info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Now we have it! Budget airlines are often more expensive than mainstream ones
13 views
Skip to first unread message
MM
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
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
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."
...
> "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:
> than the BA alternative."
"Now we have it! Mainstream airlines are often more expensive than
budget ones".
Why did you choose the version you did?
Ian Jackson
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
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
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
May 9, 2012, 1:01:10 PM5/9/12
to
everything to all men. See above.
Ian Jackson
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
> It covered all bases. It was everything to all men. See above.
>
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
May 9, 2012, 3:29:01 PM5/9/12
to
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
May 9, 2012, 3:33:02 PM5/9/12
to
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
May 9, 2012, 3:43:06 PM5/9/12
to
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
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
>"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."
>.
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.
>
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."
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
May 9, 2012, 5:24:42 PM5/9/12
to
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?"
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Nightjar
May 9, 2012, 7:35:24 PM5/9/12
to
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
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.
> boarding and administrative services were added, the seemingly
> low-cost fares overtook those of their ‘expensive’ rivals, according
> to comparison website Idealo.co.uk."
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
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
wrote:
MM
MM
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
wrote:
budget airlines.
MM
MM
May 10, 2012, 4:14:11 AM5/10/12
to
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
May 10, 2012, 5:04:06 AM5/10/12
to
Hamburg with Ryanair for just £12 return, whereas BA were charging £126,
which is what you paid.
You're kidding yourself.
Norman Wells
May 10, 2012, 5:05:45 AM5/10/12
to
Norman Wells
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.
> 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!
> 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."
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..."
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!"
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"?"
> 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!"
then.
> Just a snapshot from around a 100 comments. Sure, some of the comments
> were complimentary about the budget airlines, but not very many!
preferring instead a good old moan about how their incompetence is
someone else's fault.
Ian Jackson
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
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
"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
May 10, 2012, 6:14:47 AM5/10/12
to
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
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
> 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?
anyway.
> 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?
fill up space of course, which seems the only reason for its existence.
MM
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
wrote:
>This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
>people are arguing about it?
MM
MM
May 10, 2012, 11:13:26 AM5/10/12
to
readers of the true state of affairs regarding budget airlines.
MM
Mentalguy2k8
May 10, 2012, 12:33:28 PM5/10/12
to
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:simnq7dn2aa6a7jia...@4ax.com...
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
May 10, 2012, 1:28:10 PM5/10/12
to
anything! And nobody could deny that he's tenacious.
pensive hamster
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
[...]
> 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
> >"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.
>
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
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
> "Budget airlines can cost families £87 more per booking than
> mainstream carriers, a report has found.
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.
>
> .
> .
> "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...
> than the BA alternative."
>
>
> or:http://tinyurl.com/c8b5v2y
>
So the conclusion is that you should check all the possibilities.
Alex Heney
May 10, 2012, 5:00:22 PM5/10/12
to
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, Global Villager
Alex Heney
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.
>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!
>
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:
>
>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..."
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!"
>
>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)."
>
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!"
>
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!
>
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.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
AndyW
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.
> This all seems such unarguable good sense that I cannot understand why
> people are arguing about it?
Andy
AndyW
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.
> 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 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
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
>> 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?
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?
>> 10: "Ryanair are a law unto themselves, they promised transparency: it
>> didn't happen,
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
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.
<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.
>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.
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.
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
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
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.
MM
GB
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
> 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.
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.
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 5:22:45 AM5/11/12
to
GB wrote:
> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a budget
> 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.
airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
> I agree
> that they could have found out before they booked, but it's a hard
> way to learn that lesson.
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 5:30:58 AM5/11/12
to
MM wrote:
> 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,
You'll be able to quote my exact words then, won't you?
> 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,
But you won't be able to because it isn't true.
> 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.
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 5:33:01 AM5/11/12
to
GB
May 11, 2012, 5:43:59 AM5/11/12
to
Norman Wells wrote:
> GB wrote:
>> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a
> budget airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
Poetic licence.
> GB wrote:
>> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a
> budget airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
>
>> I agree
>> that they could have found out before they booked, but it's a hard
>> way to learn that lesson.
>
> Then they should stay in the nursery with nanny where they'll be safe.
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 6:04:48 AM5/11/12
to
GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a
>> budget airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
>
> Poetic licence.
The question is what does MM's licence say, and how far does it go?
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a
>> budget airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
>
> Poetic licence.
I doubt if it extends 100 miles.
Cynic
May 11, 2012, 7:50:08 AM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:35:35 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
Yes, it must be tough when you choose a train because it had the
cheapest fare, but after you get off you discover that a taxi from
Glasgow (the train's destination) to Brighton (where you wanted to go)
is so expensive.
ISTM that one of the most fundamental preparations you make before
deciding what ticket to get is to see where the destination airport is
located in relation to your final destination - after which you find
out how long and how much that part of the journey will cost you. You
should also find out which airport the aircraft will depart from and
the cost and time to get there from your home. Air travel usually
involves 3 different journies *all* of which must be considered in
terms of time and cost.
You can also do things the other way about if your final destination
is secondary to the amount your trip will cost. Start by looking for
nice places to stay that are close to the airports to which you can
get a cheap ticket. Usually it is cheaper to stay at places that are
closer to the minor airports used by the budget airlines than the big
cities.
--
Cynic
cheapest fare, but after you get off you discover that a taxi from
Glasgow (the train's destination) to Brighton (where you wanted to go)
is so expensive.
ISTM that one of the most fundamental preparations you make before
deciding what ticket to get is to see where the destination airport is
located in relation to your final destination - after which you find
out how long and how much that part of the journey will cost you. You
should also find out which airport the aircraft will depart from and
the cost and time to get there from your home. Air travel usually
involves 3 different journies *all* of which must be considered in
terms of time and cost.
You can also do things the other way about if your final destination
is secondary to the amount your trip will cost. Start by looking for
nice places to stay that are close to the airports to which you can
get a cheap ticket. Usually it is cheaper to stay at places that are
closer to the minor airports used by the budget airlines than the big
cities.
--
Cynic
Steve Firth
May 11, 2012, 7:56:06 AM5/11/12
to
MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> People have seen
> through the 'emperor has no clothes' situation at last.
Yes, the majors really do suffer from EHNC syndrome. £200 extra on sticker
> People have seen
> through the 'emperor has no clothes' situation at last.
for "free" booze and food the cat sicked up.
> Me, I saw through it years ago
> after a particularly nasty experience with
> RyanNowhere-that-you've heard-of.
arrogant to think that rules could ever apply to you.
Steve Firth
May 11, 2012, 7:56:06 AM5/11/12
to
MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> 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)."
Here's a clue, look up where an airport is before you fly to a city.
> 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)."
Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as Bristol Airport.
If flying to Rome the airport preferred by the majors (Fiumicino) is
further from ones destination than Ciampino, unless you really want to
visit Ostia and not Rome.
I like the fact that Ryanair fly to smaller airports where the charges for
hire cars are usually lower, and the airport is closer to my destination.
I'm not obsessed with visiting capital cities and my experience is that
majors dump me miles from where I want to be.
Paul Cummins
May 11, 2012, 9:10:00 AM5/11/12
to
We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
came up to me and whispered:
> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
> Bristol Airport.
I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
came up to me and whispered:
> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
> Bristol Airport.
Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx
---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
Steve Firth
May 11, 2012, 11:22:41 AM5/11/12
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a
>> budget airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
>
> Poetic licence.
It doesn't rhyme or scan.
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> 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 doubt it. Find me an example of _any_ airport advertised by a
>> budget airline that is 100 miles away from where it purports to be.
>
> Poetic licence.
Your licence shod be revoked.
Steve Firth
May 11, 2012, 11:22:41 AM5/11/12
to
destination should be compensated for their stupidity?
Do these people really think that an airport is always in the centre of the
city they wish to visit?
GB
May 11, 2012, 3:32:36 PM5/11/12
to
Cynic wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:35:35 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> 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.
>
> Yes, it must be tough when you choose a train because it had the
> cheapest fare, but after you get off you discover that a taxi from
> Glasgow (the train's destination) to Brighton (where you wanted to go)
> is so expensive.
>
> ISTM that one of the most fundamental preparations you make before
> deciding what ticket to get is to see where the destination airport is
> located in relation to your final destination - after which you find
> out how long and how much that part of the journey will cost you. You
> should also find out which airport the aircraft will depart from and
> the cost and time to get there from your home. Air travel usually
> involves 3 different journies *all* of which must be considered in
> terms of time and cost.
Yes, yes, yes. You are a well-above-average IQ person, but that is not a
> On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:35:35 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
> 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.
>
> Yes, it must be tough when you choose a train because it had the
> cheapest fare, but after you get off you discover that a taxi from
> Glasgow (the train's destination) to Brighton (where you wanted to go)
> is so expensive.
>
> ISTM that one of the most fundamental preparations you make before
> deciding what ticket to get is to see where the destination airport is
> located in relation to your final destination - after which you find
> out how long and how much that part of the journey will cost you. You
> should also find out which airport the aircraft will depart from and
> the cost and time to get there from your home. Air travel usually
> involves 3 different journies *all* of which must be considered in
> terms of time and cost.
pre-requisite for air travel, and the idea of consumer legislation is to
protect the less fortunate. You don't need protecting, as you are quite
wealthy and quite resourceful. You also are on your guard, so you won't be
caught out, but you are well able to fend for yourself in any case.
Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7 miles
to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
Supposing you were less astute, you would be surprised to find out that you
have actually been flown into somewhere called Frankfurt Hahn, which is 2
hours away from Frankfurt (according to wikipedia). That is 2 hours drive in
a car, not donkey, camel, or horse-back. It's nonsense to call the airport
Frankfurt-anything! Not only nonsense, but deliberately-misleading
thievery - and let them sue me if they wish. It's in a place called
Lautzenhausen, which is closer to Luxembourg than it is to Frankfurt. It is
125 km (which is damn close to 100 miles, Norman!) from Frankfurt.
To call it Frankfurt-anything is a deliberate attempt to mislead people. As
I said, sue me if you wish, but remember Mac-libel, and I will defend
vigorously!
>
> You can also do things the other way about if your final destination
> is secondary to the amount your trip will cost. Start by looking for
> nice places to stay that are close to the airports to which you can
> get a cheap ticket. Usually it is cheaper to stay at places that are
> closer to the minor airports used by the budget airlines than the big
> cities.
--
GB
May 11, 2012, 3:38:43 PM5/11/12
to
Paul Cummins wrote:
> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>> Bristol Airport.
>
> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>
> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>
> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>
>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>> Bristol Airport.
>
> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>
> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>
> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just lying-air.
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 4:35:40 PM5/11/12
to
GB wrote:
> Paul Cummins wrote:
>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>
>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>> Bristol Airport.
>>
>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>
>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>
>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>
> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
> lying-air.
Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on budget
> Paul Cummins wrote:
>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>
>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>> Bristol Airport.
>>
>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>
>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>
>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>
> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
> lying-air.
airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the airports do:
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
themselves?
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 4:41:53 PM5/11/12
to
GB wrote:
> Yes, yes, yes. You are a well-above-average IQ person, but that is
> not a pre-requisite for air travel, and the idea of consumer
> legislation is to protect the less fortunate. You don't need
> protecting, as you are quite wealthy and quite resourceful. You also
> are on your guard, so you won't be caught out, but you are well able
> to fend for yourself in any case.
> Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7
> miles to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
>
> Supposing you were less astute, you would be surprised to find out
> that you have actually been flown into somewhere called Frankfurt
> Hahn, which is 2 hours away from Frankfurt (according to wikipedia).
> That is 2 hours drive in a car, not donkey, camel, or horse-back.
> It's nonsense to call the airport Frankfurt-anything! Not only
> nonsense, but deliberately-misleading thievery - and let them sue me
> if they wish. It's in a place called Lautzenhausen, which is closer
> to Luxembourg than it is to Frankfurt. It is 125 km (which is damn
> close to 100 miles, Norman!) from Frankfurt.
What are Ryanair supposed to call it if not the proper name the airport
> Yes, yes, yes. You are a well-above-average IQ person, but that is
> not a pre-requisite for air travel, and the idea of consumer
> legislation is to protect the less fortunate. You don't need
> protecting, as you are quite wealthy and quite resourceful. You also
> are on your guard, so you won't be caught out, but you are well able
> to fend for yourself in any case.
> Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7
> miles to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
>
> Supposing you were less astute, you would be surprised to find out
> that you have actually been flown into somewhere called Frankfurt
> Hahn, which is 2 hours away from Frankfurt (according to wikipedia).
> That is 2 hours drive in a car, not donkey, camel, or horse-back.
> It's nonsense to call the airport Frankfurt-anything! Not only
> nonsense, but deliberately-misleading thievery - and let them sue me
> if they wish. It's in a place called Lautzenhausen, which is closer
> to Luxembourg than it is to Frankfurt. It is 125 km (which is damn
> close to 100 miles, Norman!) from Frankfurt.
has?
Frankfurt-Hahn is what it's called:
http://www.hahn-airport.de/default.aspx?cc=en&menu=passengers_visitors
Tony Dragon
May 11, 2012, 4:57:40 PM5/11/12
to
On 09/05/2012 12:54, MM wrote:
> "Budget airlines can cost families £87 more per booking than
> mainstream carriers, a report has found.
>
> 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."
> 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
> .
> .
> "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:
>
> or: http://tinyurl.com/c8b5v2y
>
> MM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg0lUYHHFc
Alex Heney
May 11, 2012, 5:16:27 PM5/11/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 08:50:17 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
presumably you can find a number of posts where he has said that?
No?
Thought not.
I do not recall him EVER saying any such thing.
>
>>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.
ever has.
And if you believe that it would be some sort of ""victory" to stop
him, then you have no place in British society.
> 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.
>
Well done.
Now perhaps you could move on a level, and try to "see through"
something obviously false that some people *have* claimed - such as
that supermarkets manage to both rip us off and be too cheap at the
same time :)
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Next time you wave at me, use more than one finger, please.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
GB
May 11, 2012, 5:48:06 PM5/11/12
to
immediately assumed that I was referring to Ryanair. Why would that be,
Norman?
Norman Wells
May 11, 2012, 5:51:58 PM5/11/12
to
GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>>>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>>>> Bristol Airport.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>>>
>>>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>>>
>>>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>>>
>>> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
>>> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
>>> lying-air.
>>
>> Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on
>> budget airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the
>> airports do:
>> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
>>
>> What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
>> themselves?
>
> I referred to lying-air, meaning the airports, of course. Yet, you
> immediately assumed that I was referring to Ryanair. Why would that
> be, Norman?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=lyingair
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>>>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>>>> Bristol Airport.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>>>
>>>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>>>
>>>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>>>
>>> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
>>> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
>>> lying-air.
>>
>> Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on
>> budget airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the
>> airports do:
>> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
>>
>> What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
>> themselves?
>
> I referred to lying-air, meaning the airports, of course. Yet, you
> immediately assumed that I was referring to Ryanair. Why would that
> be, Norman?
GB
May 11, 2012, 6:00:42 PM5/11/12
to
Alex Heney wrote:
> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the little
traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need to take any of
the dreaded L-word with you.
They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination without
any specific warning that the airport just happens to share the name with
your destination, rather than it's location.
Why bother with them?
GB
May 11, 2012, 6:04:26 PM5/11/12
to
be synonymous with poor service and customer dissatisfaction. How could that
be?
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 4:07:12 AM5/12/12
to
GB wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>
> That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
> provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the
> little traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need
> to take any of the dreaded L-word with you.
>
> They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination
> without any specific warning that the airport just happens to share
> the name with your destination, rather than it's location.
Ryanair fly to airports that are where they are and are called what
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>
> That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
> provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the
> little traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need
> to take any of the dreaded L-word with you.
>
> They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination
> without any specific warning that the airport just happens to share
> the name with your destination, rather than it's location.
they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented any
other name. Moreover, where they are might be very near to where you
want to end up. It all depends on where you want to go.
And there's nothing wrong with small airports. Less walking, less
hassle, less stacking, less waiting for immigration, fewer delays,
easier car parking, easier transport to name but a few.
> Why bother with them?
What, you want to know what else the Ryanairs have ever done for us?
Well, there's cheap flights, online check-ins, pre-printed boarding
cards, more places to fly to, half hour check-in times, record
punctuality, newer planes, fewer carousel delays if you do take luggage
because not many do, not having to pay up front for things you don't
use... oh, it goes on.
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 4:12:14 AM5/12/12
to
similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
territory.
MM
May 12, 2012, 6:34:41 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:07:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>GB wrote:
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>>
>> That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
>> provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the
>> little traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need
>> to take any of the dreaded L-word with you.
>>
>> They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination
>> without any specific warning that the airport just happens to share
>> the name with your destination, rather than it's location.
>
>Ryanair fly to airports that are where they are and are called what
>they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented any
>other name.
Utter nonsense. Ryanair flies to *Lübeck*, yet it claims this is
"Hamburg Lübeck", even though Lübeck has NOTHING TO DO with Hamburg
and is many miles distant from it.
Same for "Frankfurt Hahn". Hahn is EIGHTY (80) miles distant from
Frankfurth am Main. The AA measures the journey as taking
approximately 1hr 23m by road.
And you have the gall to suggest it "would" be a deception!!
MM
wrote:
>GB wrote:
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>>
>> That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
>> provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the
>> little traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need
>> to take any of the dreaded L-word with you.
>>
>> They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination
>> without any specific warning that the airport just happens to share
>> the name with your destination, rather than it's location.
>
>Ryanair fly to airports that are where they are and are called what
>they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented any
>other name.
"Hamburg Lübeck", even though Lübeck has NOTHING TO DO with Hamburg
and is many miles distant from it.
Same for "Frankfurt Hahn". Hahn is EIGHTY (80) miles distant from
Frankfurth am Main. The AA measures the journey as taking
approximately 1hr 23m by road.
And you have the gall to suggest it "would" be a deception!!
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 6:37:26 AM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:32:36 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7 miles
>to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
However, it's EIGHTY miles from Frankfurt to what Ryanair calls
"Frankfurt".
MM
wrote:
>Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7 miles
>to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
"Frankfurt".
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 6:45:21 AM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:41:53 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>What are Ryanair supposed to call it if not the proper name the airport
>has?
>
>Frankfurt-Hahn is what it's called:
It could point out on its web page that Hahn is EIGHTY miles away from
the shops in Frankfurt city. Instead, its overview of *Frankfurt*
(i.e.not Hahn) mentions the shop opening hours, the population
(670,000), the gleaming skyscrapers, and other such advertising
bunkum.
Hahn has a population of 165, probably fewer than in my street.
MM
wrote:
>What are Ryanair supposed to call it if not the proper name the airport
>has?
>
>Frankfurt-Hahn is what it's called:
the shops in Frankfurt city. Instead, its overview of *Frankfurt*
(i.e.not Hahn) mentions the shop opening hours, the population
(670,000), the gleaming skyscrapers, and other such advertising
bunkum.
Hahn has a population of 165, probably fewer than in my street.
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 6:49:37 AM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:35:40 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Why don't RyanUnclear put it like this:
Frankfurt-Hahn*
*Airport is approximately eighty miles distant from the city of
Frankfurt am Main.
MM
wrote:
Frankfurt-Hahn*
*Airport is approximately eighty miles distant from the city of
Frankfurt am Main.
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 6:52:13 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:12:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
>There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
>territory.
Hasn't worked for Tesco, has it? For many years, that complacent
company thought it could get away with anything, but now it's having
to pull its socks up -- thanks to people like me, who have pointed
out the misery of shopping there.
MM
wrote:
>There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
>territory.
company thought it could get away with anything, but now it's having
to pull its socks up -- thanks to people like me, who have pointed
out the misery of shopping there.
MM
Steve Firth
May 12, 2012, 7:14:44 AM5/12/12
to
MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
> >themselves?
>
> Why don't RyanUnclear put it like this:
>
> Frankfurt-Hahn*
>
> *Airport is approximately eighty miles distant from the city of
> Frankfurt am Main.
Why don't dumbarses go to Google, type in "Frankfurt-Hahn" and have a
> >What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
> >themselves?
>
> Why don't RyanUnclear put it like this:
>
> Frankfurt-Hahn*
>
> *Airport is approximately eighty miles distant from the city of
> Frankfurt am Main.
look at where it is?
Are you really so stupid that you fly to an airport in a different
country without bothering to check transport links and timetables?
Are you really so stupid that you don't click the prominent link on the
Ryanair webpage "More information about Frankfurt Hahn" that is shown
when one selects "Frankfurt-Hahn" as a destination and then read the
following:
"Frankfurt-Hahn is located approximately 124 km from the city of
Frankfurt in the low mountain range area Hunsrück and the federal state
Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate). There is no rail service to the
airport. There is a coach service connecting Hahn Airport to
Neu-Isenburg, Offenbach and Hanau for EUR 8. Other shuttle bus services
connect the airport with Frankfurt-city centre, Trier, Koblenz, Mainz,
Worms and other towns."
Steve Firth
May 12, 2012, 7:33:58 AM5/12/12
to
had any effect other than to make readers think that you'e a whiny-arsed
fucker.
Steve Firth
May 12, 2012, 7:33:58 AM5/12/12
to
Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
> out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
> give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
> always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
> territory.
There are many, as you say notably Daily Mail readers, who seem to think
> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
> out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
> give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
> always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
> territory.
that flying with a budget airline is a social stigma. I fly with Ryanair
quite often, I have done ever since they opened flights to an airport
just 15 minutes from my home. They even fly to two other nearby airports
(about an hour's drive to each) so that I have a good choice of routes,
times, airport destinations and importantly to me hire car companies
(not all aiports have a good range of companies supplying hire cars).
I cost out a reasonable range of flights before I travel and it comes
down to a fairly simply Easyjet from Bristol or Ryanair from Stansted
decision each time. Heathrow, Gatwick and a regional airport are closer,
however flights with any of the major, flybe etc. have the unfortunate
characteristic of taking me to somewhere I don't want to be, usually via
somewhere I don't want to go via. Mostly the majors fly to Fiumicino,
the vilest of Rome airports with high charges and lying, stealing hire
car operators. A ticket from a major costs about £300 give or take a few
quid and deposits me a long way from home - about 90 minutes or so. The
Ryanair flight costs £68 return and gets me to a destination just a few
minutes from home.
Perhaps this is why, when I fly, the majority of passengers travelling
with me are TV celebrities, MPs, Euro MPs, Lawyers, Architects etc?
There doesn't seem to be much of a match to the Daily Heil stereotype of
chavs on a budget other than at the start and end of school holidays.
MM's major annoyance with Ryanair seems to be that he's too stupid to
look up where an airport is. I guess from his frequent whining about it
that his trips to Germany are always to Frankfurt, which makes me a bit
queasy since I spend "quite a bit of time" near there and the thought of
sharing meatspace with the Multiple Misanthrope does make my gorge rise.
FWIW, Hahn suits my needs if I fly to the area, but then my friends live
in the country, not in Frankfurt itself and since I need a hire car when
I travel the distance from Frankfurt is not an issue. The proximity to
Luxembourg is also handy.
GB
May 12, 2012, 7:49:03 AM5/12/12
to
Norman Wells wrote:
>
> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
> out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
> give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
> always be those who try to bring you down.
Or if you promise to be cheap but turn out to provide an expensive and poor
>
> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
> out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
> give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
> always be those who try to bring you down.
service (for some customers!), you can expect a very small proportion of the
disgruntled ones to make disparaging comments.
I don't want to go through the same old comments again, but you have to
admit that the number of google hits indicates that there must be quite a
lot of people out there who are not RA fans.
> I guess it goes with the
> territory.
customers!). I'd be surprised if you found a similar non-fan base for John
Lewis, say, another very successful company. That is because JL go out of
their way to manage customer expectations and satisfy them.
GB
May 12, 2012, 7:50:38 AM5/12/12
to
socks up and give more attention to their home market.
GB
May 12, 2012, 7:59:52 AM5/12/12
to
Steve Firth wrote:
> FWIW, Hahn suits my needs if I fly to the area, but then my friends
> live in the country, not in Frankfurt itself and since I need a hire
> car when I travel the distance from Frankfurt is not an issue. The
> proximity to Luxembourg is also handy.
I flew Ryanair to Ireland a few times, and I was pleased to find that the
> FWIW, Hahn suits my needs if I fly to the area, but then my friends
> live in the country, not in Frankfurt itself and since I need a hire
> car when I travel the distance from Frankfurt is not an issue. The
> proximity to Luxembourg is also handy.
airport was exactly in the position the map said it was supposed to be. It
was rather expensive, though.
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 8:57:48 AM5/12/12
to
GB wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing,
>> laugh out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them.
>> If you give the public what they want and are very successful, there
>> will always be those who try to bring you down.
>
> Or if you promise to be cheap but turn out to provide an expensive
> and poor service (for some customers!), you can expect a very small
> proportion of the disgruntled ones to make disparaging comments.
>
> I don't want to go through the same old comments again, but you have
> to admit that the number of google hits indicates that there must be
> quite a lot of people out there who are not RA fans.
>
>
>> I guess it goes with the
>> territory.
>
> It goes with significantly not meeting customer expectations (for some
> customers!). I'd be surprised if you found a similar non-fan base
> for John Lewis, say, another very successful company. That is because
> JL go out of their way to manage customer expectations and satisfy
> them.
It seems totally unreasonable to me that anyone who sets out to be the
> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing,
>> laugh out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them.
>> If you give the public what they want and are very successful, there
>> will always be those who try to bring you down.
>
> Or if you promise to be cheap but turn out to provide an expensive
> and poor service (for some customers!), you can expect a very small
> proportion of the disgruntled ones to make disparaging comments.
>
> I don't want to go through the same old comments again, but you have
> to admit that the number of google hits indicates that there must be
> quite a lot of people out there who are not RA fans.
>
>
>> I guess it goes with the
>> territory.
>
> It goes with significantly not meeting customer expectations (for some
> customers!). I'd be surprised if you found a similar non-fan base
> for John Lewis, say, another very successful company. That is because
> JL go out of their way to manage customer expectations and satisfy
> them.
cheapest should be criticised for cutting unnecessary costs to become
so.
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 9:04:34 AM5/12/12
to
MM wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:07:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Ryanair fly to airports that are where they are and are called what
>> they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented
>> any other name.
>
> Utter nonsense. Ryanair flies to *Lübeck*, yet it claims this is
> "Hamburg Lübeck", even though Lübeck has NOTHING TO DO with Hamburg
> and is many miles distant from it.
But they don't fly there from the UK.
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:07:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>
>> Ryanair fly to airports that are where they are and are called what
>> they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented
>> any other name.
>
> Utter nonsense. Ryanair flies to *Lübeck*, yet it claims this is
> "Hamburg Lübeck", even though Lübeck has NOTHING TO DO with Hamburg
> and is many miles distant from it.
> Same for "Frankfurt Hahn". Hahn is EIGHTY (80) miles distant from
> Frankfurth am Main. The AA measures the journey as taking
> approximately 1hr 23m by road.
how airlines have to refer to it.
> And you have the gall to suggest it "would" be a deception!!
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 9:05:15 AM5/12/12
to
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 9:07:39 AM5/12/12
to
Do you want Gatwick renamed as Crawley airport and Heathrow as Hounslow?
MM
May 12, 2012, 9:43:44 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 14:05:15 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Thus letting most sensible people assume that it's just in the
suburbs.
MM
wrote:
suburbs.
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 10:22:34 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:33:58 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:
Oh, much, much more than whining on Usenet. Moreover, as you well
know, it's not just me, it's tens of thousands of people who are
unhappy enough with Tesco to vote with their feet and go to Asda,
Sainsbury's or Morrisons wherever possible.
By the way, I received a £5 coupon from Aldi yesterday for complaining
about their "New Recipe" Honey Nut Cornflakes. ("New", in the sense
that they've removed the vitamin fortification, and the salt
equivalent content over the replaced product has increased by
approximately 60%.)
MM
wrote:
know, it's not just me, it's tens of thousands of people who are
unhappy enough with Tesco to vote with their feet and go to Asda,
Sainsbury's or Morrisons wherever possible.
By the way, I received a £5 coupon from Aldi yesterday for complaining
about their "New Recipe" Honey Nut Cornflakes. ("New", in the sense
that they've removed the vitamin fortification, and the salt
equivalent content over the replaced product has increased by
approximately 60%.)
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 10:25:27 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:50:38 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
You must be thinking along the lines of:
"LONDON -- TESCO PLC on Thursday said Chief Executive Philip Clarke
will assume responsibility for its struggling U.K. operations in
addition to his other duties, replacing Richard Brasher, who was
barely a year into the job." - March 15, 2012 Wall Street Journal
MM
wrote:
"LONDON -- TESCO PLC on Thursday said Chief Executive Philip Clarke
will assume responsibility for its struggling U.K. operations in
addition to his other duties, replacing Richard Brasher, who was
barely a year into the job." - March 15, 2012 Wall Street Journal
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 10:29:38 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:57:48 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
But what if they're not the cheapest, as the original article
demonstrated, yet constantly give to understand, with the support of
people such as yourself, that they are the cheapest?
Is that not some kind of deception?
MM
wrote:
demonstrated, yet constantly give to understand, with the support of
people such as yourself, that they are the cheapest?
Is that not some kind of deception?
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 10:39:22 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:14:44 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:
Ah, but the onus is on the visitor to the web site to click on a link,
whereas RyanAnywhere could place the information directly on the main
page (where they list Frankfurt-Hahn under Destinations).
Like on the web page referring to "Hamburg Lübeck", the blurb starts
with: "The River Elbe is the lifeblood and Lake Alster is the heart.
Life in Hamburg is characterised by the proximity to water....."
Thus giving the impression that one can jump off the plane and be
enjoying this watery Shangri-la in a matter of minutes.
MM
wrote:
whereas RyanAnywhere could place the information directly on the main
page (where they list Frankfurt-Hahn under Destinations).
Like on the web page referring to "Hamburg Lübeck", the blurb starts
with: "The River Elbe is the lifeblood and Lake Alster is the heart.
Life in Hamburg is characterised by the proximity to water....."
Thus giving the impression that one can jump off the plane and be
enjoying this watery Shangri-la in a matter of minutes.
MM
GB
May 12, 2012, 12:34:57 PM5/12/12
to
MM wrote:
>> I am fairly sure that Tesco is well enough managed that they will
>> pull their socks up and give more attention to their home market.
>
> You must be thinking along the lines of:
>
> "LONDON -- TESCO PLC on Thursday said Chief Executive Philip Clarke
> will assume responsibility for its struggling U.K. operations in
> addition to his other duties, replacing Richard Brasher, who was
> barely a year into the job." - March 15, 2012 Wall Street Journal
They've been concentrating their attention on, amongst other things, their
>> I am fairly sure that Tesco is well enough managed that they will
>> pull their socks up and give more attention to their home market.
>
> You must be thinking along the lines of:
>
> "LONDON -- TESCO PLC on Thursday said Chief Executive Philip Clarke
> will assume responsibility for its struggling U.K. operations in
> addition to his other duties, replacing Richard Brasher, who was
> barely a year into the job." - March 15, 2012 Wall Street Journal
US operation. Took their eye off the ball in the UK.
I've never had any issues with them when I have shopped there, but YMMV.
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 2:23:26 PM5/12/12
to
nothing to do with Ryanair.
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 2:26:13 PM5/12/12
to
MM wrote:
> Oh, much, much more than whining on Usenet. Moreover, as you well
> know, it's not just me, it's tens of thousands of people who are
> unhappy enough with Tesco to vote with their feet and go to Asda,
> Sainsbury's or Morrisons wherever possible.
>
> By the way, I received a £5 coupon from Aldi yesterday for complaining
> about their "New Recipe" Honey Nut Cornflakes. ("New", in the sense
> that they've removed the vitamin fortification, and the salt
> equivalent content over the replaced product has increased by
> approximately 60%.)
Have I got this right? You're so unhappy with Tesco that you go
> Oh, much, much more than whining on Usenet. Moreover, as you well
> know, it's not just me, it's tens of thousands of people who are
> unhappy enough with Tesco to vote with their feet and go to Asda,
> Sainsbury's or Morrisons wherever possible.
>
> By the way, I received a £5 coupon from Aldi yesterday for complaining
> about their "New Recipe" Honey Nut Cornflakes. ("New", in the sense
> that they've removed the vitamin fortification, and the salt
> equivalent content over the replaced product has increased by
> approximately 60%.)
complaining to Aldi?
S
May 12, 2012, 2:28:54 PM5/12/12
to
On May 12, 3:39 pm, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:14:44 +0100, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
It's Lübeck airport officially, but it is still closer to Hamburg than
London-Luton is to the centre of London.
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:14:44 +0100, %ste...@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
London-Luton is to the centre of London.
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 2:34:29 PM5/12/12
to
MM wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:14:44 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>> "Frankfurt-Hahn is located approximately 124 km from the city of
>> Frankfurt in the low mountain range area Hunsrück and the federal
>> state Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate). There is no rail
>> service to the airport. There is a coach service connecting Hahn
>> Airport to Neu-Isenburg, Offenbach and Hanau for EUR 8. Other
>> shuttle bus services connect the airport with Frankfurt-city centre,
>> Trier, Koblenz, Mainz, Worms and other towns."
>
> Ah, but the onus is on the visitor to the web site to click on a link,
> whereas RyanAnywhere could place the information directly on the main
> page (where they list Frankfurt-Hahn under Destinations).
Since they fly to an airport named Frankfurt-Hahn, why is it surprising
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:14:44 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
> wrote:
>> "Frankfurt-Hahn is located approximately 124 km from the city of
>> Frankfurt in the low mountain range area Hunsrück and the federal
>> state Rheinland-Pfalz (Rhineland-Palatinate). There is no rail
>> service to the airport. There is a coach service connecting Hahn
>> Airport to Neu-Isenburg, Offenbach and Hanau for EUR 8. Other
>> shuttle bus services connect the airport with Frankfurt-city centre,
>> Trier, Koblenz, Mainz, Worms and other towns."
>
> Ah, but the onus is on the visitor to the web site to click on a link,
> whereas RyanAnywhere could place the information directly on the main
> page (where they list Frankfurt-Hahn under Destinations).
to you that they list it as such under 'Destinations'? Don't all
airlines inform their customers where they fly?
> Like on the web page referring to "Hamburg Lübeck", the blurb starts
> with: "The River Elbe is the lifeblood and Lake Alster is the heart.
> Life in Hamburg is characterised by the proximity to water....."
> Thus giving the impression that one can jump off the plane and be
> enjoying this watery Shangri-la in a matter of minutes.
Ryanair don't fly there from the UK.
MM
May 12, 2012, 3:18:47 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:23:26 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
But RyanThereThere could do so much more for its customers by
explaining straightaway where Hahn is in relation to Frankfurt am
Main. Wouldn't you appreciate such clarity and foresight?
MM
explaining straightaway where Hahn is in relation to Frankfurt am
Main. Wouldn't you appreciate such clarity and foresight?
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 3:20:29 PM5/12/12
to
MM
May 12, 2012, 3:21:21 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 17:34:57 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
It varies so much I'm always afraid I'm going to be accused of
clocking.
MM
wrote:
clocking.
MM
MM
May 12, 2012, 3:23:30 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:34:29 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
Correct, they fly to Lübeck. Looks like you're beginning to catch up!
MM
wrote:
MM
Ian Jackson
May 12, 2012, 3:25:56 PM5/12/12
to
In message <2qOqr.425745$y11.3...@fx21.am4>, Norman Wells
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
>>>> 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.
Time, I think, to introduce the article in today's Guardian.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/11/cheap-flights-add-ons-add-up
>
--
Ian
<h...@unseen.ac.am> writes
>GB wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>> MM wrote:
>> Norman Wells 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.
Time, I think, to introduce the article in today's Guardian.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/11/cheap-flights-add-ons-add-up
>
--
Ian
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 3:29:20 PM5/12/12
to
Norman Wells
May 12, 2012, 3:36:22 PM5/12/12
to
airport as Frankfurt-Hahn airport?
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 3:43:30 PM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 23:00:42 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>
>That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
>provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the little
>traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need to take any of
>the dreaded L-word with you.
>
Indeed. Although they are still often very good value even if you do
need luggage.
>They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination without
>any specific warning that the airport just happens to share the name with
>your destination, rather than it's location.
>
I've never been told by any airline that Gatwick is 45Km from London
either.
Ryanair (as with airlines) use the official name of the airport.
It is (as with all airlines) up to the customer to decide whether that
airport is close enough to where they wish to go.
>Why bother with them?
Because we aren't stupid.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All computers wait at the same speed.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>
>That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
>provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the little
>traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need to take any of
>the dreaded L-word with you.
>
Indeed. Although they are still often very good value even if you do
need luggage.
>They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination without
>any specific warning that the airport just happens to share the name with
>your destination, rather than it's location.
>
I've never been told by any airline that Gatwick is 45Km from London
either.
Ryanair (as with airlines) use the official name of the airport.
It is (as with all airlines) up to the customer to decide whether that
airport is close enough to where they wish to go.
>Why bother with them?
Because we aren't stupid.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All computers wait at the same speed.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 3:54:56 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:34:41 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:07:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
metropolitan area of Hamburg, and is less distance from central
Hamburg than London Stansted is from central London (only 4 miles
further than London Gatwick is from central London).
>Same for "Frankfurt Hahn". Hahn is EIGHTY (80) miles distant from
>Frankfurth am Main. The AA measures the journey as taking
>approximately 1hr 23m by road.
>
The official name of the airport at Hahn is Frankfurt-Hahn.
>And you have the gall to suggest it "would" be a deception!!
>
He is suggesting nothing.
He is quite correctly stating as fact the simple truth.
Most of them are the official name of the airport. The few which
aren't are as close to the named city as several London airports are
to London.
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:07:12 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>GB wrote:
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>>>
>>> That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
>>> provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the
>>> little traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need
>>> to take any of the dreaded L-word with you.
>>>
>>GB wrote:
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> So you "saw through" something that nobody has ever claimed.
>>>
>>> That's excellent, really. We are all in agreement that Ryanair often
>>> provides good value provided that you know all the ropes (and the
>>> little traps they set for customers), and as long as you don't need
>>> to take any of the dreaded L-word with you.
>>>
>>> They'll also drop you at a tiny airport 125 km from your destination
>>> without any specific warning that the airport just happens to share
>>> the name with your destination, rather than it's location.
>>
>>> without any specific warning that the airport just happens to share
>>> the name with your destination, rather than it's location.
>>
>>Ryanair fly to airports that are where they are and are called what
>>they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented any
>>other name.
>
>Utter nonsense. Ryanair flies to *Lübeck*, yet it claims this is
>"Hamburg Lübeck", even though Lübeck has NOTHING TO DO with Hamburg
>and is many miles distant from it.
>
Lueck isn't officially called Hamburg-Lubeck, but it is within the
>>they're called. It would be a deception if Ryanair used or invented any
>>other name.
>
>Utter nonsense. Ryanair flies to *Lübeck*, yet it claims this is
>"Hamburg Lübeck", even though Lübeck has NOTHING TO DO with Hamburg
>and is many miles distant from it.
>
metropolitan area of Hamburg, and is less distance from central
Hamburg than London Stansted is from central London (only 4 miles
further than London Gatwick is from central London).
>Same for "Frankfurt Hahn". Hahn is EIGHTY (80) miles distant from
>Frankfurth am Main. The AA measures the journey as taking
>approximately 1hr 23m by road.
>
>And you have the gall to suggest it "would" be a deception!!
>
He is quite correctly stating as fact the simple truth.
Most of them are the official name of the airport. The few which
aren't are as close to the named city as several London airports are
to London.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 3:56:29 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:37:26 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:32:36 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>On Fri, 11 May 2012 20:32:36 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7 miles
>>to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
>
>However, it's EIGHTY miles from Frankfurt to what Ryanair calls
>"Frankfurt".
Rubbish.
>
>
>>Let us say that you book a flight to Frankfurt. You will know it is 7 miles
>>to the centre of Frankfurt from Flughafen Frankfurt am Main.
>
>However, it's EIGHTY miles from Frankfurt to what Ryanair calls
>"Frankfurt".
Ryanair do not call it "Frankfurt".
They call it by the name of the airport which is "Frankfurt-Hahn".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
A hangover: the wrath of grapes.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 3:58:40 PM5/12/12
to
No *sensible* person flies anywhere without checking the location of
the airport first.
They can be accused of letting some really stupid people believe it
may be close. But by no stretch of the imagination could any sensible
person think that.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 3:59:32 PM5/12/12
to
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Murphy was an optimist.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 4:01:59 PM5/12/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 22:48:06 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>>>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>>>> Bristol Airport.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>>>
>>>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>>>
>>>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>>>
>>> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
>>> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
>>> lying-air.
>>
>> Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on
>> budget airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the
>> airports do:
>> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
What a moronic comment.
>Yet, you
>immediately assumed that I was referring to Ryanair. Why would that be,
>Norman?
Because everybody else who uses the term is *of course* referring to
ryanair.
there is no possibility whatsoever that *anybody* else reading that
post would have thought you might possibly be referring to the
airports.
Only an utter moron could think that "of course" you were doing so.
wrote:
>Norman Wells wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>>>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>>>> Bristol Airport.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>>>
>>>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>>>
>>>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>>>
>>> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
>>> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
>>> lying-air.
>>
>> Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on
>> budget airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the
>> airports do:
>> http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
>>
>> What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
>> themselves?
>
>I referred to lying-air, meaning the airports, of course.
>> What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
>> themselves?
>
What a moronic comment.
>Yet, you
>immediately assumed that I was referring to Ryanair. Why would that be,
>Norman?
Because everybody else who uses the term is *of course* referring to
ryanair.
there is no possibility whatsoever that *anybody* else reading that
post would have thought you might possibly be referring to the
airports.
Only an utter moron could think that "of course" you were doing so.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
640K ought to be enough for anybody. - Bill Gates, 1981
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 4:03:50 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:52:13 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:12:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>territory.
>
That is pure self-aggrandising LYING on your part. Both the "thought
they could get away with anything" and the "having to pull their socks
up".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Damned if you are. really screwed if you arent.
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:12:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>>similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>>out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>>give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>>always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
>>similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>>out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>>give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>>territory.
>
>Hasn't worked for Tesco, has it? For many years, that complacent
>company thought it could get away with anything, but now it's having
>to pull its socks up -- thanks to people like me, who have pointed
>out the misery of shopping there.
>
>
I have seen no sign whatsoever of what you claim.
>company thought it could get away with anything, but now it's having
>to pull its socks up -- thanks to people like me, who have pointed
>out the misery of shopping there.
>
>
That is pure self-aggrandising LYING on your part. Both the "thought
they could get away with anything" and the "having to pull their socks
up".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 4:05:36 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 15:22:34 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:33:58 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>wrote:
>
>>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:12:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>>> >similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>>> >out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>>> >give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>>> >always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
>>> >territory.
>>>
>>> Hasn't worked for Tesco, has it? For many years, that complacent
>>> company thought it could get away with anything, but now it's having
>>> to pull its socks up -- thanks to people like me, who have pointed
>>> out the misery of shopping there.
>>
>>Whining on Usenet, which is all that you have done, is unlikely to have
>>had any effect other than to make readers think that you'e a whiny-arsed
>>fucker.
>
>Oh, much, much more than whining on Usenet. Moreover, as you well
>know, it's not just me, it's tens of thousands of people who are
>unhappy enough with Tesco to vote with their feet and go to Asda,
>Sainsbury's or Morrisons wherever possible.
Whilst each of those will also have tens of thousands who have voted
>On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:33:58 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
>wrote:
>
>>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 09:12:14 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>>> >similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>>> >out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>>> >give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>>> >always be those who try to bring you down. I guess it goes with the
>>> >territory.
>>>
>>> Hasn't worked for Tesco, has it? For many years, that complacent
>>> company thought it could get away with anything, but now it's having
>>> to pull its socks up -- thanks to people like me, who have pointed
>>> out the misery of shopping there.
>>
>>Whining on Usenet, which is all that you have done, is unlikely to have
>>had any effect other than to make readers think that you'e a whiny-arsed
>>fucker.
>
>Oh, much, much more than whining on Usenet. Moreover, as you well
>know, it's not just me, it's tens of thousands of people who are
>unhappy enough with Tesco to vote with their feet and go to Asda,
>Sainsbury's or Morrisons wherever possible.
with their feet and gone elsewhere.
None of them will be in the slightest bit worried if they are only
losing tens of thousands, out of the many millions who shop there each
week.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 4:12:04 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 12:49:03 +0100, "GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>> out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>> give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>> always be those who try to bring you down.
>
And as with almost all services, it is the disgruntled ones who make
comments. You rarely hear much from satisfied customers
>I don't want to go through the same old comments again, but you have to
>admit that the number of google hits indicates that there must be quite a
>lot of people out there who are not RA fans.
>
I'm sure there are.
A lot of whom have never actually flown with them.
And some of the rest are people who expected something different to
what they had paid for.
>
>> I guess it goes with the
>> territory.
>
supermarket) are considerably more expensive than Tesco, although
usually also better quality.
wrote:
>Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>> There are a lot of Mail readers out there. Or at least a lot with
>> similar prejudices. Lyingair is just one of the highly amusing, laugh
>> out loud, roll in the aisles names their detractors give them. If you
>> give the public what they want and are very successful, there will
>> always be those who try to bring you down.
>
>Or if you promise to be cheap but turn out to provide an expensive and poor
>service (for some customers!), you can expect a very small proportion of the
>disgruntled ones to make disparaging comments.
>
Agreed.
>service (for some customers!), you can expect a very small proportion of the
>disgruntled ones to make disparaging comments.
>
And as with almost all services, it is the disgruntled ones who make
comments. You rarely hear much from satisfied customers
>I don't want to go through the same old comments again, but you have to
>admit that the number of google hits indicates that there must be quite a
>lot of people out there who are not RA fans.
>
A lot of whom have never actually flown with them.
And some of the rest are people who expected something different to
what they had paid for.
>
>> I guess it goes with the
>> territory.
>
>It goes with significantly not meeting customer expectations (for some
>customers!). I'd be surprised if you found a similar non-fan base for John
>Lewis, say, another very successful company. That is because JL go out of
>their way to manage customer expectations and satisfy them.
They do, but it comes at a price. Waitrose (The John Lewis
>customers!). I'd be surprised if you found a similar non-fan base for John
>Lewis, say, another very successful company. That is because JL go out of
>their way to manage customer expectations and satisfy them.
supermarket) are considerably more expensive than Tesco, although
usually also better quality.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If ignorance is bliss, you must be ecstatic.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Alex Heney
May 12, 2012, 4:14:51 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 11:49:37 +0100, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:35:40 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>Frankfurt am Main.
>
For the same reason that no other airline I know of puts anything
similar about any of the airports they fly to.
They expect their customers to have at least a minimal level of
intelligence, and to find out where the destination actually is
relative to where they actually want to go.
>On Fri, 11 May 2012 21:35:40 +0100, "Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>GB wrote:
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>>>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>>>> Bristol Airport.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>>>
>>>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>>>
>>>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>>>
>>> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
>>> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
>>> lying-air.
>>
>>Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on budget
>>airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the airports do:
>>
>>http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
>>
>>What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
>>themselves?
>
>>> Paul Cummins wrote:
>>>> We were about to embark at Dover, when %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve
>>>> Firth) came up to me and whispered:
>>>>
>>>>> Stansted for example is about as convenient for London as
>>>>> Bristol Airport.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree - at least Stansted is served by Rail, unlike Bristol.
>>>>
>>>> Howabout London Biggin Hill, London Ashford or London Southend?
>>>>
>>>> London Oxford not what I'd call convenient for the city either ...
>>>
>>> They could increade air traffic to Aberdeen by rebranding it
>>> London-Aberdeen. How about London-Connecticut? It's all just
>>> lying-air.
>>
>>Well, they could of course, but it's rather unfair to blame it on budget
>>airlines. They don't name the airports in Britain, the airports do:
>>
>>http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/just+where+are+our+airports/3313317.html
>>
>>What are Ryanair supposed to call them if not the names they give
>>themselves?
>
>Why don't RyanUnclear put it like this:
>
>Frankfurt-Hahn*
>
>*Airport is approximately eighty miles distant from the city of
>
>Frankfurt-Hahn*
>
>Frankfurt am Main.
>
For the same reason that no other airline I know of puts anything
similar about any of the airports they fly to.
They expect their customers to have at least a minimal level of
intelligence, and to find out where the destination actually is
relative to where they actually want to go.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages