Heads up - Panorama tonight, BBC1 8.30pm
Ian F.
Jack Campin - bogus address
Crossposted to uk.transport.london?
Is Ryanair about to take over the Tube or something?
(Fares 5p for any distance, but 10 pounds a time to
use an escalator).
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
****** I killfile Google posts - email me if you want to be whitelisted ******
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Jack Campin - bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Why Hate Ryanair?"
>
>Crossposted to uk.transport.london?
>
>Is Ryanair about to take over the Tube or something?
>
>(Fares 5p for any distance, but 10 pounds a time to
>use an escalator).
The alternative being a climbing rope as he'd have closed the stairs
because of the maintenance costs.
B2003
Ian F.
news:bogus-0891E0....@news.albasani.net...
> Crossposted to uk.transport.london?
I reckoned it may be of interest with the discussion about budget airlines
currently going on.
And Ryanair does fly from *London* Luton, *London* Stansted and *London*
Gatwick. But apologies if I have offended anyone.
Ian
Basil Jet
>> "Why Hate Ryanair?"
>
> Crossposted to uk.transport.london?
>
> Is Ryanair about to take over the Tube or something?
London airports are most definitely on-topic in news:uk.transport.london .
When the group's creation was being planned, I managed to get everyone to
agree that the group name should not have the words "london transport" in
that order so as not to confuse anyone into thinking that only certain
transport modes were on-topic.
Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
> "Why Hate Ryanair?"
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n9mdm
>
>
> http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=09&month=oct&story=gen-en-...
>
> Ian
>
> --
sounds like the BBC have run out of ideas.....
Why hate the BBC ?
Theo Markettos
> "Why Hate Ryanair?"
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00n9mdm
If you can't be bothered to watch, see:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8297211.stm
Theo
MIG
wrote:
For their sycophantic treatment of Ryanair and O'Leary on Watchdog?
Arthur Figgis
How much would it cost to a) carry a dog b) not carry a dog?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme, Michael
O'Leary is a good business man, Willie Walsh is shite...
it would have been a better programme to say why BA is failing
Runge17
"Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe" <michael...@yahoo.com> a �crit dans le message
de news:672989fe-c51e-4894...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
wrote:
dog = runge ?
Roland Perry
<6ed86b3a-8240-4af1...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, at
13:07:28 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
<michael...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
made several <�5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
--
Roland Perry
MIG
> In message
> <6ed86b3a-8240-4af1-9e61-74e804f1e...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, at
> 13:07:28 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
>
> >...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>
> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
> made several <£5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
> --
> Roland Perry
I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
Nevertheless, a very soft-hitting documentary. The only thing that
really came through at all was the extent to which they see
vulnerability in others as of benefit to them, eg small airports,
aircraft manufacturers and ... inevitably, cash-strapped families.
Barry Salter
> On 12 Oct, 23:05, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <6ed86b3a-8240-4af1-9e61-74e804f1e...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, at
>> 13:07:28 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
>> <michaelnewp...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>>
>>> ...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
>> made several <�5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>
> I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
>
processing and funds to be available in your account to back the
transaction.
Most of the UK banks are now issuing Visa Debit cards with no cheque
guarantee instead of Electron, however. (And, as an aside, the banks
that created Switch are now switching to issuing Visa Debit cards).
Cheers,
Barry
J B
news:n2S50hbz...@perry.co.uk...
>>...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>
> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron cards
> were not available in the UK.
I think what they actually said was they 93% (?) of folks didn't have one!!
--
J B
Keith Willshaw
"MIG" <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a6851055-63e0-40a7...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
On 12 Oct, 23:05, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <6ed86b3a-8240-4af1-9e61-74e804f1e...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, at
> 13:07:28 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
> <michaelnewp...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>
> >...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>
> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
> made several <�5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
> --
> Roland Perry
= I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
And they are wrong
http://www.halifax.co.uk/bankaccounts/easycash.asp
Keith
Roland Perry
<a6851055-63e0-40a7...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at
15:55:42 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
>> >...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>>
>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
>> made several <�5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Electron m'lud
>Nevertheless, a very soft-hitting documentary. The only thing that
>really came through at all was the extent to which they see
>vulnerability in others as of benefit to them, eg small airports,
>aircraft manufacturers and .
It said they drove a hard bargain with their suppliers. Customers
fretting about this is what's know in the trade as "looking in other
people's pockets". Large numbers of businesses are just as hard-nosed,
and in some respects even worse. I bet Ryanair don't also expect Boeing
to give them an extra discount if all the seats on the plane aren't
filled, but I know of businesses who have models that would be analogous
to that!
Interestingly, they didn't allege that Ryanair is slow to pay its bills
(another common characteristic of hard-nosed business). Perhaps that,
and the ability to "sell and forget" is why Boeing (and others) are
happy to do business with them.
>... inevitably, cash-strapped families
What are you referring to here? The only "vulnerability" that came up
was the charge for re-printing boarding cards. I agree it's a bit high,
but along with all their other charges, aren't the slightest bit
"hidden". Unlike, for example, the delivery charge I got lumbered with
from Currys last week, which amounted to paying �15 to have them
discharge their WEEE responsibilities (taking away the old TV).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 2009, J B <j...@invalid.com> remarked:
>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>>cards were not available in the UK.
>
>I think what they actually said was they 93% (?) of folks didn't have one!!
They said something like that too, but also claimed Electron wasn't
available from UK banks.
--
Roland Perry
Keith Willshaw
"J B" <j...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:7jij87F...@mid.individual.net...
Given that UK banks make their profits on current accounts by charging
exorbitant fees for overdrafts a cynic might suggest thats because an
Electron
Card must have sufficient funds to back all transfers where a Visa card
allows the user to go overdrawn.
Keith
Buddenbrooks
> cards were not available in the UK.
No, they actually said an Electron Credit card was not available in the UK.
However it would have been more accurate to state that the debit version is
and name the banks that issue it.
I would guess the show was originally planned as an expose of Ryan Air and
money spent and they found nothing new.
Ryan Air is a put it together yourself airline. You don;t pay for what you
dont need.
BA is a full service airline and you get it without asking, and pay for it
even if you do not use it.
I think everyone is imagining what the world was like pre-budget airlines.
My first pay myself flight was Heathrow to Miami off season in the 70s with
BA.
I was open to exact time/date and spent 2 hours in the travel agent trying
to find an available seat. When I got on the BA flight it was less than half
full, the automated messages and information film pre-arrival was on
Auckland immigration procedures.
Now I can book in five minutes and not be bothered with being woken for
meals I dont want.
I dont live near London or Manchester and the budget airlines now offer
choice from regional airports more convenient to those living away from the
two rational hubs.
The flight within Europe is so short that it is the public transport and
airport facilities that dominate the experience. You would be better off
paying to use a private lounge than extra for the flight.
Roland Perry
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> remarked:
>
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:n2S50hbz...@perry.co.uk...
>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>> cards were not available in the UK.
>
>No, they actually said an Electron Credit card was not available in the UK.
On one hand it's very common the refer to all cards (debit, credit and
charge) as "Credit Cards".
On the other hand they were going out of their way to rubbish the
"Electron" option, on the grounds that the cards(sic) were unavailable
and it was therefore cynical for Ryanair to 'pretend' this was a viable
payment method.
>However it would have been more accurate to state that the debit
>version is and name the banks that issue it.
Cockup or conspiracy?
>I think everyone is imagining what the world was like pre-budget
>airlines. My first pay myself flight was Heathrow to Miami off season
>in the 70s with BA.
They had some footage of "old fashioned jet set".
>The flight within Europe is so short that it is the public transport
>and airport facilities that dominate the experience. You would be
>better off paying to use a private lounge than extra for the flight.
Yep. I'm going to Brussels on Eurostar later today. I've saved more than
�50 by going "economy" rather than "Leisure select" [you don't even want
to know how much full FC costs]. I'll spend the �50 on something better
than an airline meal en-route.
--
Roland Perry
pete
> In message
><a6851055-63e0-40a7...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at
> 15:55:42 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>> >...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>>>
>>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>>> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
>>> made several <£5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
>>
>>I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Electron m'lud
>
>>Nevertheless, a very soft-hitting documentary. The only thing that
>>really came through at all was the extent to which they see
>>vulnerability in others as of benefit to them, eg small airports,
>>aircraft manufacturers and .
>
> It said they drove a hard bargain with their suppliers. Customers
> fretting about this is what's know in the trade as "looking in other
> people's pockets". Large numbers of businesses are just as hard-nosed,
> and in some respects even worse. I bet Ryanair don't also expect Boeing
> to give them an extra discount if all the seats on the plane aren't
> filled, but I know of businesses who have models that would be analogous
> to that!
I loved the part when MoL required any interview was shown unedited
and when they refused, then went on to manipulate the BBC's guy into
giving him a long advertising opportunity.
IMHO far too many businesses weasel up to the media. It was refreshing
to have someone only deal with them on his own terms.
>
> Interestingly, they didn't allege that Ryanair is slow to pay its bills
> (another common characteristic of hard-nosed business). Perhaps that,
> and the ability to "sell and forget" is why Boeing (and others) are
> happy to do business with them.
>
>>... inevitably, cash-strapped families
>
> What are you referring to here? The only "vulnerability" that came up
> was the charge for re-printing boarding cards. I agree it's a bit high,
> but along with all their other charges, aren't the slightest bit
> "hidden". Unlike, for example, the delivery charge I got lumbered with
> from Currys last week, which amounted to paying £15 to have them
> discharge their WEEE responsibilities (taking away the old TV).
So far as (reprinting) your boarding pass surely any airport hotel has
some sort of cyber cafe that you could log in at and print them from?
Since you need that piece of paper to get through security, then provided
you have time, you could do it yourself for much less than £40 a head.
MIG
> 15:55:42 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk>
But it's a bit like Oyster, isn't it. They make rules whose sole
purpose is to punish people for breaking the rules. Such people are
vulnerable to making a slight mistake which makes them fair game for
no end of penalties totally out of proportion (we object to this from
banks; what's the latest story on that?).
As for the documentary, there are far better examples that could have
been used, eg a disabled person hanging on a premium rate phone line
to book an essential wheelchair, people refused boarding because of a
bent passport on one flight but then accepted on the next at full
price ... but they pulled all the punches. No doubt those kind of
things are technically deniable, but given that they are why people
really hate Ryanair, there was no point in the documentary if they
weren't going to be included.
Can't see the point of it really. Looking at it along with the
pathetic Watchdog item, I wonder if the BBC is actively promoting
Ryanair on the "all publicity" principle.
pete
>
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:n2S50hbz...@perry.co.uk...
> > It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>> cards were not available in the UK.
>
> No, they actually said an Electron Credit card was not available in the UK.
> However it would have been more accurate to state that the debit version is
> and name the banks that issue it.
>
> I would guess the show was originally planned as an expose of Ryan Air and
> money spent and they found nothing new.
>
> Ryan Air is a put it together yourself airline. You don;t pay for what you
> dont need.
> BA is a full service airline and you get it without asking, and pay for it
> even if you do not use it.
>
> I think everyone is imagining what the world was like pre-budget airlines.
> My first pay myself flight was Heathrow to Miami off season in the 70s with
> BA.
>
> I was open to exact time/date and spent 2 hours in the travel agent trying
> to find an available seat. When I got on the BA flight it was less than half
> full, the automated messages and information film pre-arrival was on
> Auckland immigration procedures.
>
> Now I can book in five minutes and not be bothered with being woken for
> meals I dont want.
This is something that continually amazes me. That pax feel the need
to eat while flying - even though most flights to holiday destinations
are only 3 - 4 hours max (Spain even less from the S of Eng.) AND they've
just spent an hour or two at departures - with not much to do there except
eat and drink, too.
> I dont live near London or Manchester and the budget airlines now offer
> choice from regional airports more convenient to those living away from the
> two rational hubs.
>
> The flight within Europe is so short that it is the public transport and
> airport facilities that dominate the experience. You would be better off
> paying to use a private lounge than extra for the flight.
The other thing I got from the programme was that ryanair came in at number
33 out of 42 in a customer satisfaction survey. I want to know which airlines
are worse - so I can avoid _them_!
Neil Williams
> I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
They said that *credit* cards were not issued on that system in the
UK. Which they wouldn't be, as an Electron card is by very definition
not a credit card. (The whole purpose of it is that it must always be
authorised online, so it is not possible to run up unauthorised debt
with it).
Neil
MIG
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:38:00 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message
> > 15:55:42 on Mon, 12 Oct 2009, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk>
> > remarked:
> >>> >...there was nothing new or interesting in the programme
>
> >>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
> >>> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who had
> >>> made several <£5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
>
> >>I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_Electron m'lud
>
> >>Nevertheless, a very soft-hitting documentary. The only thing that
> >>really came through at all was the extent to which they see
> >>vulnerability in others as of benefit to them, eg small airports,
> >>aircraft manufacturers and .
>
> > It said they drove a hard bargain with their suppliers. Customers
> > fretting about this is what's know in the trade as "looking in other
> > people's pockets". Large numbers of businesses are just as hard-nosed,
> > and in some respects even worse. I bet Ryanair don't also expect Boeing
> > to give them an extra discount if all the seats on the plane aren't
> > filled, but I know of businesses who have models that would be analogous
> > to that!
>
> I loved the part when MoL required any interview was shown unedited
> and when they refused, then went on to manipulate the BBC's guy into
> giving him a long advertising opportunity.
> IMHO far too many businesses weasel up to the media. It was refreshing
> to have someone only deal with them on his own terms.
Eh? Don't you mean that the media weasel up to advertisers?
This was no exception. The usual free advertising that the BBC gives,
whatever they claim.
Roland Perry
09:00:13 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, pete <no-...@unknown.com> remarked:
>I loved the part when MoL required any interview was shown unedited
>and when they refused, then went on to manipulate the BBC's guy into
>giving him a long advertising opportunity.
It was even better when he said he wouldn't be interviewed unless uncut,
and the BBC then proceeded to attempt to prove they wouldn't cut his
interview, by showing that part. Cut.
--
Roland Perry
michael adams
"pete" <no-...@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:9pXAm.315232$SZ7....@en-nntp-07.am2.easynews.com...
>
> This is something that continually amazes me. That pax feel the need
> to eat while flying - even though most flights to holiday destinations
> are only 3 - 4 hours max (Spain even less from the S of Eng.) AND they've
> just spent an hour or two at departures - with not much to do there except
> eat and drink, too.
It supposedly relaxes people. For many passengers flying can still be a
stressful experience, regardless of statistics. And so if they can pass
their time in the air doing something "enjoyable" they normally do in everyday
life, this can act as a welcome distraction. Whereas some other "welcome
distractions" would be lot more expensive to implement.
michael adams
...
Recliner
You misunderstood the programme -- it said that Electron credit cards
were not issued by UK banks, not Electron debit cards. The enthusiastic
young traveller had one of the latter.
Roland Perry
<333a974c-e255-47d3...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at
02:05:30 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> I think they said that UK banks don't issue them (whatever they are).
>
>They said that *credit* cards were not issued on that system in the
>UK. Which they wouldn't be, as an Electron card is by very definition
>not a credit card. (The whole purpose of it is that it must always be
>authorised online, so it is not possible to run up unauthorised debt
>with it).
See my reply to Mr Buddenbrookes.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
09:05:09 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, pete <no-...@unknown.com> remarked:
>This is something that continually amazes me. That pax feel the need
>to eat while flying - even though most flights to holiday destinations
>are only 3 - 4 hours max (Spain even less from the S of Eng.) AND they've
>just spent an hour or two at departures - with not much to do there except
>eat and drink, too.
And the bloke going on holiday to Portugal (I think it was) who
"obviously" was needing to check in 6-8 suitcases at Stansted[1]. I
don't necessarily agree with the road-warriors who spend all week in the
same t-shirt and travel carry-on only; but surely one suitcase each
should be enough for a week's holiday?
[1] I'm pretty sure this programme was triggered by a one-off fiasco
there a couple of months ago when their check-in agents failed to
provide enough staff.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> It lost credibility for me when they appeared to claim that Electron
>> cards were not available in the UK. Later they interviewed a lad who
>> had made several <�5 all-inclusive trips, paying by Electron!
>
>You misunderstood the programme -- it said that Electron credit cards
>were not issued by UK banks, not Electron debit cards. The enthusiastic
>young traveller had one of the latter.
See my reply to Mr Buddenbrookes.
--
Roland Perry
Recliner
>
> Yep. I'm going to Brussels on Eurostar later today. I've saved more
> than �50 by going "economy" rather than "Leisure select" [you don't
> even want to know how much full FC costs]. I'll spend the �50 on
> something better than an airline meal en-route.
As a matter of interest, how does full first class (Business Premier)
differ from Leisure Select? They both use first class carriages, and
both include food and drink.
Is it more a question of flexible bookings than the actual service on
offer? For example, does Business Premier include a complimentary limo
service or just lounge access? Or is it more of a case of segregating
noisy holiday makers from people who want to work on the train?
Roland Perry
Oct 2009, michael adams <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> remarked:
>> This is something that continually amazes me. That pax feel the need
>> to eat while flying - even though most flights to holiday destinations
>> are only 3 - 4 hours max (Spain even less from the S of Eng.) AND they've
>> just spent an hour or two at departures - with not much to do there except
>> eat and drink, too.
>
>It supposedly relaxes people. For many passengers flying can still be a
>stressful experience, regardless of statistics. And so if they can pass
>their time in the air doing something "enjoyable" they normally do in everyday
>life, this can act as a welcome distraction.
And we don't all spend "an hour or two" in departures, especially for a
6.30am flight. As far as I can see they [all low-costs] manage to sell a
sandwich or drink to at most 10% of the pax on most flights. So while
they make money, there's nothing like as widespread a demand as there is
for the free food/drink on a full service carrier.
--
Roland Perry
William Black
> In message <7jiv3gF...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:22:25 on Tue, 13
> Oct 2009, michael adams <mjad...@onetel.net.uk> remarked:
>>> This is something that continually amazes me. That pax feel the need
>>> to eat while flying - even though most flights to holiday destinations
>>> are only 3 - 4 hours max (Spain even less from the S of Eng.) AND
>>> they've
>>> just spent an hour or two at departures - with not much to do there
>>> except
>>> eat and drink, too.
>>
>> It supposedly relaxes people. For many passengers flying can still be a
>> stressful experience, regardless of statistics. And so if they can pass
>> their time in the air doing something "enjoyable" they normally do in
>> everyday
>> life, this can act as a welcome distraction.
>
> And we don't all spend "an hour or two" in departures, especially for a
> 6.30am flight.
How do you manage not to?
Check-in time these days is a lot longer than it was because of security
constraints.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Roland Perry
Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Recliner <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> Yep. I'm going to Brussels on Eurostar later today. I've saved more
>> than �50 by going "economy" rather than "Leisure select" [you don't
>> even want to know how much full FC costs]. I'll spend the �50 on
>> something better than an airline meal en-route.
>
>As a matter of interest, how does full first class (Business Premier)
>differ from Leisure Select? They both use first class carriages, and
>both include food and drink.
The only difference I can see in the "service" is the ability to use the
lounge. Chauffeuring is extra.
>Is it more a question of flexible bookings than the actual service on
>offer?
Yes, the higher fares are much more flexible. But that may not be
important to many travellers.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Tue, 13 Oct 2009, William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> And we don't all spend "an hour or two" in departures, especially
>>for a 6.30am flight.
>
>How do you manage not to?
For a 6am/6pm flight, using an airport where (touch wood), arriving an
hour before departure having checked in online, is enough to clear the
security queue and get to the gate on time.
And there re a number of airports who now allow you the buy "fast track"
for about �3 - which is an insidious thin-ended wedge, but at least it
works if you are prepared to appease them by buying it.
>Check-in time these days is a lot longer than it was because of
>security constraints.
If I'm leaving mid-afternoon from EMA, the place is deserted, and you
can even check in at a desk, drop a bag, do security, all in ten
minutes. It used to be like that all day long at BHX T2, but I
understand things have change now that Ryanair are filling it with pax.
But the classic carriers have gone back to T1 now.
--
Roland Perry
Stephen O'Connell
Fuck customer satisfaction surveys! What do they want, a free cigar,
newspaper and a hand job from the stewardess? It's about flying as cheaply
as possible. Generally in life, you get what you pay for. The public amaze
me with their expectations. They'll pay a fiver for a flight and then
expect to be treated like Royalty!
Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe
a Ryanair hand job....I wonder how much they would charge for that ;-)
Ian F.
> actively promoting Ryanair on the "all publicity" principle.
I wonder what Gerald Ratner thinks of that (nonsense) principle! ;-)
Ian
bartc
"pete" <no-...@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:9pXAm.315232$SZ7....@en-nntp-07.am2.easynews.com...
> This is something that continually amazes me. That pax feel the need
> to eat while flying - even though most flights to holiday destinations
> are only 3 - 4 hours max (Spain even less from the S of Eng.) AND they've
> just spent an hour or two at departures - with not much to do there except
> eat and drink, too.
Ryanair (and other airlines) didn't open the check-in desks until two hours
before departure.
Queuing for check-in, queueing for security, queueing for a paper, a coffee,
a sandwhich, just walking from one place to another, can easily take all of
the 90 minutes you have before you're supposed to be at the departure gate.
Some airports won't tell you the gate number until last minute (so you to
keep your eyes glued to the screens), others have shuttles to the gates, an
unknown quantity to factor for.
You really haven't got time to sit and relax anymore. Getting earlier to the
airport doesn't help when your flight is at 6.30am, as most of mine seem to
be, as you probably don't normally have breakfast in the middle of the
night, and the outlets will be shut anyway.
If you've spent an hour or two with nothing to do, then you've been lucky! I
haven't had that luxury for years.
With a busy time at the other end with baggage, taxis, traffic, all the
hustle and bustle, the couple of hours in the air is an ideal time for
eating and drinking, or would be if food and drinks were good quality and
reasonably priced.
--
Bartc
Roland Perry
on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, bartc <ba...@freeuk.com> remarked:
>Getting earlier to the airport doesn't help when your flight is at
>6.30am, as most of mine seem to be, as you probably don't normally have
>breakfast in the middle of the night,
That's a good point.
>and the outlets will be shut anyway.
Not in the UK, but when I was in Geneva last week they were only just
opening the food joints as the first flights of the day were departing.
The other shops were firmly shut (but they also shut well before the
last flights leave).
>If you've spent an hour or two with nothing to do, then you've been lucky! I
>haven't had that luxury for years.
It only happens on transfers - I have 4hrs at CDG later this month. Oh
joy.
>With a busy time at the other end with baggage, taxis, traffic, all the
>hustle and bustle, the couple of hours in the air is an ideal time for
>eating and drinking, or would be if food and drinks were good quality
>and reasonably priced.
It's all the same quality you'll get at an average Starbucks/Costa/
Nero/Pret on the High Street.
--
Roland Perry
MIG
No they don't. No one is insane enough to expect anything so
ridiculous, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's
complaints.
Are you Michael O'Leary?
The objections to Ryanair (despite the BBC's publicity for them in
that feeble Panorama) are that they tempt vulnerable people into
situations that end up costing them a lot. That's their standard
business model. One might claim that it's the standard capitalist
business model, but that doesn't make it acceptable, and not all
businesses take it that far.
No doubt the seedy strip joint in Soho where the bouncers tell you
that the unpriced drinks you've been ordered were £100 each and you
better hand over your credit card is also following good business
practice. But it's kind of your own fault for going in there. Should
one expect it when using public transport? Apparently so on Ryanair
and Virgin Trains.
No one should object to paying a low price and getting something basic
and, as far as I am aware, no one does. But they do object to getting
mugged.
Roland Perry
<662191e9-0871-4a25...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at
13:35:22 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
remarked:
>The objections to Ryanair (despite the BBC's publicity for them in
>that feeble Panorama) are that they tempt vulnerable people into
>situations that end up costing them a lot.
Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
standard policy, earlier today]
>No one should object to paying a low price and getting something basic
>and, as far as I am aware, no one does. But they do object to getting
>mugged.
Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
--
Roland Perry
pete
The programme gave two fairly explicit examples. The booking fees, which
are far beyond the actual cost of the transaction and the "penalty" they
impose if you forget to print or lose your boarding pass. Again, the
charge is vastly in excess of the cost of the service.
MIG
> 13:35:22 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
> >The objections to Ryanair (despite the BBC's publicity for them in
> >that feeble Panorama) are that they tempt vulnerable people into
> >situations that end up costing them a lot.
>
> Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
> anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
> standard policy, earlier today]
Rules is only one aspect of it, but in their case it's constantly
changing rules that have no other purpose than to catch people out.
>
> >No one should object to paying a low price and getting something basic
> >and, as far as I am aware, no one does. But they do object to getting
> >mugged.
>
> Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
There are loads, but no doubt it's all "chattering".
Roland Perry
21:47:49 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, pete <no-...@unknown.com> remarked:
>>>No one should object to paying a low price and getting something basic
>>>and, as far as I am aware, no one does. But they do object to getting
>>>mugged.
>>
>> Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
>
>The programme gave two fairly explicit examples. The booking fees, which
>are far beyond the actual cost of the transaction
The "mugging" referred to above was about unexpected, or "surprise"
charges. While the credit card fees are somewhat high (it's necessary to
factor in all the costs when buying these fares) they are not
unexpected, nor are they a surprise. Indeed, the very way we are
discussing them here indicates how familiar everyone is with them.
Other outfits charge "booking fees" and/or "Credit Card fees". Why do
cinemas charge *more* for you to buy online and pick up at the cinema,
than if you buy in person? Now that's what I call a surprise. Some train
companies are now charging such fees, so it's not just airlines (and
certainly not just Ryanair amongst the airlines) who charge these fees
for public transport.
>and the "penalty" they impose if you forget to print or lose your
>boarding pass.
Unlike the much more aptly named "Penalty Fare" on a train if you forget
to bring your ticket, or get on the wrong train? Or hotel vouchers,
which mean you have to pay again if you forget to take them with you?
The paradigm has changed, from paper tickets, to e-tickets, back to
paper print-your-own [1] which Ryanair prefer because to save money they
often use manual systems at the airport. Look on the bright side - at
least it's only �40, not a forfeit of the whole fare.
Just about the only one of their charges which I do object to (I think
it may have been swept aside in the 100% online-checkin scheme) was the
way you could only check in online if you had an EU passport. So other
nationalities couldn't avoid to paying to check in at the airport, even
if travelling only with hand baggage. At least one country apparently
deemed this discrimination illegal, and so the fee was waived when
checking in there, in these circumstances.
[1] They call it a boarding pass, but it's much more like a ticket.
>Again, the charge is vastly in excess of the cost of the service.
A pint of cola in a pub costs them about 1p to produce, so there are
many examples of things not being priced on a "cost plus" basis.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
<8c92000b-99ad-4567...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, at
15:10:22 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
>> >The objections to Ryanair (despite the BBC's publicity for them in
>> >that feeble Panorama) are that they tempt vulnerable people into
>> >situations that end up costing them a lot.
>>
>> Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
>> anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? �[EMT announcement of their
>> standard policy, earlier today]
>
>Rules is only one aspect of it, but in their case it's constantly
>changing rules that have no other purpose than to catch people out.
I agree that the rules have changed recently, but were people unaware of
this when booking? Another rule that's changed is the "advance
passenger" information required by the e-borders scheme. At least two
other airlines are threatening to charge a "fine" if you fail to fill it
in before leaving home.
>> >No one should object to paying a low price and getting something basic
>> >and, as far as I am aware, no one does. But they do object to getting
>> >mugged.
>>
>> Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
>
>There are loads, but no doubt it's all "chattering".
I saw a headline in the trade press yesterday: "Panorama fails to
'expose' Ryanair" which just about sums it up.
--
Roland Perry
bartc
> On 13 Oct, 22:09, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <662191e9-0871-4a25-82d3-abf90d539...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> at 13:35:22 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>
>>> The objections to Ryanair (despite the BBC's publicity for them in
>>> that feeble Panorama) are that they tempt vulnerable people into
>>> situations that end up costing them a lot.
>>
>> Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a
>> "full anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of
>> their standard policy, earlier today]
>
> Rules is only one aspect of it, but in their case it's constantly
> changing rules that have no other purpose than to catch people out.
Yes you have to be on your toes when booking Ryanair! But I've since used a
far worse website, Ticketmaster:
Apart from exorbitant charges which at least you can choose to pay, there
have details of an insurance product which is disguised to look just like
the Terms&Conditions button surrounded by a block of small print, that you
find on every site. Naughtily, the amount charged to your credit card is
taken separately and never appears on the total presented to you.
A timer counting down the minutes until a timeout puts extra pressure to
complete the form quickly.
Only on the confirmation email is the existence of this policy revealed, but
no details of how much it cost, so you assume it was included in the charges
you've already paid (eg. �7 charges on a �22 ticket). Very underhand.
Ryanair and most airlines I've used do at least tell you how much you will
be charged before you're committed, although it's still quite a shock, after
spending ages choosing just the right flights to suit your itinerary, the
first time you're presented with a �5 per person/each way charge for using a
debit card, at the very last minute!
--
Bartc
MIG
> 15:10:22 on Tue, 13 Oct 2009, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk>
> remarked:
>
> >> >The objections to Ryanair (despite the BBC's publicity for them in
> >> >that feeble Panorama) are that they tempt vulnerable people into
> >> >situations that end up costing them a lot.
>
> >> Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
> >> anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
> >> standard policy, earlier today]
>
> >Rules is only one aspect of it, but in their case it's constantly
> >changing rules that have no other purpose than to catch people out.
>
> I agree that the rules have changed recently, but were people unaware of
> this when booking? Another rule that's changed is the "advance
> passenger" information required by the e-borders scheme. At least two
> other airlines are threatening to charge a "fine" if you fail to fill it
> in before leaving home.
Both Ryanair and Virgin Trains are absolutely ruthless in punishing
minor mistakes with punishments out of all proportion.
Both Ryanair and Virgin Trains brazenly refuse to comply with rules
when they are caught out bang to rights, and authorities have been
shown to be powerless in enforcing any rules.
Other companies may be the same. I find it objectionable; others may
consider it good business. Perhaps it's both.
>
> >> >No one should object to paying a low price and getting something basic
> >> >and, as far as I am aware, no one does. But they do object to getting
> >> >mugged.
>
> >> Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
>
> >There are loads, but no doubt it's all "chattering".
>
> I saw a headline in the trade press yesterday: "Panorama fails to
> 'expose' Ryanair" which just about sums it up.
I agree with that statement, although I wouldn't infer from it that
there was nothing to expose. The BBC has a habit of plugging Ryanair
by praising them with faint damnation.
Roland Perry
<03acd405-a476-4561...@l9g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, at
10:45:22 on Wed, 14 Oct 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
remarked:
>Both Ryanair and Virgin Trains are absolutely ruthless in punishing
>minor mistakes with punishments out of all proportion.
...
>Other companies may be the same.
Most, if not all, of the long distance ToCs are like that now. eg GNER
were famous for it, and NXEC carried on the tradition. MML were pretty
stringent, but now Stagecoach have the franchise under the EMT banner,
the screws have been really tightened.
One of the worst offences is threatening to sell only "Open Returns"
even when off-peak; and without any railcard discounts. I suspect they
should sell an Open Single if requested (then you can use the other half
of the ticket, you already have, to return on the "correct" train this
time).
Or if you are time-rich/money-poor simply get an on-train 'penalty'
ticket to the next station, then get off and buy a discounted off-peak
ticket there, catching the following train to your actual destination. I
bet they never suggest that to people!
--
Roland Perry
Arthur Figgis
> Or is it more of a case of segregating
> noisy holiday makers from people who want to work on the train?
Yes.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
asdf
>>> Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
>>
>>The programme gave two fairly explicit examples. The booking fees, which
>>are far beyond the actual cost of the transaction
>
>The "mugging" referred to above was about unexpected, or "surprise"
>charges. While the credit card fees are somewhat high (it's necessary to
>factor in all the costs when buying these fares) they are not
>unexpected, nor are they a surprise.
Yes they are. The "headline" fares (49p etc) don't include them, and
many people don't find out about them until they get to the booking
screen. Most reputable companies include any payment handling costs
(incl. cash handling) in their up-front prices.
>Indeed, the very way we are
>discussing them here indicates how familiar everyone is with them.
Only because they're notorious for being an unexpected, excessive
charge!
I guess if you mug someone in an area notorious for muggings, it
ceases to be one because they should have heard about it in advance
and expected it, and becomes a "walking down the street fee" instead?
Roland Perry
Thu, 15 Oct 2009, asdf <inv...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:52:19 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>>> Give an example of Ryanair mugging.
>>>
>>>The programme gave two fairly explicit examples. The booking fees, which
>>>are far beyond the actual cost of the transaction
>>
>>The "mugging" referred to above was about unexpected, or "surprise"
>>charges. While the credit card fees are somewhat high (it's necessary to
>>factor in all the costs when buying these fares) they are not
>>unexpected, nor are they a surprise.
>
>Yes they are. The "headline" fares (49p etc) don't include them, and
>many people don't find out about them until they get to the booking
>screen.
Actually, some of the fees are currently waived for the "promotional
fares", so be careful what you wish for.
>Most reputable companies include any payment handling costs
>(incl. cash handling) in their up-front prices.
In that case there are lots of disreputable companies around.
>>Indeed, the very way we are
>>discussing them here indicates how familiar everyone is with them.
>
>Only because they're notorious for being an unexpected, excessive
>charge!
They are notorious enough, that claiming you've never heard of them
doesn't wash. Ever thought that all the tales circulating about Ryanair
actually work to their *advantage*? They were prosecuted by Essex
Trading Standards, but got off on the grounds that "everyone has heard
the stories about us, and therefore expects extra fees".
>I guess if you mug someone in an area notorious for muggings, it
>ceases to be one because they should have heard about it in advance
>and expected it, and becomes a "walking down the street fee" instead?
Frankly, yes.
--
Roland Perry
MIG
> In message <kvpcd5hugqb37mtmk6661hbcq6i4rcs...@4ax.com>, at 13:03:24 on
> Thu, 15 Oct 2009, asdf <inva...@invalid.invalid> remarked:
So they've created such a lawless situation that anything goes. That
seems to me to be a Bad Thing and a situation that should be
rectified, not condoned.
Neil Williams
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>Check-in time these days is a lot longer than it was because of security
>constraints.
Au contraire. It's much *shorter* because of online check-in.
When not checking in a bag (most of the time), I usually aim for an
hour before at Luton, which is enough time while not keeping me
standing around for particularly long.
Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>If I'm leaving mid-afternoon from EMA, the place is deserted, and you
>can even check in at a desk, drop a bag, do security, all in ten
>minutes. It used to be like that all day long at BHX T2, but I
>understand things have change now that Ryanair are filling it with pax.
>But the classic carriers have gone back to T1 now.
It's a pity FR were allowed to trash T2. It was a nice, relaxing
business-oriented terminal.
Neil Williams
<michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>a Ryanair hand job....I wonder how much they would charge for that ;-)
You do, presumably, recall O'Leary's comments on the business class of
his proposed transatlantic service?
http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/news.php?yr=08&month=jun&story=gen-en-200608
Neil Williams
>The programme gave two fairly explicit examples. The booking fees, which
>are far beyond the actual cost of the transaction
Not exactly a "mugging", though. Before you purchase your ticket, the
full price is made clear. And they have a single page on their
website listing all the fees.
>and the "penalty" they
>impose if you forget to print or lose your boarding pass. Again, the
>charge is vastly in excess of the cost of the service.
If you forget your train ticket, you'll have to buy a new one. That
could be far more than 40 quid.
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Other outfits charge "booking fees" and/or "Credit Card fees". Why do
>cinemas charge *more* for you to buy online and pick up at the cinema,
>than if you buy in person? Now that's what I call a surprise.
I have always wondered why they did that. I've never gone to the
cinema and been turned away because it was full (this pretty much only
happens in the first few days of a major film). So why bother
booking?
Neil Williams
wrote:
>One of the worst offences is threatening to sell only "Open Returns"
>even when off-peak; and without any railcard discounts. I suspect they
>should sell an Open Single if requested (then you can use the other half
>of the ticket, you already have, to return on the "correct" train this
>time).
I'd be surprised if they didn't sell a single on request. A single is
not, after all, a discounted ticket.
>Or if you are time-rich/money-poor simply get an on-train 'penalty'
>ticket to the next station, then get off and buy a discounted off-peak
>ticket there, catching the following train to your actual destination. I
>bet they never suggest that to people!
I have heard exactly that suggested by VT guards on several occasions.
Roland Perry
<9b385429-4833-4eb9...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, at
08:56:29 on Thu, 15 Oct 2009, MIG <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk>
remarked:
>> >I guess if you mug someone in an area notorious for muggings, it
>> >ceases to be one because they should have heard about it in advance
>> >and expected it, and becomes a "walking down the street fee" instead?
>>
>> Frankly, yes.
>
>seems to me to be a Bad Thing and a situation that should be
>rectified, not condoned.
Combating street crime is a long standing and difficult issue.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
15 Oct 2009, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>>Other outfits charge "booking fees" and/or "Credit Card fees". Why do
>>cinemas charge *more* for you to buy online and pick up at the cinema,
>>than if you buy in person? Now that's what I call a surprise.
>
>I have always wondered why they did that. I've never gone to the
>cinema and been turned away because it was full (this pretty much only
>happens in the first few days of a major film). So why bother
>booking?
To avoid standing in a long queue to pay.
Also, I almost always only go to see major films when they are first
released. The other films aren't worth seeing, and if you've missed them
when first launched in the cinema, you might as well wait until they are
in Blockbuster.
--
Roland Perry
Tofu
wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:11:34 -0700 (PDT), "Hobo Humpin' Slobo Babe"
>
> >a Ryanair hand job....I wonder how much they would charge for that ;-)
>
> You do, presumably, recall O'Leary's comments on the business class of
> his proposed transatlantic service?
>
>
> Neil
>
> --
> Neil Williams
> Put my first name before the at to reply.
...sign me up ;-)
pete
So are you saying you believe that if a second person mugs you for more
than a previous mugger did, the first one doesn't count?
Neil Williams
>So are you saying you believe that if a second person mugs you for more
>than a previous mugger did, the first one doesn't count?
No. It's a condition of travel by train that you carry a valid ticket
while doing so. It's a condition of travel by Ryanair that you carry
a valid boarding card while doing so. Where's the issue?
(Admittedly, it's a bit different in that by train the actual proof
that you're entitled to travel *is* the ticket, whereas with Ryanair
it's a record in a database. But I think they're still comparable
situations).
pete
comparable except for mugging people £40 to print a 1p piece of paper.
Roland Perry
09:41:40 on Fri, 16 Oct 2009, pete <no-...@unknown.com> remarked:
>> No. It's a condition of travel by train that you carry a valid ticket
>> while doing so. It's a condition of travel by Ryanair that you carry
>> a valid boarding card while doing so. Where's the issue?
>>
>> (Admittedly, it's a bit different in that by train the actual proof
>> that you're entitled to travel *is* the ticket, whereas with Ryanair
>> it's a record in a database. But I think they're still comparable
>> situations).
>
>comparable except for mugging people �40 to print a 1p piece of paper.
The new ticket the train company sells you (the material of which also
costs 1p - we'll overlook the time involved) could easily cost more than
�40.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 2009, Huge <Hu...@nowhere.much.invalid> remarked:
>> I saw a headline in the trade press yesterday: "Panorama fails to
>> 'expose' Ryanair" which just about sums it up.
>
>shysters.
Their charges aren't lies. They are very well documented.
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
wrote:
>Their charges aren't lies. They are very well documented.
All in one place, clearly linked to from the front page, at that.
http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/faqs.php?sect=CHARGES
bartc
"Neil Williams" <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4ad84be2...@news.individual.net...
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:09:15 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>Their charges aren't lies. They are very well documented.
>
> All in one place, clearly linked to from the front page, at that.
It took me a while to find the link from the home page.
> http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/faqs.php?sect=CHARGES
It's not stated whether that �5 check-in charge is per return flight or each
way. And it doesn't mention that �40 penalty for re-issue of boarding card
either (and whether it's on top of the �5/�10 you may have already paid, and
whether the �40 is each way)
(The charges have also increased tremendously in last few years. In 2004,
the charges on top of a �0.00 return fare to Europe, with baggage, were �25
taxes plus I think some �4 debit card charges, total �29.
Now, it would be �50 taxes, plus �30 baggage, plus �10 check-in, plus �10
credit-card, some �100 (and a minimum of �60 without optional items)
If you wanted to take a bike with you (which I did often), the 2004 total
would have been �59. The 2009 total would be �180. For �80 extra you might
as well buy one at the destination then dump it before coming back.
Of course you have to add the actual 'fares' to these figures. A 'surcharge'
would be a better name.)
--
bartc
Neil Williams
>It's not stated whether that �5 check-in charge is per return flight or each
>way.
As Ryanair sells only single tickets (and as it's Ryanair), I would
assume the latter.
> And it doesn't mention that �40 penalty for re-issue of boarding card
>either (and whether it's on top of the �5/�10 you may have already paid, and
>whether the �40 is each way)
I assume it's on top, again it being Ryanair. The �40 is mentioned -
it's in the right-hand column.
>(The charges have also increased tremendously in last few years. In 2004,
>the charges on top of a �0.00 return fare to Europe, with baggage, were �25
>taxes plus I think some �4 debit card charges, total �29.
>
>Now, it would be �50 taxes, plus �30 baggage, plus �10 check-in, plus �10
>credit-card, some �100 (and a minimum of �60 without optional items)
That is indeed true. But, however unsavoury you find this, it's not
exactly hidden.
IOW, there are many things wrong with Ryanair, though when I've used
them they've been fine. But "hidden charges" is, IMO, not a fair
allegation. They aren't hidden at all.
bartc
>>way.
>
> As Ryanair sells only single tickets (and as it's Ryanair), I would
> assume the latter.
The name change however is per passenger, so per return flight (or for each
of two single flights...)
>
>> And it doesn't mention that �40 penalty for re-issue of boarding card
>>either (and whether it's on top of the �5/�10 you may have already paid,
>>and
>>whether the �40 is each way)
>
> I assume it's on top, again it being Ryanair. The �40 is mentioned -
> it's in the right-hand column.
OK, seen it now. But this sort of proves something: I was actually looking
for it and didn't see it! Somebody quickly glancing over these fees wouldn't
even know the significance of that item until it happens that they need to
pay it...
>>(The charges have also increased tremendously in last few years. In 2004,
[by some 200%...]
> That is indeed true. But, however unsavoury you find this, it's not
> exactly hidden.
> IOW, there are many things wrong with Ryanair, though when I've used
> them they've been fine. But "hidden charges" is, IMO, not a fair
> allegation. They aren't hidden at all.
They are not hidden, but even so many would only be in the back of most
passengers' minds, until circumstances dictate a change of plans, then they
find out how the charges mount up.
--
bartc
Paul Terry
>IOW, there are many things wrong with Ryanair, though when I've used
>them they've been fine.
When I've travelled from Stansted, there have often been moans from
staff of other airlines complaining that the Ryanair desks are so
understaffed that they frequently have to field questions from Ryanair
passengers.
--
Paul Terry
Roland Perry
on Fri, 16 Oct 2009, bartc <ba...@freeuk.com> remarked:
>It took me a while to find the link from the home page.
>
>> http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/faqs.php?sect=CHARGES
When I looked the other day, I think it was the top hit on Google for
"Ryanair fees".
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Nm2zwAIl...@perry.co.uk...
> Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
> anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
> standard policy, earlier today]
>
Since no contract exists, you have boarded a train in error there is no
intention to use the service provided you probably cannot be compelled to
pay anything. You will of course have to vacate the train at the earliest
opportunity and pay for your own ongoing transport.
Terms and conditions can only be enforced if you have agreed to them,
normally by the act of paying for the service.
There can be no liability under civil law if you have not contracted for the
service they wish to charge for.
There may be criminal law about travelling without a ticket, but generally
criminal law requires some degree of 'intent' which is not present
in catching the wrong train.
The rail company's failure to adequately identify their trains destination
or route is hardly the passenger's fault :)
tim....
"Buddenbrooks" <knights...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:0oAEm.86306$sz7....@newsfe10.ams2...
>
> "Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Nm2zwAIl...@perry.co.uk...
> > Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
>> anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
>> standard policy, earlier today]
>>
>
>
> Since no contract exists, you have boarded a train in error there is no
> intention to use the service provided you probably cannot be compelled to
> pay anything. You will of course have to vacate the train at the earliest
> opportunity and pay for your own ongoing transport.
>
> Terms and conditions can only be enforced if you have agreed to them,
> normally by the act of paying for the service.
rubbish
Starting to use the service amounts to entering the contract. The fact that
it is not the intended train is irrelevant, if it is going to the correct
station.
tim
Buddenbrooks
> Starting to use the service amounts to entering the contract.
A contract cannot exist unless a fee has been expressly agreed.
This is why Ryan Air charge 1p for its 'free' tickets. Without this
monetary exchange it cannot claim a contract exists
and therefore the terms and conditions apply. It is also why you tick the 'I
have read the terms and conditions' before the payment.
It is also why lots of vouchers have a marked value of 0.001p. A meaningless
value but represents a 'payment' and allows the terms and conditions to
be contractual.
Because the rail system has come out of a government body it may have
special statutes applying that are specific to transport law.
As a private company its terms and conditions are meaningless unless it can
show you have entered into contract with them.
A key point is that both parties understand what they are getting from the
contract:
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Meeting_of_the_minds
Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket and
the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms and
conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company saw
little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.
Recliner
>
> http://wapedia.mobi/en/Meeting_of_the_minds
>
>
> Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket
> and the means to pay for one because
> she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms
> and conditions do not allow for this.
> The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company
> saw little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.
<pedant>Cherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of the
former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair".</pedant>
Buddenbrooks
"Recliner" <recline...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5eCdnW9DAMi5hH7X...@bt.com...
> <pedant>Cherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of the
> former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
> Blair".</pedant>
>
Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair. :)
Recliner
Not professionally, she didn't.
Buddenbrooks
A rose by any other name
Roland Perry
Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> remarked:
>Because the rail system has come out of a government body it may have
>special statutes applying that are specific to transport law.
Yes, there are special rules about paying for rail travel.
> Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket
>and the means to pay for one because
>she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms and
>conditions do not allow for this.
>The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company saw
>little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.
Her incident neither sets a precedent, nor demonstrates what the rule
for "mere mortals" is.
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
>
> Her incident neither sets a precedent, nor demonstrates what the rule for
> "mere mortals" is.
Obviously no precident is set as no court case occured to make one.
However traveling without a ticket is well reviewed in courts.
It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or criminal
offence.
If it is civil then a contract has to be shown to exist between the rail
company and the traveller. Contracts are two sided affairs and do not exist
merely because one party
says it does. Clearly a passanger has by action shown an intent to enter
into some contract, which may be to travel from Waterloo Directly to Bristol
Parkway.
So the passenger has offerd to enter into a contract with the company by
entering the train. The representative of the company (conductor) may accept
this offer to treat by selling a ticket. The conductor may decline, as no
contract yet exists he is free to decline, he may do so for many or in fact
any reason other than those proscibed by law such as a racial decision. One
of the reasons to decline is that the train being the Waterloo to Exeter
train he cannot comply with the single train trip to Bristol that the other
party wishes, so no contract has been agreed. At this point the customer
should vacate the train. If he is prevented from doing so by the action of
the rail company (i.e. the train has now left Waterloo)
that is not a contractual issue.
A similar example is say you get in a Taxi and the driver moves off, you say
where you want to go and the driver says, North Side Taxis dont go Sounth of
the river I'll take you back to the Taxi Rank and you can get a All London
Taxi mate. Would you pay their standard �10 minimum hire charge?
As you mentioned precident,
I doubt you will find that any rail company has taked a passenger to court
over boarding the wrong train. Many passengers may well have paid up, but
that is back to mugging.
Roland Perry
25 Oct 2009, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> remarked:
>It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
>criminal offence.
It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
available to buy at the station where you boarded).
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
I am still googeling for any reference to an arrest for having no valid
ticket while on the wrong train.
However I did find a BR explanation of how a contract with them comes about
:#
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/right_to_withdraw_an_elderly_per
A ticket forms a 'contract' and the 'terms and conditions' printed
on it are part of that contract and are binding on both parties as
there has been 'consideration' by an exchange of money.
So BR terms and conditions do not apply as no contract has been made.
So we are back to either common law or statute law, which would be in
Hansard or Parliamentary Acts not T&Cs
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>A similar example is say you get in a Taxi and the driver moves off, you say
>where you want to go and the driver says, North Side Taxis dont go Sounth of
>the river I'll take you back to the Taxi Rank and you can get a All London
>Taxi mate. Would you pay their standard �10 minimum hire charge?
That's not too good an example, as there is no such thing as a "north
side taxi". A London taxi is a London taxi, and they should take any
fare within the Greater London boundary.
However, this is a known problem that has existed for many years, and
it should be reported when it occurs. Though the above example
shouldn't occur as in London it's more conventional IMX to state your
destination to the driver through the window before getting in.
Roland Perry
>>>It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
>>>criminal offence.
>>
>> It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
>>available to buy at the station where you boarded).
>
>ticket while on the wrong train.
People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to
pay. The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning
about having to pay.
--
Roland Perry
Buddenbrooks
> People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
> aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to pay.
> The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning about
> having to pay.
>
Which only means people believe that have to pay or that it is not enough
for the bother of claiming.
Only a court case proves the law.
I live in Wiltshire where the county council has has to repay over a million
pounds for speeding fines on the A303 because 1 of thousands
actually challenged in court and had a verdict that the council did not have
the authority to impose the fines. The contractors put the speed cameras in
place
where road works were planned and put the new speed restriction signs up a
month later.
That was several years ago, I understand Swindon are having to repay people
because speed cameras were installed without being calibrated.
Just because a fine is levied and lots of people pay it does not in itself
prove the liability.
Roland Perry
>> aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to
>>pay. The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning
>>about having to pay.
>>
>
>Which only means people believe that have to pay or that it is not
>enough for the bother of claiming.
>
>Only a court case proves the law.
Hundreds of people have criminal records for travelling without paying
the fare. All you have failed to discover, is reports of the
circumstances, in the press.
--
Roland Perry
asdf
>>>>It depends on whether travelling without a ticket is a civil or
>>>>criminal offence.
>>>
>>> It's a criminal offence (modulo some exceptions where tickets weren't
>>>available to buy at the station where you boarded).
>>
>>I am still googeling for any reference to an arrest for having no valid
>>ticket while on the wrong train.
>
>People will usually pay the penalty fare (or buy a new ticket), if they
>aren't given a waiver. So you'd be looking for someone who failed to
>pay. The worst you usually get in the press is those people moaning
>about having to pay.
IIRC it's been stated (on Usenet...) that some ticket inspectors are
trained to interpret willingness to pay the penalty fare as evidence
of deliberate fare evasion, and therefore refuse to allow the
passenger to pay the penalty fare, instead insisting on prosecution.
This is because in many areas, ticket inspections are rare enough that
it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty fare on every inspection than to
buy a ticket for every journey.
Buddenbrooks
> Hundreds of people have criminal records for travelling without paying
> the fare. All you have failed to discover, is reports of the
> circumstances, in the press.
There is a difference between travelling without a ticket as a deliberate
act of avoidance, which is clearly covered by common law and
probably specific acts of parliament, and having a valid ticket and boarding
the wrong train in error. Most UK law requires either proof of intention or
willful ignorance.
As I said earlier terms and conditions do not apply as that requires a
contract to be entered into and this requires a 'consideration' by both
parties which is normally a service or goods by one party and money on the
other. So we are clearly under law. If you look up any law they are always
detailed. The 10 commandments may say 'thou shall not commit murder' but the
UK law will be considerably longer with definitions of what 'murder' is.
Similarly there will not be a law just saying 'It is an offence to board a
train without a valid ticket'
I have tried finding the actual statute, so far I can only find the charge
has the words 'dishonesty in it, clearly an error in boarding the wrong
train does not form a dishonest act, merely a stupid one.
I will continue to search for the actual act, I have established that it is
definitely criminal and it is processed by the Transport Police, the terms
and conditions say that if you accept the decision of the company they will
not pass the matter over to the transport police. It is not in the power of
the company to prosecute, that will be the Crown Prosecution after a report
from the Transport Police.
The transport company have to take the stance that penalty fares are always
payable otherwise it leaves them open to false claims. I very much doubt
there has been a case where a person who has a valid ticket for a train
journey and a credible case for believing they have boarded the wrong train
ever being prosecuted. If only the rail company would hate to establish a
precedent by loosing. After all they really want to stop people avoiding
fares, not create an alternative income stream. No fines will stop people
boarding the wrong train.
Incidentally I have been on an RA flight where one passenger was on the
wrong plane, even RA was arranging to get him back to origin free of charge!
Buddenbrooks
"asdf" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:r2mae51asblusosi4...@4ax.com...
that some ticket inspectors are
> trained to interpret willingness to pay the penalty fare as evidence
> of deliberate fare evasion, and therefore refuse to allow the
> passenger to pay the penalty fare, instead insisting on prosecution.
Since it is criminal law they can only pass the person over to British
Transport Police and then it is up to Crown Prosecution whether a
prosecution proceeds.
> This is because in many areas, ticket inspections are rare enough that
> it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty fare on every inspection than to
> buy a ticket for every journey.
I believe German public transport works on a 1 in 10 risk of being caught
and a penalty of 10 times the fare.
They are quite strict. At Berlin I bought a ticket but failed to validate it
on the platform. As a kindness to a stupid tourist they did not fine me but
made ne vacate
the train to validate but then had to wait for the next train.
Neil Williams
<knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>The transport company have to take the stance that penalty fares are always
>payable otherwise it leaves them open to false claims. I very much doubt
>there has been a case where a person who has a valid ticket for a train
>journey and a credible case for believing they have boarded the wrong train
>ever being prosecuted. If only the rail company would hate to establish a
>precedent by loosing. After all they really want to stop people avoiding
>fares, not create an alternative income stream. No fines will stop people
>boarding the wrong train.
And people who board the wrong train aren't going to say "fair cop,
here's 20 quid". They're going to explain what has happened and hope
they get away with it.
>Incidentally I have been on an RA flight where one passenger was on the
>wrong plane, even RA was arranging to get him back to origin free of charge!
I don't know about PF areas, but MX is that usually people who boarded
the wrong train are sent back from whence they came and told to
explain what happened to anyone that asks, not charged an extra fare,
Penalty or otherwise.
Roland Perry
27 Oct 2009, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:18:51 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
><knights...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
>>The transport company have to take the stance that penalty fares are always
>>payable otherwise it leaves them open to false claims. I very much doubt
>>there has been a case where a person who has a valid ticket for a train
>>journey and a credible case for believing they have boarded the wrong train
>>ever being prosecuted. If only the rail company would hate to establish a
>>precedent by loosing. After all they really want to stop people avoiding
>>fares, not create an alternative income stream. No fines will stop people
>>boarding the wrong train.
>
>And people who board the wrong train aren't going to say "fair cop,
>here's 20 quid". They're going to explain what has happened and hope
>they get away with it.
And despite the nonsense about "contracts" spouted by Mr B, if they are
told that all they can do is pay the "full single fare" (which is in the
region of �65 for Leicester-London) a refusal will eventually end them
in court.
>>Incidentally I have been on an RA flight where one passenger was on the
>>wrong plane, even RA was arranging to get him back to origin free of charge!
>
>I don't know about PF areas, but MX is that usually people who boarded
>the wrong train are sent back from whence they came and told to
>explain what happened to anyone that asks, not charged an extra fare,
>Penalty or otherwise.
I've never heard that offered as an option for people caught on the
"wrong train" or with an "accidentally invalid"[1] ticket on an
'intercity' train. No, it's "pay up or else". And iirc the PF is only
�20 if the proper fare is <�20, otherwise it's the higher amount.
[1] for example; an Open ticket used outside of the dates of validity,
when the person didn't understand fully what the rules were.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2009, Buddenbrooks <knights...@budweiser.com> remarked:
>Similarly there will not be a law just saying 'It is an offence to
>board a train without a valid ticket'
You probably need to read the relevant Transport Act.
--
Roland Perry
David Biddulph
Regulation of Railways Act 1889
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&ActiveTextDocId=1061371
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Michael R N Dolbear
> Since it is criminal law they can only pass the person over to
British
> Transport Police and then it is up to Crown Prosecution whether a
> prosecution proceeds.
Not so, it appears that TOCS and bus companies do private prosecutions
as they have since that Regulation of Railways Act 1889 and indeed
before.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/crime/ps/sectionpersec/multilegalaidcrime?page
=6
== Since legislation in 1999 a rail operator can revoke a Penalty Fare
if it is not paid and pursue the case as a criminal offence of fare
evasion.
Some operators use their in-house Private Prosecutions Unit in order to
deal with Penalty Fares, on the basis that the CPS does not have
first-hand experience of working on the railway, and that taking it
in-house avoids unnecessary delays, and gives the operator greater
control and a better chance of success.
In terms of their success rate, private prosecutions appear on the
whole to be highly effective in using the legal system to tackle fare
evasion. ==
--
Mike D