Now we have it! Budget airlines are often more expensive than mainstream ones

13 views
Skip to first unread message

MM

unread,
May 9, 2012, 7:54:48 AM5/9/12
to
"Budget airlines can cost families £87 more per booking than
mainstream carriers, a report has found.

"Once hidden surcharges for baggage, seat reservations, priority
boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
low-cost fares overtook those of their ‘expensive’ rivals, according
to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."
.
.
.
"Specifically, the report found that from London to Berlin, British
Airways offered direct flights which were £49 cheaper per seat than
Ryanair and £15 cheaper than easyJet.

"And from London to Barcelona, British Airways offered a direct flight
that was £47 less expensive per seat than easyJet and £38 cheaper than
Ryanair.

"When all surcharges were excluded, both budget airlines were cheaper
than the BA alternative."

Full report:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141301/Budget-airline-flights-cost-families-87-MORE-booking-mainstream-carriers.html

or: http://tinyurl.com/c8b5v2y

MM

Norman Wells

unread,
May 9, 2012, 8:53:16 AM5/9/12
to
MM wrote:
> "Budget airlines can cost families £87 more per booking than
> mainstream carriers, a report has found.
>
> "Once hidden surcharges for baggage, seat reservations, priority
> boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
> low-cost fares overtook those of their 'expensive' rivals, according
> to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."
...

> "When all surcharges were excluded, both budget airlines were cheaper
> than the BA alternative."

Your thread heading could therefore equally well have been:

"Now we have it! Mainstream airlines are often more expensive than
budget ones".

Why did you choose the version you did?





Ian Jackson

unread,
May 9, 2012, 12:36:43 PM5/9/12
to
In message <2Otqr.453667$ed1.3...@fx04.am4>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
Mail Online's "When all surcharges were excluded, both budget airlines
were cheaper than the BA alternative", while factually correct, is an
odd way of summarising the findings. Surely it should have been "When
all surcharges were included, both budget airlines were dearer than the
BA alternative"?

Or am I missing the point?
--
Ian

Norman Wells

unread,
May 9, 2012, 1:01:10 PM5/9/12
to
You are, because it did say that as well. It covered all bases. It was
everything to all men. See above.


Ian Jackson

unread,
May 9, 2012, 2:30:03 PM5/9/12
to
In message <8txqr.227766$636....@fx30.am4>, Norman Wells
Yes, I know it does.

> It covered all bases. It was everything to all men. See above.
>
With the headline "Budget airline flights 'cost families £87 MORE per
booking than with mainstream carriers'", the object of the article was
hardly likely to be neutral. It was to draw attention that using the
budget airlines was a false economy (which it indeed does indicate). To
then throw in "When all surcharges were excluded, both budget airlines
were cheaper than the BA alternative" is just stating the obvious (but
in an odd sort of way), and simply serves to confuse the reader. I doubt
if this was the author's real intention.
--
Ian

MM

unread,
May 9, 2012, 3:29:01 PM5/9/12
to
It's just sloppy writing. Note, however, that dear old Norman cannot
refute the central point, namely that budget airlines are NOT always
the wonderfully cheap means of travel he constantly portrays them as.

MM

Norman Wells

unread,
May 9, 2012, 3:33:02 PM5/9/12
to
It's absolutely typical of the shoddy old Mail though. Can Ryanair give
you cancer? Does Ryanair cure cancer? Typical articles you might find
on different pages, even on the same date.

Thoughtless, inaccurate, sensationalist journalism on the cheap.

Norman Wells

unread,
May 9, 2012, 3:43:06 PM5/9/12
to
It's just a different pricing model, that's all. With Ryanair you pay
just for what you want off a checklist. With BA you pay for everything
upfront regardless of what you actually use.

If you insist on using all the facilities the airlines offer, you may
get a better deal with BA. If you use only some of those on offer, as
the vast majority of people do, you get a better deal with Ryanair.
Very often you get a much, much better deal. Sometimes, it can indeed
be wonderfully cheap - which it never is with BA.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 9, 2012, 5:22:56 PM5/9/12
to
On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:54:48 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>"Budget airlines can cost families £87 more per booking than
>mainstream carriers, a report has found.
>
>"Once hidden surcharges for baggage, seat reservations, priority
>boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
>low-cost fares overtook those of their ‘expensive’ rivals, according
>to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."
>.

Well of course they *can* cost you more, if you actually want all
those things.

Most of the people using budget airlines don't.


>.
>.
>"Specifically, the report found that from London to Berlin, British
>Airways offered direct flights which were £49 cheaper per seat than
>Ryanair and £15 cheaper than easyJet.
>

But I would be willing to bet that almost everybody flying on those
Ryanair & Easyjet flights paid less then their counterparts on the BA
flight.

Yes, they will have had less services for that, but most of them would
not have wanted the extras.



>"And from London to Barcelona, British Airways offered a direct flight
>that was £47 less expensive per seat than easyJet and £38 cheaper than
>Ryanair.
>
>"When all surcharges were excluded, both budget airlines were cheaper
>than the BA alternative."

That is the important part.

We are flying to Malta from Bristol next week with Ryanair. Although
we bought the trip as a package, the different elements have been
broken down on the invoice.

The total cost for the return flights for the two of us, with one hold
bag and two cabin bags between us is £149. Now BA don't actually fly
Bristol - Malta anyhow, but if they did, I am quite sure the cost
would be more than£75 per person, return.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

Alex Heney

unread,
May 9, 2012, 5:24:42 PM5/9/12
to
It said that in an attempt to prevent complaints that they were making
unfair comparisons.

But by only saying that in a single sentence at the end, it won't have
done much to deflect from the (false) impression given by the article
as a whole.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Mr. Worf, scan that ship." "Aye Captain. 300 dpi?"

Nightjar

unread,
May 9, 2012, 7:35:24 PM5/9/12
to
I was under the impression that when you booked was an important part of
the equation; In general, the nearer to the departure date you get, the
more budget airlines cost and the less main carriers cost. At some point
they usually cross over and the main carriers become cheaper. Certainly
when I frequently flew to Toulouse, usually on a whim of the let's go
down to France this weekend type, and overheard EasyJet passengers
discussing how little they had paid, I had often paid less with BA.

Colin Bignell

AndyW

unread,
May 10, 2012, 3:01:49 AM5/10/12
to
On 09/05/2012 12:54, MM wrote:
> "Once hidden surcharges for baggage, seat reservations, priority
> boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
> low-cost fares overtook those of their ‘expensive’ rivals, according
> to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."

Baggage, seat reservations, priority boarding are all optional charges.
Personally I really don't care to pay for a specified seat or to be
first on the plane (BTW it is pointless to reserve a seat AND want to be
first on the plan in order to get a seat of choice). Often I travel with
hand luggage only on standard and budget flights. At least on budget
flight I don't pay for baggage that I do not use.

You post is meaningless.... so what if they have found budget flights
that, if you look at them in a certain light with every optional extra
added, cost more than scheduled flights? It has always been like that. I
often used to fly BA to Bristol as it was cheaper than EJ (BA has pulled
their route now) If I fly to London on a weekend I prefer to fly BA as
it is cheaper then budget flights.

Nobody has claimed that budget flights are always cheaper than standard
flights.

Andy

MM

unread,
May 10, 2012, 3:57:52 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 20:43:06 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I get a better deal from BA, period.

MM

MM

unread,
May 10, 2012, 4:00:07 AM5/10/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 20:33:02 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On the contrary, an accurate and timely exposé of the true cost of
budget airlines.

MM

MM

unread,
May 10, 2012, 4:14:11 AM5/10/12
to
No? Have a word with Norman and see what he says about that!

And many of the comments from the article say it all, anyway:

1. "Shush! Don't spoil the game! I'm enjoying my cheap and uncrowded
flights on BA and if you tip off the Ryanair users, the jig is up!"

2. "I never fly budget air lines. I have never found a good deal and
it is so convenient flying BA from terminal 5 Heathrow."

3. "I have just booked my holiday for next year and we fly with
easyjet and there is a surcharge for luggage...at £ 31.00 per person
for 20kg...hmmmm rip off !!!...my first time flying with
easyjet....seen the program on TV and that company is not shown in a
good light..."

4. "Anybody with an ounce of common sense would or should know this by
now. Low fares carriers used to be cheap but they are now moving their
fares higher, often more than regular airlines such as BA etc. Do your
homework first, don't just assume they are cheaper as I've recently
found out. A flight to Rome with Ryanair booked by my PA at a cost of
£265 when I could have flown BA for £119 and that INCLUDED baggage.
Best to check and research first!"

5. "I THOUGHT ANYONE WITH A BRAIN ALREADY KNEW THAT? I had no
alternative but to use Ryanair a few weeks ago. Apart from the OTHER
crazy surcharges I had to pay TWO credit card surcharges (Outbound and
Return) although it was ALL paid one ONE credit card transaction!!!
"CONAIR"?"

6. "Not to mention the hugh cost of a taxi from a remotely located
airport that the so called Budget airlines use (with similar sounding
names to the airport used by mainstream airlines who land closer to
the city concerned)."

7. "And why not? If people are stupid enough to believe they can get a
flight for £9.99 and actually get there for that - then they only have
themselves to blame - cheapskates!" [snip]

8. "I have found this in the past so now always try to go with a
decent airline. Plus I have actively boycotted Ryanair due to the way
they treat their disabled customers......actually they don't treat
their able bodied customers that great either!"

9. "That's why I use BA to fly from London to Germany"

10: "Ryanair are a law unto themselves, they promised transparency: it
didn't happen, they charged for using cards unless it was their own,
they defy every ruling and edict that's passed down to them, they are
a horrible company to deal with who pay commission to airport staff
who advise them of any passengers bags they think are oversize because
they don't use the industry standard "if your bag fits in here it can
go in the cabin" measuring cages so if you buy a bag labelled cabin
luggage compatible, it's not because Ryanair say it's not. Fly with
them at your peril!"

Just a snapshot from around a 100 comments. Sure, some of the comments
were complimentary about the budget airlines, but not very many!

MM

Norman Wells

unread,
May 10, 2012, 5:04:06 AM5/10/12
to
No you don't! I showed you last year how you could fly from London to
Hamburg with Ryanair for just £12 return, whereas BA were charging £126,
which is what you paid.

You're kidding yourself.

Norman Wells

unread,
May 10, 2012, 5:05:45 AM5/10/12
to
Which of course is why the article said, quite clearly,:

Norman Wells

unread,
May 10, 2012, 5:37:18 AM5/10/12
to
MM wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:01:49 +0100, AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote:

>> Nobody has claimed that budget flights are always cheaper than
>> standard flights.
>
> No? Have a word with Norman and see what he says about that!

I agree with Andy.

> And many of the comments from the article say it all, anyway:
>
> 1. "Shush! Don't spoil the game! I'm enjoying my cheap and uncrowded
> flights on BA and if you tip off the Ryanair users, the jig is up!"

The 'jig'? Strange, these Mail readers.

> 2. "I never fly budget air lines. I have never found a good deal and
> it is so convenient flying BA from terminal 5 Heathrow."

He's obviously not from outside the EU then, and hasn't been made to
queue for 3 hours to get through immigration..

> 3. "I have just booked my holiday for next year and we fly with
> easyjet and there is a surcharge for luggage...at £ 31.00 per person
> for 20kg...hmmmm rip off !!!...my first time flying with
> easyjet....seen the program on TV and that company is not shown in a
> good light..."

What do you think you pay on BA? Hint: the cost is hidden in the ticket
price, which you pay whether you take hold luggage or not.

> 4. "Anybody with an ounce of common sense would or should know this by
> now. Low fares carriers used to be cheap but they are now moving their
> fares higher, often more than regular airlines such as BA etc. Do your
> homework first, don't just assume they are cheaper as I've recently
> found out. A flight to Rome with Ryanair booked by my PA at a cost of
> £265 when I could have flown BA for £119 and that INCLUDED baggage.
> Best to check and research first!"

When I get my PA to book my next flight I will of course ask her to do
this.

But it's perfectly possible today to fly to Rome and back for just £59
return with Ryanair in July, and that's just after a cursory look and
with no special offers in place.

> 5. "I THOUGHT ANYONE WITH A BRAIN ALREADY KNEW THAT? > I had no
> alternative but to use Ryanair a few weeks ago. Apart from the OTHER
> crazy surcharges I had to pay TWO credit card surcharges (Outbound and
> Return) although it was ALL paid one ONE credit card transaction!!!
> "CONAIR"?"

Get the right card then. It's not hard.

> 6. "Not to mention the hugh cost of a taxi from a remotely located
> airport that the so called Budget airlines use (with similar sounding
> names to the airport used by mainstream airlines who land closer to
> the city concerned)."

Oh my goodness. Didn't nanny check that the route was suitable?

> 7. "And why not? If people are stupid enough to believe they can get a
> flight for £9.99 and actually get there for that - then they only have
> themselves to blame - cheapskates!" [snip]

I have, many times. What do I have to blame myself for?

> 8. "I have found this in the past so now always try to go with a
> decent airline. Plus I have actively boycotted Ryanair due to the way
> they treat their disabled customers......actually they don't treat
> their able bodied customers that great either!"

Found this what?

> 9. "That's why I use BA to fly from London to Germany"

What's why?

> 10: "Ryanair are a law unto themselves, they promised transparency: it
> didn't happen, they charged for using cards unless it was their own,
> they defy every ruling and edict that's passed down to them, they are
> a horrible company to deal with who pay commission to airport staff
> who advise them of any passengers bags they think are oversize because
> they don't use the industry standard "if your bag fits in here it can
> go in the cabin" measuring cages so if you buy a bag labelled cabin
> luggage compatible, it's not because Ryanair say it's not. Fly with
> them at your peril!"

Someone else who can't cope with clear rules who needs to be nannied
then.

> Just a snapshot from around a 100 comments. Sure, some of the comments
> were complimentary about the budget airlines, but not very many!

They're Mail readers, that's why. Incapable of understanding anything,
preferring instead a good old moan about how their incompetence is
someone else's fault.

Ian Jackson

unread,
May 10, 2012, 5:44:53 AM5/10/12
to
In message <KyLqr.11124$2R....@fx19.am4>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
Alternatively...
"When all surcharges were included, both budget airlines were more
expensive than the BA alternative."

In this context, "budget" = cheap, economy, low-cost etc, so to find
that they actually end up by often being MORE expensive than the
old-time major airlines is a bit of a revelation.

It would seem that the only way to benefit from their low basic fares is
to travel in a minimalistic fashion, and avoid as many of the optional
'extras' as you can - things which the other airlines include as
standard, and most travellers expect to be part of the service.

In the end, it's up to each traveller to do the sums, and decide which
is the best deal - but it's important that they are not misled or
deceived by the apparently low prices. And that was the whole point of
the article (I think!).
--
Ian

GB

unread,
May 10, 2012, 6:14:47 AM5/10/12
to
I always look at both BA and the 'low cost' airlines before booking. If I
need to take luggage, which I usually do, BA is usually cheaper. Maybe MM
needs to take luggage, too? There are other factors, such as cost of
transfers, which tend to work in BA's favour as well.

I think that it is helpful that the Mail pointed this out, so some people
who automatically book the low-cost airlines will in future check which is
better for their circumstances.

This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
people are arguing about it?

--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp


Norman Wells

unread,
May 10, 2012, 8:21:15 AM5/10/12
to
GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> MM wrote:
>>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 20:43:06 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's just a different pricing model, that's all. With Ryanair you
>>>> pay just for what you want off a checklist. With BA you pay for
>>>> everything upfront regardless of what you actually use.
>>>>
>>>> If you insist on using all the facilities the airlines offer, you
>>>> may get a better deal with BA. If you use only some of those on
>>>> offer, as the vast majority of people do, you get a better deal
>>>> with Ryanair. Very often you get a much, much better deal.
>>>> Sometimes, it can indeed be wonderfully cheap - which it never is
>>>> with BA.
>>>
>>> I get a better deal from BA, period.
>>
>> No you don't! I showed you last year how you could fly from London
>> to Hamburg with Ryanair for just £12 return, whereas BA were charging
>> £126, which is what you paid.
>>
>> You're kidding yourself.
>
> I always look at both BA and the 'low cost' airlines before booking.
> If I need to take luggage, which I usually do, BA is usually cheaper.
> Maybe MM needs to take luggage, too?

How much can he carry? He'd have had £114 over to cover the cost
anyway.

> There are other factors, such as
> cost of transfers, which tend to work in BA's favour as well.

Depends entirely on where you want to go.

> I think that it is helpful that the Mail pointed this out, so some
> people who automatically book the low-cost airlines will in future
> check which is better for their circumstances.
>
> This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
> people are arguing about it?

It's all so obvious, I don't know why the Mail prints it. Except to
fill up space of course, which seems the only reason for its existence.

MM

unread,
May 10, 2012, 11:10:50 AM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:14:47 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
>people are arguing about it?

Norman will argue about anything you care to mention!

MM

MM

unread,
May 10, 2012, 11:13:26 AM5/10/12
to
Exactly so, and a very good service by the newspaper to inform its
readers of the true state of affairs regarding budget airlines.

MM

Mentalguy2k8

unread,
May 10, 2012, 12:33:28 PM5/10/12
to

"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:simnq7dn2aa6a7jia...@4ax.com...
But he's right.

You've posted a story which clearly states that budget airlines are
sometimes cheaper than BA and sometimes not, as if it backs up your point.
It backs up his point, too.

I'm not sure why you appear to be claiming this as a victory, unless you're
celebrating the fact that you're finally half-right instead of the more
usual completely wrong.

GB

unread,
May 10, 2012, 1:28:10 PM5/10/12
to
I think it is definitely true that Norman will argue about (almost)
anything! And nobody could deny that he's tenacious.

pensive hamster

unread,
May 10, 2012, 3:06:46 PM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 4:13 pm, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 10:44:53 +0100, Ian Jackson
[...]
> >Alternatively...
> >"When all surcharges were included, both budget airlines were more
> >expensive than the BA alternative."
>
> >In this context, "budget" = cheap, economy, low-cost etc, so to find
> >that they actually end up by often being MORE expensive than the
> >old-time major airlines is a bit of a revelation.
>
> >It would seem that the only way to benefit from their low basic fares is
> >to travel in a minimalistic fashion, and avoid as many of the optional
> >'extras' as you can - things which the other airlines include as
> >standard, and most travellers expect to be part of the service.
>
> >In the end, it's up to each traveller to do the sums, and decide which
> >is the best deal - but it's important that they are not misled or
> >deceived by the apparently low prices. And that was the whole point of
> >the article (I think!).
>
> Exactly so, and a very good service by the newspaper to inform its
> readers of the true state of affairs regarding budget airlines.
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h77ln

Thu 10 May 2012 18:30 BBC Radio 4
Tom Wrigglesworth's Open Letters
Series 2: Low-Cost Airline Industry

Sony Award-winning comedian Tom Wrigglesworth performs another of his
open letters. This week Tom turns his attentions to the low-cost
airline industry, as he asks whether they are all they are cracked up
to be. And whether, if he does enough online check-in, he can
legitimately claim to be part-time staff and get an invite to the
Christmas do.


S

unread,
May 10, 2012, 4:25:40 PM5/10/12
to
On May 9, 12:54 pm, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Budget airlines can cost families £87 more per booking than
> mainstream carriers, a report has found.

"Can cost £87 more". But can also cost £87 less. This is really high
quality research that you can only find in the Mail.

> "Once hidden surcharges for baggage, seat reservations, priority
> boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
> low-cost fares overtook those of their ‘expensive’ rivals, according
> to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."
> .
> .
> .
> "Specifically, the report found that  from London to Berlin, British
> Airways offered direct flights which were £49 cheaper per seat than
> Ryanair and £15 cheaper than easyJet.
>
> "And from London to Barcelona, British Airways offered a direct flight
> that was £47 less expensive per seat than easyJet and £38 cheaper than
> Ryanair.
>
> "When all surcharges were excluded, both budget airlines were cheaper
> than the BA alternative."
>
> Full report:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2141301/Budget-airline-flight...
>
> or:http://tinyurl.com/c8b5v2y
>

So the conclusion is that you should check all the possibilities.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 10, 2012, 5:00:22 PM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:14:47 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

Because there are morons on here who are utterly anti low cost
airlines, and will take any and every opportunity to detract from
them.

And there are some who are over-evangelical about the low cost
airlines.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Thesaurus: ancient reptile with an excellent vocabulary.

Alex Heney

unread,
May 10, 2012, 5:13:45 PM5/10/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 09:14:11 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 May 2012 08:01:49 +0100, AndyW <An...@NoJunqMail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 09/05/2012 12:54, MM wrote:
>>> "Once hidden surcharges for baggage, seat reservations, priority
>>> boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
>>> low-cost fares overtook those of their ‘expensive’ rivals, according
>>> to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."
>>
>>Baggage, seat reservations, priority boarding are all optional charges.
>>Personally I really don't care to pay for a specified seat or to be
>>first on the plane (BTW it is pointless to reserve a seat AND want to be
>>first on the plan in order to get a seat of choice). Often I travel with
>>hand luggage only on standard and budget flights. At least on budget
>>flight I don't pay for baggage that I do not use.
>>
>>You post is meaningless.... so what if they have found budget flights
>>that, if you look at them in a certain light with every optional extra
>>added, cost more than scheduled flights? It has always been like that. I
>>often used to fly BA to Bristol as it was cheaper than EJ (BA has pulled
>>their route now) If I fly to London on a weekend I prefer to fly BA as
>>it is cheaper then budget flights.
>>
>>Nobody has claimed that budget flights are always cheaper than standard
>>flights.
>
>No? Have a word with Norman and see what he says about that!
>

Try searching his posts.

I am certainly not aware of him ever having said that budget airlines
are always cheaper.

>And many of the comments from the article say it all, anyway:
>

There may be some morons around who believe that to be true.


>1. "Shush! Don't spoil the game! I'm enjoying my cheap and uncrowded
>flights on BA and if you tip off the Ryanair users, the jig is up!"

A deliberate and obvious joke, which you seem to have missed.


>
>2. "I never fly budget air lines. I have never found a good deal and
>it is so convenient flying BA from terminal 5 Heathrow."

Nobody has ever said budget airlines are always cheaper.

>
>3. "I have just booked my holiday for next year and we fly with
>easyjet and there is a surcharge for luggage...at £ 31.00 per person
>for 20kg...hmmmm rip off !!!...my first time flying with
>easyjet....seen the program on TV and that company is not shown in a
>good light..."

That is because the TV program set out to show them in a bad light. It
is how those "consumer" programs work.


>
>4. "Anybody with an ounce of common sense would or should know this by
>now. Low fares carriers used to be cheap but they are now moving their
>fares higher, often more than regular airlines such as BA etc. Do your
>homework first, don't just assume they are cheaper as I've recently
>found out. A flight to Rome with Ryanair booked by my PA at a cost of
>£265 when I could have flown BA for £119 and that INCLUDED baggage.
>Best to check and research first!"
>

Nobody has ever said the budget airlines are always cheaper.


>5. "I THOUGHT ANYONE WITH A BRAIN ALREADY KNEW THAT? I had no
>alternative but to use Ryanair a few weeks ago. Apart from the OTHER
>crazy surcharges I had to pay TWO credit card surcharges (Outbound and
>Return) although it was ALL paid one ONE credit card transaction!!!
>"CONAIR"?"
>


Nobody has ever said the budget airlines are always cheaper.


>6. "Not to mention the hugh cost of a taxi from a remotely located
>airport that the so called Budget airlines use (with similar sounding
>names to the airport used by mainstream airlines who land closer to
>the city concerned)."
>

Well if you are stupid enough to fly to somewhere you don't want to
be, and then stupid enough to pay for a taxi on top, that is your own
fault.

Most of the "remote" airports are no worse than flying to "London"
Stansted or ""London" Gatwick.

And of course, a lot of people aren't actually heading for the nearest
large city anyhow, and the remote airport may actually be better (e.g.
last time we flew with Ryanair, we flew into Bergamo - not quite as
convenient for Milan as the other "Milan" airports, but much more
convenient for the Dolomites which was where we were heading.


>7. "And why not? If people are stupid enough to believe they can get a
>flight for £9.99 and actually get there for that - then they only have
>themselves to blame - cheapskates!" [snip]
>
>8. "I have found this in the past so now always try to go with a
>decent airline. Plus I have actively boycotted Ryanair due to the way
>they treat their disabled customers......actually they don't treat
>their able bodied customers that great either!"
>
>9. "That's why I use BA to fly from London to Germany"
>
>10: "Ryanair are a law unto themselves, they promised transparency: it
>didn't happen, they charged for using cards unless it was their own,
>they defy every ruling and edict that's passed down to them, they are
>a horrible company to deal with who pay commission to airport staff
>who advise them of any passengers bags they think are oversize because
>they don't use the industry standard "if your bag fits in here it can
>go in the cabin" measuring cages so if you buy a bag labelled cabin
>luggage compatible, it's not because Ryanair say it's not. Fly with
>them at your peril!"
>

Most of this one is just plain lies. They will push rules to the
limit, but they obey the laws. They have not defied any ruing or edict
to my knowledge.


>Just a snapshot from around a 100 comments. Sure, some of the comments
>were complimentary about the budget airlines, but not very many!
>

Naturally.

If you can find *any* online article which is critical of some
business that has more complimentary responses than critical, I would
be amazed.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Man who run behind car get exhausted.

AndyW

unread,
May 11, 2012, 3:12:41 AM5/11/12
to
On 10/05/2012 11:14, GB wrote:

> This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
> people are arguing about it?

Because this is Usenet, it is what we do here.

Andy

AndyW

unread,
May 11, 2012, 3:27:02 AM5/11/12
to
On 10/05/2012 09:14, MM wrote:

> No? Have a word with Norman and see what he says about that!
>
> And many of the comments from the article say it all, anyway:

I think that they say more about the posters than the airlines.
I am a tart and I travel with whoever suits me best (usually on price
and timings). I love RA - I have been to Norway for Ł10 return with them
twice, Czech Republic for Ł30 return all in.
BA is great to London, KLM has great deal out of season to Amsterdam....
I go where the best deal is generally that is budget where I get what I
pay for and pay for what I use.
On BA I pay for luggage that I don't use (I generally on do carry-on) I
get a meal that I don't eat and reserved seating that is not really
necessary (I'm short and even fit in the middle seats).

I have seen people complain bitterly at airports about the rip-off
budget airlines but in many cases they have well overweight luggage,
have turned up too late or arrive at the airport without any thought of
how to get to their final destination and demand that RA/EJ sort it out
for them.

Andy

AndyW

unread,
May 11, 2012, 3:38:51 AM5/11/12
to
On 10/05/2012 10:37, Norman Wells wrote:

>> 6. "Not to mention the hugh cost of a taxi from a remotely located
>> airport that the so called Budget airlines use (with similar sounding
>> names to the airport used by mainstream airlines who land closer to
>> the city concerned)."
>
> Oh my goodness. Didn't nanny check that the route was suitable?

Strange that these airports do not have a bus service, most of the
airports I have travelled to have. Torp into Oslo was frequent and cheap
(the taxi was extortionate) Bratislava airport to Vienna was quick,
cheap and easy. The taxi would have been astronomical as it crosses a
national boundary.

>> 7. "And why not? If people are stupid enough to believe they can get a
>> flight for £9.99 and actually get there for that - then they only have
>> themselves to blame - cheapskates!" [snip]
>
> I have, many times. What do I have to blame myself for?

ditto


>> 10: "Ryanair are a law unto themselves, they promised transparency: it
>> didn't happen,

It did. I know how much my luggage allowance it up front and the costs
for extras. I know how much it costs to book by various cards and I know
where the airport is in relation to my final destination, I know my
carry-on weights and dimensions, I know my on-line check in charges. It
is all made clear during the booking process.

Andy

MM

unread,
May 11, 2012, 3:50:17 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 17:33:28 +0100, "Mentalguy2k8"
<Mental...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:simnq7dn2aa6a7jia...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:14:47 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
>>>people are arguing about it?
>>
>> Norman will argue about anything you care to mention!
>
>But he's right.

No, he is not.

>You've posted a story which clearly states that budget airlines are
>sometimes cheaper than BA and sometimes not, as if it backs up your point.
>It backs up his point, too.

No, it doesn't, since his point was hitherto that budget airlines were
always better value, and now he has been called to account over his
befuddlement.

>I'm not sure why you appear to be claiming this as a victory, unless you're
>celebrating the fact that you're finally half-right instead of the more
>usual completely wrong.

Because it most certainly IS a victory, in that Norman will no longer
be able to propagandize for the budget airlines. People have seen
through the 'emperor has no clothes' situation at last. Me, I saw
through it years ago after a particularly nasty experience with
RyanNowhere-that-you've heard-of.

MM

MM

unread,
May 11, 2012, 3:50:46 AM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 18:28:10 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>Mentalguy2k8 wrote:
>> "MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:simnq7dn2aa6a7jia...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 11:14:47 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand
>>>> why people are arguing about it?
>>>
>>> Norman will argue about anything you care to mention!
>>
>> But he's right.
>>
>> You've posted a story which clearly states that budget airlines are
>> sometimes cheaper than BA and sometimes not, as if it backs up your
>> point. It backs up his point, too.
>>
>> I'm not sure why you appear to be claiming this as a victory, unless
>> you're celebrating the fact that you're finally half-right instead of
>> the more usual completely wrong.
>
>I think it is definitely true that Norman will argue about (almost)
>anything! And nobody could deny that he's tenacious.

So are crabs. No-one wants crabs.

MM

GB

unread,
May 11, 2012, 4:35:35 AM5/11/12
to
AndyW wrote:

> or arrive at the airport without any thought
> of how to get to their final destination and demand that RA/EJ sort
> it out for them.

That's probably because they thought that they were flying to their final
destination, rather than some place 100 miles away. I agree that they could
have found out before they booked, but it's a hard way to learn that lesson.