for suitcases aren't "random costs". They are entirely predictable and you have to make your decisions based on that. The people who can't do that end up paying for the ones that do.
'Random' might not have been the word, more 'arbitrary'.
One of those arbitrary costs of budget airlines is paying €50 for having your ticket printed at the airport (Lufthansa). Sometimes you just don't have a printer or the possibility to check in beforehand. Sure, I could 'plan ahead' and buy a cheap printer along the way to the airport and do it myself right then and there and it would be cheaper. I'd then throw away the printer or give it to someone else. How is $60 a reasonable price for airport check-in?
Many airlines still offer 'free' food in the plane, some don't and charge large amounts of money for very crappy food. Sure, I could 'plan ahead' and bring a large bag of food for me and my family, but then I have less room for other things and I get closer and closer to the weight limits that keep getting lower and lower. I can't even bring water from outside the airport past security. Some airlines offer complementary (due to higher ticket prices) drinks, but others ask for €4 for a 0.25ml drink. Planning ahead would mean I end up paying slightly less at the shops at the gate.
I understand the model that budget airlines use to make money; basic ticket prices and paying for upgrades. I am saying that I'd rather pay more for the tickets and then not be charged for everything along the way. It is much more transparent that way and I don't end up packing a picknick or chasing after hotel owners to print tickets, etc.
> One of those arbitrary costs of budget airlines is paying €50 for having your ticket printed at the airport (Lufthansa). Sometimes you just don't have a printer or the possibility to check in beforehand. Sure, I could 'plan ahead' and buy a cheap printer along the way to the airport and do it myself right then and there and it would be cheaper. I'd then throw away the printer or give it to someone else. How is $60 a reasonable price for airport check-in?
Ryanair allow you to use your phone, you don't need it printed up. You only have to pay if you want to check in at the airport. If everyone checked in online then Ryanair wouldn't need to have any staff at the check-in desk in the airport, if you don't check in in advance then you need to subsidise the costs of paying those staff members. If check in at the airport is free what that really means is that everyone else is subsidising you checking in early.
> Many airlines still offer 'free' food in the plane, some don't and charge large amounts of money for very crappy food.
Again, this amounts to everyone else subsidising your food. The airlines have to pay for it somehow, either they charge you or they increase the ticket prices. I hate airline food, and if I can avoid paying for it at all then great. Most Ryanair flights are <3 hours, you can manage that without eating.
> I can't even bring water from outside the airport past security. Some airlines offer complementary (due to higher ticket prices) drinks, but others ask for €4 for a 0.25ml drink. Planning ahead would mean I end up paying slightly less at the shops at the gate.
The water thing is universal. You can empty your bottle out and many airports have free fountains beyond security to refill.
> I am saying that I'd rather pay more for the tickets and then not be charged for everything along the way. It is much more transparent that way and I don't end up packing a picknick or chasing after hotel owners to print tickets, etc.
Why though? You're saying you'd rather not have the choice to pay for these things. You'd rather get a flight with higher costs just in case you feel like eating on the flight or having a bottle of water. Not only that, but you want everyone else on the flight who doesn't want those things to chip in and pay for your convenience.
They're not arbitrary, they are well know and well documented, to the point of being really, really annoying for those of us who knows we don't want them. They were perhaps a bit unconventional ten years ago, but perfectly middle of the road today, even for legacy carriers.
Or you could just... not make use of any of the extra options and enjoy the cheapest price possible.
I spent a total of 8 EUR to travel from Germany to Bulgaria and back again two years ago with Ryanair. I fly with them whenever possible because they're by far the cheapest option available and I simply manage to not eat or drink something or go online for 2-3 hours, which really should be manageable for pretty much anyone.
I did this in Hamburg (technically I bought a bottle, but I drank it before boarding, so I refilled it before flight). But in my limited experience, these fountains are not common in EU airports.
> If you add up random costs you are confronted with during the whole process of flying with them they aren't even that much cheaper.
I'm sorry but that is nonsense. I live abroad so am a frequent flyer back (say 5 or 6 times a year at regular intervals) home, for the past 5 years. I always compare the prices, never once have a rival airline beaten Ryanair. I've never had a bad issue either.
Personally as a 6ft 2 guy I love that they don't have seats which can recline :) the bane of my life on other airlines.
I don't know anyone who would fly on ryanair. If they were the only 'airline' flying somewhere I would consider that it's not possible to get to that place. As far as I'm concerned they only exist to spam up the flight listings
For a lot of places in Europe, there is no other option. Ryanair has conquered connections to all smaller airports, where normally you'd need to change in Amsterdam/London/Frankfurt first, and they fly for 1/10th of the price most of the time. Yes, I hate them too, but if the options are a 2h flight with Ryanair for £30 or two 2h flights with BA for £300(or 2h flight + 5h train) then Ryanair wins 100% of the time.
I am a train fan, used to do it all the time with the family though Europe. Now I can not afford it anymore and flying is always cheaper. Not much faster with the obstacles, nor more confinient, but simply more economic.
How on earth that is possible remains one of the best kept secrets (to me). But I am sure there is a boat load of tax money involved.
AFAICT, it mostly comes down to poor government regulation and wastefulness and monopolism. Trains get guaranteed right-of-way and don't have to compete with each other for the same routes, but airplanes do. Airplanes surely use orders of magnitude more energy/fuel per passenger to move people between two points, but incredibly they still cost less.
America is probably the poster child for how bad this can be, by looking at Amtrak. For all but the shortest routes along the northeast corridor, taking the train is slower, many times MUCH slower (like going cross-country), yet it can cost far, far more. Taking an Amtrak from DC to Seattle is horribly expensive and takes days, compared to an airplane which is a fraction of the cost and takes 6 hours or so. Why would anyone take an Amtrak for a long route like this? Mainly, it's just people who want the quaint experience of "seeing the country"; for actual travel between these points it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Even on the northeast corridor it doesn't make much sense for many cases/routes. Even worse, it's frequently much cheaper to take a bus (such as MegaBus) for inter-city trips in the NE corridor than Amtrak, if you don't mind it being slow (but not that much slower than Amtrak).
Even in Europe it can be difficult to do cross-country, even though the connections are excellent, fast, and on time. The problem is cost - I can travel within one country for reasonably little money, and 99% of the time beating flying on cost. But taking a train from Paris to Berlin or Berlin to Warsaw? Suddenly we're looking at hundreds of euros, in which case it's almost always cheaper to fly. I don't really understand why.
They are Europe's biggest airline by passenger trips, by quite a margin. I know one person who won't fly with them, but I don't believe you could inhabit such a rarefied bubble that everyone you know can and will avoid Ryanair every time.
I wouldn't fly on anything other than Ryanair because every other airline is mad expensive. Yes, some things about it suck, but at least I can afford to fly, thanks to them.
It sounds like you're complaining that extras that are standard on competing airlines are charged separately on RyanAir. It's only horrible to you because you insist on having those things: in-flight meals, checked luggage, etc.
For people who don't want any food in-flight, and who can carry all their stuff in their carry-on luggage, it sounds like a good deal to me.
As for leg room, according to another comment here, the seats on RyanAir do not recline. As another tall guy, I'd rather have that than another inch of legroom. Legroom isn't that great when the person in front of you reclines their seat into your personal space.
I'm of the opposite opinion. I have yet to incur any extra costs whatsoever -- checking in can be done mobile, bring your own sandwich, etc. I don't mind random seating either, I'll have enough time to spend with my travel buddies at the destination. The leg space is a bit tight, but I love the fact that the chairs can't be lowered. On other airlines I frequently have to ask the person in front of me to keep their seat upright.
They are always the cheapest, even EasyJet doesn't compete for some reason. I prefer Ryanair over any other airline and use them whenever possible.
I can see a new revenue opportunity for Ryanair where they allow passengers to bid on whether a seat is/is not reclinable. This new product would permit the guy behind to block the guy in front from reclining by paying more, or the guy in front could pay more to regain this privilege.
There would be great possibilities for a real-time booking app feature and the nervous tension as the check-in window begins to close as you attempt to get one last closing bid in ...
Another marvelous opportunity to turn inconvenience for some into more profits and cheaper flights for others.
I flew out of Warsaw Modlin in February this year with Ryanair - the weather outside was around -20C, and they made everyone stand outside in front of the plane, while they tagged every single piece of hand luggage to put it in the hold, because of course now you have to pay extra to bring your hand luggage on board - I couldn't feel my hands after 15 minutes of waiting.
I'd love to vow to never use them again after this, but unfortunately they are the only airline flying anywhere near where I want to be most of the time.
I don't understand the issue with paying to choose your seat on the budget airlines. My wife and I recently flew Spirit to and Southwest from our destination in the US. Even after adding bags and seat (we even paid for their big front seats) it was still cheaper than Southwest.
Economically, no issue. They are price discriminating to their hearts content and letting people get what they want.
Psychologically, it feels like being taken advantage of. No brand loyalty or other customer value to be had. Expect people to abandon in droves when similarly priced travel comes along.
> Expect people to abandon in droves when similarly priced travel comes along.
I would expect Ryanair to be fine with that. Their business model is that a very large subset of passengers select their flights based on price, and price alone, that price is the only customer value that matters. They are explicitly not investing in fluffy brand loyalty.
I fly a lot on expensive, flexible tickets on legacy carriers, and have status, so I'm reasonably "loyal", and have fast track and lounge access to show for it, but the BS airlines come up with that is supposed to make non-status holders in economy "feel the brand" (despite the objectively sad quality of the hard product) triggers my gag reflex.
I'm actually very loyal to Ryanair because I know I can book late and still get any seat I want (because most people never book their seats).
The only issue I have with RA is that some airports they use are far outside the cities they "cover", so you sometimes need an hour or more (by a train or bus) to get into the actual city.
My issue with it is that it makes it difficult to compare the cost of a flight with a competitor. If i compare a BA flight with a United flight, I know that I'm going to get _roughly_ the same service. With a Ryanair vs BA comparison, I'm not actually sure what the difference is going to be, or how much it will cost me to make them equal.
> If i compare a BA flight with a United flight ...
Make sure you add $20/seat though. A few months back United switched to "Basic Economy" as their lowest option which again does not include carry-on bags (not just checked bags) or picking a seat. For an apples-to-apples you need to upgrade to at least regular economy to start comparing flights with United.
BA short-haul's base fares are hand-luggage only and assigned seat only; I believe they're going to expand this to some of their ex-Gatwick long-haul flights (in competition with Norwegian).
Exactly the same issue I have with Ikea. I can never find the price of the exposed combination, e.g. for a wardrobe: I don't care what a door or a shelf cost: I need the price of the ensemble in order to compare with competition, and I expect this total price to be exposed in bold! With no easy comparison, no way I'll buy here!
This is because you used to be able to sit wherever you liked once you boarded the plane, and only premium passengers could get a reserved place. Now they are reserving you a bad place beforehand, so you can't just sit wherever you like, and if you want to change that, you need to pay. What used to be free, is now being charged for, and there is little reason to do so other than "because they can" because it doesn't raise the operating costs.
If a company raises prices 'because they can' and people keep paying, that is just how markets work.
In some sense, this leads to a better allocation of seats, as it allows those who desire some seats to pay for them, whilst those who have to preference get a cheaper flight.
Now, people who used to be fine with the dice-roll of not paying get a worse experience. But this comes with the upside of those who really wanting the seats having a better chance.
People keep paying because there's no other choice on certain routes, short of driving or taking a bus.
This isn't an upgrade or anything, people who wanted to pay to reserve seats could already do so. You could have also not paid, and picked whatever was available, switch with your neighbors, and so on. Obviously, since Ryan Air figured out that they can extract some extra bucks out of that, you're now assigned a place and can no longer just pick whatever is available once you board. This is a standard rent-seeking behavior with no advantage for the customers.
This is a standard rent-seeking behavior with no advantage for the customers.
It does if they use the extra income to reduce the ticket price. Which would sound pie-in-the-sky for most other companies, but considering Ryanair's prices, it wouldn't surprise me.
I think there's a clear advantage: boarding is faster, as there's a lot less competition (or even argument) over the nicer seats.
Ryanair are fairly clear about what you must pay for when booking, and there are plenty of routes where they have competition from EasyJet, Norwegian etc.
From my experience, people in the UK see the charge for a designated seat as scam, they don't understand the budget flight business model.
Ryanair (not a UK company btw) have been a pioneer in this area with aggressive discounting of basic level airfares but with lots of 'upgrade' options.
Well, BA charges for a designated seat in business class among other "tricks" they play (like selling a connection that makes you switch between LCY and LHR)
The UK press has spent decades telling people about "rip off Britain". There are usually plenty of choices for people willing to pay.
In transport, you can choose between comfort, speed, time, flexibility, reliability, and a few other factors, and make your choice. London to Manchester options on the train have
* Time -- travel by train "offpeak" and save a fortune over peak
* Comfort -- travel by train "peak" and have more space. Travel in First Class and have more space.
* Speed -- travel by London Midland and Northern rather than Virgin and save a fortune
* Flexibility -- book a fixed train and save
In addition to the plethora of options on the train there's also
* Fly -- can be faster (depends where you're going, but from west London to West Manchester it's faster), can be cheaper, can be more comfortable (you're guarenteed a seat), tends to be pricey if you want an element of flexibility, not as flexible as the train or car
* Coach - slower, less comfortable, cheaper
* Drive -- very flexible, slower than the train, requires effort, twice the off peak train cost
* Taxi -- not that expensive, especially for a few people
However people complain that "it's too expensive", despite being able to travel from Manchester right now for £20, or in a couple of hours for £12.
In practice, however, doing your research is hard - it can take me up to an hour to decide on the best way to travel for a certain event, across multiple booking sites, some of them unknown to the general public (such as TrainSplit). Sometimes it turns out that the best way to travel involves booking three separate journeys, and then I get to worry about delays - nobody will take responsibility for onward travel if you do that, and you may end up stranded in the middle of nowhere. Megabus winds up incredibly pricey - sometimes moreso than the train - on arbitrary days, so I have to keep that in mind. Sometimes flights are actually cheaper than a train, even when booking several weeks in advance, but then there's the worry about public transport at either end properly matching up - and again, a flight delay could cost me the better part of £40 if I booked an advance train ticket rather than a flexible one on the other end.
There's also the fact that long-distance travel in the UK is priced significantly better than short-distance travel. There's been times where I've been able to get to London from a small town for cheaper than it'd cost to get to the nearest city. First class on East Coast used to be priced at a rate where it was cheaper to upgrade (and get food and drinks included) than to get food on the go - on local services, there's often no competition aside from a car, so prices even for standard class can be raised almost arbitrarily, especially if there's any tourist traffic on the line.
Even for long-distance journeys, pick the wrong date or need to be there for the morning, and my options become far, far more limited, and far, far pricier, since we don't have sufficient capacity for peak dates - we barely have capacity for everyday services on some modes of transport - and we have very few overnight services.
Edinburgh to Paris next month - we were stuck with the choices of taking the bus, or flying for 2-3x the price. Train was more expensive than the flight - a remarkably common occurrence, even for travel entirely within the UK. We eventually chose the bus, despite it being a 24 hour journey.
Yes, putting effort into finding a cheaper method is another option. It's the same with shopping for anything - you could go to 4 different shops and compare them, or you could just take the easy option. You can buy from John Lewis and get a 5 year no quibble guarentee, or you could save 10% and buy online, but have a hassle if it breaks.
Choice is a right pain, but it allows you to choose what's important
Edinburgh to Paris is a long trip - 1360 mile return. That's £600 for a car (HMRC give you 45p per mile, they wouldn't give you that if that was a grossly high amount), plus the cost of the ferry.
I can get a train leaving tomorrow and coming back on Saturday for £400 return, or 30p per mile. I can fly on the same days for £276 return, or 20p per mile. What is a fair price?
Transport is a low margin industry. The fact that some people can travel really cheaply is possible because others are willing to pay more for flexibility. This means those who want flexibility win (London to Edinburgh trains every half hour), and those that want cheap tickets win (12p/mile), and those willing to shop around win (even less than 12p/mile).
Given the large amount of people you can place in a large vehicle, one would hope that a private car is significantly more expensive than public transport without having to convince anyone to pay for bizarre things like being able to pick a seat. The fact that it isn't is, in fact, utterly bizarre.
In the case of the dates we have to travel for a conference, the bus is £150 pp, and flights are £300+ pp - with no flexibility whatsoever in either case. Trains come out to £400 pp or more, which is bizarre given the passenger density of long-distance rail.
Anyway, the point was, the cheap option only exists if you know how to look for it - it's really, really not obvious, and the only reason I know how to do it is that public transport is my full-time hobby. And then once you pick the cheap option and suffer a delay - which is almost guaranteed to happen on a regular enough basis to make the cheap option actually more expensive in many cases, given the state of the country's transport infrastructure - you're stuck on your own, because we have no concept of a joined-up multimodal journey in this country, unlike the rest of Europe. Hell, if you go for the cheap option, staff may even treat you with suspicion and assume you're lying about what your ticket allows you to do, and what you're entitled to.
If you go to the National Rail Enquiries site today and ask for a ticket from London to Manchester tomorrow, you'll be sold a completely non-flexible ticket totalling about £100 if it matches up with your schedule, or up to £169 otherwise. Compare this to e.g. Switzerland, well-known for having an exceptionally high cost of living - where I can book a train from Zurich to Geneva for £54 tomorrow with nothing but a quick google search for "trains zurich to geneva", or £24 if I want to travel in a couple of days. (And on much more comfortable trains, I might add.) There's no need to worry about booking weeks in advance or poring over whether the bus or the plane will be cheaper or whether there's a split ticket that works - the infrastructure exists to allow fast, cheap, somewhat flexible travel on comfortable services.
The problem is the marginal cost of transporting is very low. The train industry is there to extract the maximum amount of money from those willing to pay, while allowing those not willing to pay the chance to travel.
A walk up simple London to Manchester ticket is £86 return, unless you're travelling before 9:30am. Those willing to buy from https://trainsplit.com/ can get a return for £47, or buy the tickets manually and it drops to £39. That's just like those who know going to Aldi will be cheaper than shopping at harrods.
That "slow train" which costs £20 each way, in the peak, and is still quicker than a car.
The money made from open tickets is pumped back into the rail industry to subsidise rural branches in Cornwall. It also subsdises the frequency, where trains are running with say 20 people per carriage (with 80 seats), but are running every 20 minutes. Some people are willing to pay a lot for that frequency - hence the reason they sell £500 returns.
I would like to see thetrainline shut down, but they advertise their inferior product heavily and people use it.
I often hire a car to travel long distance in the UK since trains are so expensive and with flights you really need to book very far ahead to get a decent price. With flights also I never find a convenient outward and return trip that will not involve staying overnight.
And that's a great choice. They're door-to-door (if you have the car dropped off at home), and costs are easily understood too - cost of hiring the car and cost of the petrol. This can be as low as 10p/mile, plus say £60 for the car for the day
The downsides of hiring the car
- time isn't very useful while you're driving (compared to on a train/plane where you can work, or read, or watch netflix)
- usually slower - especially with city centre to city centre
- parking stress
- Driving is tiring, and more dangerous. A 3 hour drive, then an 8 hour day, then another 3 hour drive.
Choice is wonderful.
Ideally I'd have something that costs 5p per mile, runs every 5 minutes, is is door to door, and I travel on my own sofa with 300mbit wifi, power, and waiter service.
However as that's not possible I, as a consumer, can choose what's important for me for a given journey. Sometimes that's the train, sometimes it's the plane, sometimes it's a coach, sometimes I'll drive
You have the choice between a cheaper (no seat-choosing) flight and a more expensive (seat-choosing) flight. If everyone could choose the price would be somewhere in between and at least some people would be worse off (those who really didn’t care about choosing and would be paying more now and those who would be paying less to choose but now would have less choices).
they may be offsetting a cost elsewhere by doing this. If they wanted to make the same money but allow people to choose their seats they could raise ticket prices for everybody (which wouldn't be fair on those who really don't care about their seat allocation).
Southwest (I fly with them a lot) isn't a "budget" airline in the sense that Allegiant or Spirit are.
They don't do assigned seating at all - you pick an available seat when you board. Boarding position is generally assigned based on when you check in, though you can pay extra to board earlier. They include two checked bags per person and standard carry-on allowances in the price of the ticket. No "gotcha" fees.
One similarity is that there are a lot of larger airports that they don't service, instead using other nearby airports.
They're inexpensive if you book well in advance, but last minute fares can be very expensive.
EasyJet and especially Norwegian are "premium Ryanair" products. They are rarely as cheap as Ryanair, but still cheaper than legacy. The hard product is pretty comparable, but the whole experience feels a bit more toned down and less hysterical (and a lot less yellow).
Little trick that I do when travelling as a couple: Get one randomly allocated seat, and then pay for the other one next to it (or as close by as possible).
I thought that all travelling couples did this. I compare it with being allowed to change the door that you can open on a TV show. The costs of choosing two side-by-side seats are greater than choosing just one seat, except for the extra room row. It also depends a bit on the length of the flight. Longer flights make you pay more for choosing a seat.
I fly to Europe regularly with Ryanair, it's been amazing in the amount of places I've been able to go with very little money. Most Europe flights are 1-3 hours. Just get pissed enough at the Stanstead Wetherspoons that you don't give a fuck!
Another tip: If they put a yellow tag on your bag to make you check it in the hold, either quickly rip it off between the gate and the plane, or hold your bag so they don't see it. Cabin crew don't know who's bag has been tagged.
Flights I had on Ryanair are merely 1 or max 2 hours long, (not taking the driving up and down the runways in account) and for this period of time some discomfort is perfectly fine.
The longest delays I've had on Ryanair have been the shortest flights, not sure if it's just that short routes have more points for operational issues, or they just prioritise longer ones.
Recently my flight to EDI didn't leave until it was due to arrive, an hour waiting at the gate itself with no staff to update on anything (the price you pay for barebones staff on no-frills
Ryanair actually care a lot about keeping people on the tarmac - it costs them money. Their financial model only works if the plane is in the air as much as possible.
That is not true, as numerous documented cases will attest.
They get charged for using the gate, once they are on the tarmac "waiting for a window" they don't suffer additional costs.
It's not that they decide to "park the plane on the tarmac" it's that the interaction of various airport operational procedures make this the chepest option in certain scenarios, which is what they'll choose every time. Passengers bedamned.
In fairness though, I think though they've decided not to pursue this particular type of "cost saving" more recently.
once they are on the tarmac "waiting for a window" they don't suffer additional costs.
Nonsense, the crew has limited flying hours, and sitting there will burn them up. I can assure you they don't want to have to cancel or delay a flight because the crew can't fly anymore.
The same is true for other airlines. Anecdotal, but I've been stranded in airports/on planes far more often with other airlines than I have with ryanair.
I've taken about 500 flights in the last decade or so, I can count on one hand the number of delays of over 2 hours
* Moscow 2013 to Heathrow -- 4 more hours in the lounge, got €600 compensation.
* Heathrow 2014 to Bangkok, 5 more hours in the lounge -- got €600 compensation.
* Toronto 2017 -- delayed Delta flight to New York to catch a Virgin flight to Manchester so was downgraded and rerouted on KLM. No compensation as it was a U.S. airline. Lesson learned. (No lounge access either so cost me several beers)
I wasn't flying during the Volcano incident.
I do remember being delayed overnight with ryanair due to weather, but that was c. 2003. They wouldn't reroute me on the next morning flight to Anconna (rather than my original Forli flight -- only 50 miles away), so I had to buy a new ticket. It's attitudes like that which is the reason EU261 came in.
That EU261 is great yes, TBH I have earned money on the last 3 flights I have taken thanks to this system. All of those were long distance and had delays between 10 and 15 hour. It somewhat compensates for the lost time.
Yeah, that's fairly bad luck. I've flown about 100 timesover the 4 years, some short haul and some long haul, and in that time frame I've had about 10 flights delayed by > 2 hours. One of those was the volcano incident, and another was the beast from the east a few weeks ago.
Compared to the other budget providers (Easyjet, Flybe [who frankly, aren't even budget prices]), they're miles ahead. The Easyjet routes I used to fly regularly were late every single time, and a member of airport staff told me ~50% of Easyjet flights were delayed in that particular airport. While Ryanair is certainly super basic, and they take every opportunity to sell you tat, they've been far more consistent and far cheaper than the alternatives in my experience
Agree Flybe are not always cheap but I find them much more laid back about checking in and such.
I recently had a friend visit me in Spain from the UK and he is a very nervous flyer. The way they treat him was absolutely commendable. I doubt he'd of even got on the plane with some other airlines.
The lowest I'm willing to go is Norwegian, and I'll absolutely choose a provider like SAS or Swiss or Lufthansa, if the prices are even remotely close.
Swiss has by far the best chocolate on their flights, BTW :-)
There are some routes where they're the sole carrier and guess what you'll pay regular more expensive prices yet still receive the same "budget" treatment.
Possibly depends on where you're flying to/from in the UK (And Ireland I guess), but Aer Lingus are regularly competively priced against the Ryanair flights, Easyjet also works if you're flying into Belfast.
I would take issue with this. The service with Ryanair is awful. I have never experienced rudeness from cabin crew of other airlines like I have of Ryanair.
I've flown with them nearly fortnightly for the past two years and never had an issue with them. I guess I don't often have much cause to interact with the staff.
I've had an issue every single time - usually on the return route to Dublin funnily enough. Could be because I'm not flying so frequently alright, in a non-business frame of mind ... always more things to go wrong for a holiday traveler.
Yes, BA have gone downhill dramatically in the last few years -- I used to be a top level frequent flyer with them
I've got a flight coming up next week with them to Nairobi, on a tired old 747, which I'm not looking forward to. In years past I'd paid a fortune for such a flight, now unless BA is at least £400 return cheaper than someone like Lufthansa, I won't fly them.
I did fly BA in January (again to Nairobi), was amazed how empty the plane was.
I often suspect with BA, that they actually purposefully make the economy experience worse than it economically needs to be, so that the difference with the more expensive tiers can be exaggerated. Often a fairly dismal experience, but their in-flight food is usually very good.
I don't fly further back than premium economy, which is how economy should be. Nothing as extravagant as a bed (although I'm in the process of upgrading next week's flight with miles)
However even up front their experience is lacklusture. I'd rather fly business on Qatar than First on BA, and certainly rather business on Qatar than business on BA. It's a tired product on tired planes and tired crew.
Isn't aisle seat at least as annoying as middle seat? People walking through the aisle bump into your shoulder all the time, and the stream of people walking through it almost never stops. It's not like you can use it as leg space.
Middle is worst of both worlds, except at least you don't get a constant stream of moving people right next to you
As a large person, I can say the aisle is definitely where I want to be. There is a good chance I'll be able to raise the arm rest on the aisle side of my seat, which gives me more room to fidget. I can also more easily get up to stretch.
For contrast, I once had to sit in the middle seat between two people larger than I was, and behind a person who reclined their seat. And when I'm sitting at the window, my head can bump into the curved body of the plane, which is quite obnoxious.
Jam your knees in there. There are certain periods of long haul flights where you need to recline but the inconvenience to your fellow passenger should never be necessary on shorter ones.
Speaking as a tall guy as well, one of the things I do actually like about Ryanair is their seats don't recline.
I got upgraded on a BA flight once because the person behind me said he was too tall for me to recline my seat.
I'm not sure where this idea came from that tall people can stop people from reclining their seat. If I've paid for a reclining seat, I'm going to recline it if I choose to.
Just be a bit polite and mindful of the person behind you. They may have something on their table. It doesn't hurt to just ask if you're going to hit anything.
And believe it or not, some people actually have long legs, and physically cannot fit if you recline your seat. Should they optimally have gotten a seat with more leg room? Sure! But that isn't always possible.
But the tables are designed to stay flat, even when the seat is reclined - often by being physically disconnected from the reclining part, or via a system of linkages. I'm six feet tall and haven't ever had a problem when I've had to fly economy, but maybe I'm not tall enough to notice though?
I can barely lower the tray table over my legs when the person in front in me is not reclined. When the seat is reclined, I have to start doing a contortion act to use the table.
Because that's just their luck, being seated in front of a really tall person. Maybe that sucks a bit, but those are the odds, you only choose your own seat. Next time they may be seated in front of a really short person, who knows?
The point is that you should have a bit of common courtesy towards other people, and it goes both ways.
Just blithely jamming your seat as far back as it'll go, just because you can and because you feel entitled to do so whenever you want, is a real shitheel ego move.
I'm not talking about blithely jamming it back, but a reclining seat is something you pay for, right? It's not because you feel entitled, it's because that is what you have purchased.
You might as well just take someone's inflight meal from them or cover up the screen of the inflight entertainment.
On most airlines, the seat is made to recline. If you don't like this, book a seat with more leg room, or book on a plane which doesn't have reclining seat.
I do mind when they just smash it back as hard as possible the instant the seatbelt sign switches off. I also very much mind when they do it while I have stuff on the table in front of me, especially since the seats seem perfectly designed to smash cups and water bottles. Or even worse -- laptop screens.
It's fine that people want to recline their seats, but they should be just a tiny bit mindful of the person behind them.
Depends on the flight. On long haul I sometimes go for window (if it's a sleeping flight), sometimes go for the aisle (if it's a working flight). The latter allows me to get up and stretch my legs. Daytime flights from Europe to Africa though I choose a window - never get tired of staring across the Sahara.
What annoys me is people who close the blinds on the non-sun side of the plane. 7 hour flight from Frankfurt to Lagos for example, Flight takes off about 10:00 (GMT+1), lands at 1800 (GMT+2). What possible reason is there to want to sleep on such a flight - very few will be transferring from outside Europe, and those that do are likely from the US, where they'll have slept on the previous leg.
On wide bodies, it could be a 2-3-2 layout, I go for the aisle on the middle in the hope that the middle of the 3 will be empty, or it will be a couple who won't disturb me. On a 2-4-2 again aisle in middle.
On shorthaul flights though it's always window -- no need to get out of your seat for a 2 or 3 hour flight, so board, sit, and not be disturbed.
You definitely can use it for leg space, or rather, for knee space.
You're not going to stretch your legs into the isle, but just poking out your knee a bit can give much desired relief for those with long legs.
For me on a budget airline, this tends to be worth it. Even more so if the person in front of me decides to recline their seat.
If you know that you care more about access to the restroom or your overhead bags for some reason - aisle, if you think that you're ok and won't need restroom and just want to be left alone with book/laptop/sleeping - window. Never middle.
People are generally ignorant of seat etiquette. Window seat gets the window, obviously. Aisle seat gets the better legroom. Middle seat gets both arm rests.
I'm not sure when this change came into play but I reckon I've had the middle seat once, after flying Ryanair on average fortnightly for the last two years. I don't get boarding passes emailed to me so I don't have access to them any more, so can't give actual data unfortunately.
I booked tickets with my girlfriend. Almost 50% of the seats were still available (this was a month before the flight), but all the middle seats were taken. We wanted to pay for seats beside each other, but that wasn't possible, because they gave away all the middle seats. When there are three seats on each side of the aisle, that means no two seats are available beside each other. So, we didn't pay, we just took the random seats, and then asked people to switch after we boarded. We probably could have paid for a window and aisle seat, then asked the middle person to happily switch, but if we're paying for seats, we shouldn't have to do that.