Where's the I hate Michael O'Leary thread then...

[mybike]

I used to have to travel by RyanAir to Stockholm, I've never seen cabin crew so tired. I was hoping the guys up front weren't as tired. Oh, and the journey from the airport into Stockholm took nearly as long as the flight.

 

[screenman]

I used to have to travel by RyanAir to Stockholm, I've never seen cabin crew so tired. I was hoping the guys up front weren't as tired. Oh, and the journey from the airport into Stockholm took nearly as long as the flight.

Why did you not use another carrier? was it because Ryanair were the cheapest.

 

[screenman]

[QUOTE 4266215, member: 45"]That's right. It's about the business model, and the customer deciding whether she's happy with it or not.

It's surprising how easily it slips into the moralistic. In the toilet scenario what it means is that for example (the families of) children will have to pay for the costs to make it cheaper for others.[/QUOTE]

What is the problem with that? You have kids through choice.

 

[winjim]

[QUOTE 4266215, member: 45"]That's right. It's about the business model, and the customer deciding whether she's happy with it or not.

It's surprising how easily it slips into the moralistic. In the toilet scenario what it means is that for example (the families of) children will have to pay for the costs to make it cheaper for others.[/QUOTE]
I personally believe that children should have access to taxpayer subsidised toilet facilities, as well as water, food, education, healthcare and leisure facilities. I also agree that VAT should not be charged on children's clothes.

I don't extend this attitude towards subsidising, as a paying customer, their convenience and comfort whilst on holiday. Their parents should shoulder that burden.

This is all a bit silly though, since nobody actually thinks that Ryanair charging passengers to use the toilet is a good idea.

 

[screenman]

Profit makes jobs, losses does not.

Ryanair offer good value flights, that is something I am sure we all agree on.

 

[screenman]

Did they ever charge for using the toilet?

 

[ianrauk]

Did they ever charge for using the toilet?

no

 

[screenman]

no

I thought not, so we cannot think bad of them for that one then. Brilliant publicity though.

 

[ianrauk]

Brilliant publicity though.

Oh which is what's it all about. Along with paying for toilets, his other wheeze was standing only tickets.

 

[screenman]

Oh which is what's it all about. Along with paying for toilets, his other wheeze was standing only tickets.

Maybe that is why he is worth millions and the rest of us not.

 

[mybike]

Why did you not use another carrier? was it because Ryanair were the cheapest.

Company policy.

 

[screenman]

Company policy.

Which was I guess transport you in the cheapest way possible.

 

[screenman]

He runs a successful business that many millions use, and employs a lot of worker's. Gets my respect for that lot.

As for airport advertising, how many tines has he been nicked for doing so?

 

[screenman]

If that is the way to do it, no thanks.

Hmm! Nice principles you have there. But I think if you were offered millions you might be swayed a tad.

 

[Smokin Joe]

[QUOTE 4266277, member: 45"]Allowing toilet use doesn't lead to loss. It's a basic courtesy. Some business owners lack that.[/QUOTE]
As I already said, the proposal for charging people to use the toilets was just a publicity stunt. Same with standing only passengers, no way would the CAA allow that for safety reasons.