Ryanair vs SouthWest.

Manic Moran

OK, we've had the Aer Lingus vs Ryanair rant, but I wonder if it wouldn't be instructive to compare the business models of these two.

On the face of it, they're the European and American counterparts to each other. Popular, low-cost, no-frills airlines that are doing very well and expanding, making dents into what was the purview of the established airlines. Both keep costs down by, for example, only using one type of aircraft (737s) and allowing the average punter to buy tickets direct from the airline only, either web or 'phone. Both are willing to eschew the major airports for smaller ones in the vicinity of the destination, though SW is in no way adverse to going to a major one if it feels it useful. Both work primarily on a point-to-point system, instead of hub-and-spoke like many 'conventional' airlines, and both place heavy emphasis on turn-around time, SW basically inventing the 10-minute-turn.

However, once you get into the meat of it, they're entirely different.

When SW kicked off, they looked at PSA ("The World's Friendliest Airline", they even painted smiley faces on the nose), took on their business model and improved on it. SW's cabin crew are well known for taking liberties with pro-forma events, if you go to youtube and look for the safety brief done in rap, flight announcements in song, or cracking jokes about 'put on your own mask before aiding children or adults acting like children' you can almost guarantee that it will be a SW flight being filmed.

Ryanair staff, other than the stewardess calendar, I guess, do not seem to have much of a reputation for good humour. This may well be a case of rep over reality, but the rep is there, justified or not.

SW's customer-friendly orientation continues to their financial transactions. Ryanair, of course, has a reputation for 'nickel-and-diming' the populace to death. Want a checked bag, pay a fee. Want to take a laptop bag as well as a carry-on, pay a fee (if you can bring it on at all). Want to change your flight, pay a fee. Want a soft drink, pay a fee. And so on and so forth. SouthWest, however, has gone the other way entirely. When the major airlines started charging for the first checked bag, SW made 'Bags fly free' part of their advertising campaign (for two checked bags). I've never had to pay a 'change fee' for getting onto a different flight to that which I had originally booked. The soft drink and peanuts are free. Granted, SW has never given a free meal, to my knowledge, but hey, now none of the major airlines do either. Even the general atmosphere is better on SW, you're not bombarded with advertisement on the overhead bins or have 'We're so cheap, we don't even issue safety cards any more' right in your face on the seat back in front of you.

Indeed, the 'low frills' airline is arguably more 'frills' than US Airways or American these days, at least on the domestic runs. (Though I do like Ted's ATC channel on the in-flight entertainment system.). So in addition to the carrier's already low cost, the fact that many of its flights are direct, and the fact that the passenger knows he's not going to be pinched for money after he buys the ticket, SW has become incredibly appealing and business is booming.

Now, on the down-side, SW are, I think, pricier than Ryanair at the minimum. For me to get from here (OAK) to Reno (RNO) is going to be about US $90 each way, taking an hour each way. DUB-London is probably going to be a tad cheaper if you take nothing but a single carry-on, even after taxes. They're still undercutting the established airlines, not least because they made some very good hedge purchases on fuel, but the rider base is pleased with them, not just tolerating them like many are, I think, with Ryanair.

I routinely fly SW, and look at them as a first option for short hops (i.e. three hours or less), but on the rare occasions I'm flying around Europe, I have never as much as considered Ryanair. It's an interesting situation, considering how often the two are considered the counterparts of each other.

In reality, there is no comparison to Ryanair in the US that I can think of, and, truth be told, I'm not convinced that the model will work. But could a SouthWest model work in Europe, and is anyone trying it?

NTM

lord lucan

I've flown Southwest a couple of times and difference between them and FR was quite stark imo. I was aware of their business model but having never flown with them i was expecting something along the same lines of FR.

My first flight with them was from MCO to MSY. The initial impression was a bit strange. They had a boarding system that seemed a bit on the peculiar side. There's a number of 'pillars' in a line which have letters and numbers on them. You line up in groups based on letter and number. It was a peculiar system tbh and very confusing to the uninitiated(like me).

Once onboard,the atmosphere was very relaxed. Pleasant interior and informally dressed crew made everyone feel relaxed. They didn't use a trolley for service,they took orders and brought them out on a small tray which saved fouling up the aisle. IIRC the soft drinks,tea/coffee were free.

My experience overall was very good and i've used them since. They seemed like an airline sitting in the niche between 'no frills' and the 'premium' service of the legacy carriers.

Tenger

I'm glad Manic brought up this point. I really dislikle when I see (in the print media) the claim that FR under MoL copied the SouthWest model. Its quite far off the mark.

FR copied the single fleet operations, the quick turns, the minimum crew, the lack of inflight meals, the point to point only service.

FR neglected to copy the slow steady (3-5%) year on year growth, they neglected the employee profit sharing, they neglected the customer friendly attitude, they neglected the positive marketing image.

SWA employees (to my knowledge) are not in a union however they do not need to be as their managers deal directly with them and treat them are equals. The employees are all shareholders so have a vested interest in the airline doing well. Thus you have stories of SW staff working on days off to help the operation. In return they get a yearly profit shares. Imagine FR sharing some of their E250M profits with their staff.

I know some posters here disagree but I feel that having staff as shareholders makes them more responsible for the smooth running of the company.

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Both are willing to eschew the major airports for smaller ones in the vicinity of the destination, though SW is in no way adverse to going to a major one if it feels it useful.

Using the term "major airport" can be misleading. While Heathrow, Frankfurt, Tokyo, JFK and LA are certainly names, it has to be said that Dublin, Manchester, Gatwick and Stansted still handle 20-30m passengers per year.

Both work primarily on a point-to-point system, instead of hub-and-spoke like many 'conventional' airlines

Not quite. A huge proportion of Ryanair flights operate from a limited number of airports - a base doesn't mean that it is a major base. Point-to-point in Ryanair's meaning is that it doesn't honour connections.

Ryanair, of course, has a reputation for 'nickel-and-diming' the populace to death. Want a checked bag, pay a fee. Want to take a laptop bag as well as a carry-on, pay a fee (if you can bring it on at all).

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/cheap-flight-destinations
http://travel.southwest.com/travel/exploreTravel.html?tabType=routeMap&int=GSUBNAV-TG-ROUTEMAP

Some of this is down to where they operate and what they carry. Dublin-Paris, Rome-Madrid, Helsinki-Berlin and other city pairs are much more airline-dependent than equivalent American city pairs where passengers and freight have the option of road travel (although not necessarily rail travel). Ryanair doesn't want to (expensively) deal with hand baggage so it can transport more freight.

Meanwhile, in Europe, with a more diverse population base Eurostar, ICE, TGV, etc. have killed their airline competitors and don't have quite so many American comparisons, further changing the mix. I imagine car hire is also a much bigger business in the USA, where as in many European destinations, one is getting a bus or train to their final destination.

I've never had to pay a 'change fee' for getting onto a different flight to that which I had originally booked.

I think that's a matter of regulatory, commercial differences in the markets. Airlines in the USA seem to have much less hesitancy in bumping people and chopping and changing routes / airlines and rescheduling flights is much more common than in Europe.

Granted, SW has never given a free meal, to my knowledge, but hey, now none of the major airlines do either.

Ryanair restrict their flights to 4-4.5 hours so they aren't obliged to feed passengers.

Now, on the down-side, SW are, I think, pricier than Ryanair at the minimum. For me to get from here (OAK) to Reno (RNO) is going to be about US $90 each way, taking an hour each way. DUB-London is probably going to be a tad cheaper if you take nothing but a single carry-on, even after taxes.

Are they comparable?

Manic Moran

My first flight with them was from MCO to MSY. The initial impression was a bit strange. They had a boarding system that seemed a bit on the peculiar side. There's a number of 'pillars' in a line which have letters and numbers on them. You line up in groups based on letter and number. It was a peculiar system tbh and very confusing to the uninitiated(like me).

They started implementing that a couple of years ago, they used to have what was known as the 'Cattle Call' (Sometimes you'd even have the odd wise-cracking passenger saying 'Moooooo' as they shuffled to the door) which was basically a dis-organised free-for-all and rush to the gate. As SW does not use assigned seating, the people who get to the ticket-checker first get the exit row seats, or seats together or whatever.

The change to the letter/number sequencing had several effects. Firstly, it got everyone to line up, instead of rush the gate. Became far more civilised. Secondly, group A 1-30 is usually reserved for 'premium' purchasors, in about the only bit of nickel/diming SW do, you can pay $10 extra and get on board first. I've never travelled as a family, but I think A30-60 is family booking, to allow families a chance to sit together instead of having the 5-year old in row 7 and Dad in row 9. The remainder of the sequencing also rewards people who check in early, they get on board the aircraft earlier. I think online check-in is usually group B, and in-person check-in group C.

NTM

Nonoperational

I may sound like a complete moaner saying this but I find the Ryanair boarding process quite stressful.

Victor

The fascination with boarding first is confusing - the plane isn't going to leave until everyone is on board. Getting off the plane first should be more important (especially for those with hand luggage only).

So, assign (all) the seats and board the people the furthest away from the door first, rather than have them climb over the people nearer the door as they put away coats and baggage.

lord lucan

gpf101 wrote: »

I may sound like a complete moaner saying this but I find the Ryanair boarding process quite stressful.

I doubt you're alone tbh. For many it seems the most stressful part of the journey. If you're a solo traveller it's no big deal but i notice families/couples getting to the gate earlier these days to ensure they get to sit together. Obviously FR want everyone to pay for priority boarding which in turn negates the benefit of it.

Not based on any stats but purely observation,i've noticed a decline in the size of the priority ques lately,seems people are willing to save the few bob and turn up earlier and take their chances in the scrum.

Cessna_Pilot

gpf101 wrote: »

I may sound like a complete moaner saying this but I find the Ryanair boarding process quite stressful.

Due to work, I fly Ryanair at least twice a week. I ALWAYS board last and NEVER once I have I had a problem "finding" a seat.

I will never understand why people stand at the gate for sometimes, upwards of an hour to board leaving loads of seats empty while they stand right beside the very same seats in the Queue!!!!!

Steyr

From what I remember MO'L went over to view SW approach to the Business and he got on very well with the Owner ( possibly at that time ) as the owner has or had Irish in the family somewhere. I think it's in a book.

Manic Moran

The fascination with boarding first is confusing - the plane isn't going to leave until everyone is on board. Getting off the plane first should be more important (especially for those with hand luggage only).

So, assign (all) the seats and board the people the furthest away from the door first, rather than have them climb over the people nearer the door as they put away coats and baggage.

In general I agree with you, though in the case of 'open seating', there is something to be said for getting the seat you want. However, I'm really not sure about why 'regular' airplanes do it. I mean, why do First Class passengers want to board first? So they can sit in their chairs and lord it over us mere peasants who file past them? They're just sitting in their chairs for longer, I'm sure (especially on long-hauls) that they'd prefer to not be stuck in the seats. Were I King for the Day, I'd be the last person on the airplane, and the first one off. That's what First Class is for.

But on a related note, when it gets to open seating, there should be an instruction to 'move to the back of the 'plane before loading the overhead bin'. That way you can have fifteen people loading the bin at once, instead of one guy loading up in Row 2 with 98 other people waiting to get past him.

NTM

AfterDusk

lord lucan wrote: »

Obviously FR want everyone to pay for priority boarding which in turn negates the benefit of it.

:rolleyes: No 'they' don't. Priority boarding is limited to 90 passengers per flight

Steyr

Yes, page 86 of "Michael O'Leary-A Life In Full Flight" by Alan Ruddock. Tony Ryan sent MO'L to America to learn what he could from Southwest.

MO'L went to meet Southwest's founder Herb Kelleher. The two of them hit it off very well.

donkey balls

Steyr wrote: »

From what I remember MO'L went over to view SW approach to the Business and he got on very well with the Owner ( possibly at that time ) as the owner has or had Irish in the family somewhere. I think it's in a book.

Yep Herb Kelleher founder of SWA is off Irish Decent,;) When SWA was starting off Tony Ryan who was the station ops mgr in JFK for EI was sent by the EI board to look at this new set up/venture.
When Ryan reported back to the EI board about SWA and how it would work here in Ireland the board dimissed his findings,At the time EI&BA had the Irish market sown up regarding the routes of our little rock.;)
As for boarding FR use both fwd&aft doors normally im the last person on/off the acft I never understand people getting the bags out of the overhead bins then waiting on the crew to open the doors.
For those of you not in the know once a plane taxis onto the ramp the ground crew will not touch the plane untill the red beacon is turned off which normally happens with engine shut down.
Then you have either the airbridge/steps to be placed at the plane bags to be off loaded either hand balled or by ULD then have them taken to the bagage hall for off loading,I allways break my b*ll*x laughing when I see people legging it for the door out and I managed to get before them.:P

Manic Moran

Victor wrote: »

Using the term "major airport" can be misleading. While Heathrow, Frankfurt, Tokyo, JFK and LA are certainly names, it has to be said that Dublin, Manchester, Gatwick and Stansted still handle 20-30m passengers per year.

Ok, fair point, but the emphasis was supposed to be 'smaller ones in the vicinity of the destination'. I don't know of any commerical airports in the vicinity of Dublin which are smaller than Dublin Airport, for example.

Not quite. A huge proportion of Ryanair flights operate from a limited number of airports - a base doesn't mean that it is a major base. Point-to-point in Ryanair's meaning is that it doesn't honour connections.

I think that's a matter of regulatory, commercial differences in the markets. Airlines in the USA seem to have much less hesitancy in bumping people and chopping and changing routes / airlines and rescheduling flights is much more common than in Europe.

Probably, but there's a difference in bumping people because the airline needs to, and doing so because the passenger's business meeting finished early/late and they want to get on an earlier/later flight. There are airlines in the US which will charge for the latter.

NTM

lord lucan

neil2304 wrote: »

:rolleyes: No 'they' don't. Priority boarding is limited to 90 passengers per flight

I've never heard of a cap on the number of 'priorities' that could be sold.

AfterDusk

lord lucan wrote: »

I've never heard of a cap on the number of 'priorities' that could be sold.

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/questions/how-do-i-book-priority-boarding

adamski8

neil2304 wrote: »

http://www.ryanair.com/ie/questions/how-do-i-book-priority-boarding

hmmm interesting, isnt 90 probably 75% for most flights though?
i think they might sell more if they advertised that there was only 30 priority seats on board, make it seem more exclusive etc

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

BuffyBot

SWA employees (to my knowledge) are not in a union however they do not need to be as their managers deal directly with them and treat them are equals.

Incorrect. SWA is unionised.

But could a SouthWest model work in Europe, and is anyone trying it?

easyJet is pretty much close as it's going to get in Europe for various reasons

senordingdong

Tenger wrote: »

I know some posters here disagree but I feel that having staff as shareholders makes them more responsible for the smooth running of the company.

Hmm....good idea in principle.

Could backfire if staff had a chip on their shoulder...take BA or AL staff for example.

AfterDusk

adamski8 wrote: »

hmmm interesting, isnt 90 probably 75% for most flights though?
i think they might sell more if they advertised that there was only 30 priority seats on board, make it seem more exclusive etc

Errr, no.... 90 is under half of a full load, and 9/10 flights are above 170.

adamski8

neil2304 wrote: »

Errr, no.... 90 is under half of a full load, and 9/10 flights are above 170.

fair enough, just thought most flight only had 120-130 ppl on them.

Victor

neil2304 wrote: »

Errr, no.... 90 is under half of a full load, and 9/10 flights are above 170.

That is interesting as their average loading is a fairly constant 82%.

170/189 seats = 89.9%

So you are saying that 90% of flights carry 81% of passengers and are 90% full and the other 10% of flights carry 1% of passengers and are 10% full?

AfterDusk

Victor wrote: »

That is interesting as their average loading is a fairly constant 82%.

170/189 seats = 89.9%

So you are saying that 90% of flights carry 81% of passengers and are 90% full and the other 10% of flights carry 1% of passengers and are 10% full?

It was a ballpark figure.......... Honestly, it's quite sad that you went to the trouble of doing the maths

senordingdong

neil2304 wrote: »

It was a ballpark figure.......... Honestly, it's quite sad that you went to the trouble of doing the maths

Yes, researching the facts before making a sweeping generalisation is quite sad.

I have to say though, I've only once been on a flight that wasn't full, or nearly full, and that was to Copenhagen in 2005.

CabanasBoy

senordingdong wrote: »

Yes, researching the facts before making a sweeping generalisation is quite sad.

I have to say though, I've only once been on a flight that wasn't full, or nearly full, and that was to Copenhagen in 2005.

I think FR has a bit of a rep for cancelling flights when they don't get the required load factor?

Getting back to OP theme, SW had a six figure waiting list of people wishing to be employees even before the global recession/depression.

senordingdong

CabanasBoy wrote: »

I think FR has a bit of a rep for cancelling flights when they don't get the required load factor?

Getting back to OP theme, SW had a six figure waiting list of people wishing to be employees even before the global recession/depression.

No idea about them cancelling flights...I'm not sure if that's legal.

Ryanair, much like SW, seems to be a very desirable employer.
Perhaps it's just brand recognition though?

CabanasBoy

senordingdong wrote: »

No idea about them cancelling flights...I'm not sure if that's legal.

Ryanair, much like SW, seems to be a very desirable employer.
Perhaps it's just brand recognition though?

I don't know if it's even a legal issue, FR have done it! Ask any rugby fan, I can't remember the details but there was one particular case where Leinster or Munster were to play in Italy and before they qualified, FR's flights were the usual low price and plenty of people booked, then FR cancelled that flight and put up another with the cost now gone into the hundreds of Euro. As I said, I'm not sure of the details but plenty of people out there will remember that one.

senordingdong

I find that hard to believe.

CabanasBoy

senordingdong wrote: »

I find that hard to believe.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

senordingdong

CabanasBoy wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Don't just throw smilies around the place.
Get some proof, a link, a news report, even another thread.

CabanasBoy

senordingdong wrote: »

Don't just throw smilies around the place.
Get some proof, a link, a news report, even another thread.

I am not going to go hunting links just for your benefit, the story did make the national papers at the time. Go and google it.

AfterDusk

CabanasBoy wrote: »

I am not going to go hunting links just for your benefit, the story did make the national papers at the time. Go and google it.

Why should anybody else waste their time "hunting links"? It's your point, so why not prove it yourself? You've made the statement, so back it up.

senordingdong

CabanasBoy wrote: »

I am not going to go hunting links just for your benefit, the story did make the national papers at the time. Go and google it.

Ok then.
I stand by my original point that I find it hard to believe that Ryanair cancelled a flight just because they didn't fill all the seats.

CabanasBoy

neil2304 wrote: »

Why should anybody else waste their time "hunting links"? It's your point, so why not prove it yourself? You've made the statement, so back it up.

Now Neil, cop on, I do not have to prove the point, I posted a comment, it's up to the reader if they wish to investigate it further.

senordingdong

Yeah Neil, cop on haha

CabanasBoy

senordingdong wrote: »

Ok then.
I stand by my original point that I find it hard to believe that Ryanair cancelled a flight just because they didn't fill all the seats.

I think we'll have to rename you DoubtingThomas, I said FR "have a rep" for cancelling flights when they don't get the load factors. I did not state it as a fact but it was based on travellers comments after their FR flight had been cancelled for no apparent reason, and if you think about it, it would make a lot of sense if you've two flights say from the same place and both are half full, cancel the earlier flight and push all the pax onto the 2nd flight. I think with the whole pax compo thing now it probably doesn't happen anymore but I'm sure it has in the past.

senordingdong

CabanasBoy wrote: »

I think we'll have to rename you DoubtingThomas, I said FR "have a rep" for cancelling flights when they don't get the load factors. I did not state it as a fact but it was based on travellers comments after their FR flight had been cancelled for no apparent reason, and if you think about it, it would make a lot of sense if you've two flights say from the same place and both are half full, cancel the earlier flight and push all the pax onto the 2nd flight. I think with the whole pax compo thing now it probably doesn't happen anymore but I'm sure it has in the past.

Well for reasons of logic and logistics, I still don't think your comment is true.

Then there's the fact that you would gladly pass comment so casually without anything to back it up. This could get you in trouble if you're not careful.

Furthermore, I'd wager that Ryanair 'have a rep' because of things like this.
People making wild statements without a shred of proof to back it up, and gullible eejits believing it without any.

Cessna_Pilot

Ryanair do not have as one poster here calls it, a "rep" for cancelling flights if the load factor isn't good.

Just because you are "sure it happened in the past" does not mean it DID.:)

CabanasBoy

senordingdong wrote: »

Well for reasons of logic and logistics, I still don't think your comment is true.

Then there's the fact that you would gladly pass comment so casually without anything to back it up. This could get you in trouble if you're not careful.

Furthermore, I'd wager that Ryanair 'have a rep' because of things like this.
People making wild statements without a shred of proof to back it up, and gullible eejits believing it without any.

http://demotivatorsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/jesus-facepalm-facepalm-jesus-epic-demotivational-poster-1218659828.jpg

A320-200

CabanasBoy wrote: »

had been cancelled for no apparent reason,

Well it obviously wasn't going to be apparent to you. I suppose you can give me a list of all MEL items on a B738?

CabanasBoy

A320-200 wrote: »

Well it obviously wasn't going to be apparent to you. I suppose you can give me a list of all MEL items on a B738?

Oh Jaysus yiz are all nuts,
I never said it was apparent/not apparent to me, it was not apparent to the pax on the flight.
As I've said, it probably doesn't happen now cos of compo for pax flights delayed/cancelled.

I have better things to do than fabricate tales.

missmoo

would love if we cancelled our flights due to low PAX loads, but given that i've done flights with 11 PAX, and frequently have rule 2, don't think that we have a rep for cancelling cos of low loads!

AfterDusk

CabanasBoy wrote: »

Now Neil, cop on, I do not have to prove the point, I posted a comment, it's up to the reader if they wish to investigate it further.

You were asked for proof, quote: "Get some proof, a link, a news report, even another thread.", and you threw it back in his face telling him to look for it himself. Not exactly great etiquette.

You said that Ryanair have cancelled flights because there weren't enough pax. If you can't back it up, then you really shouldn't make such a wild accusation!

CabanasBoy

neil2304 wrote: »

You were asked for proof, quote: "Get some proof, a link, a news report, even another thread.", and you threw it back in his face telling him to look for it himself. Not exactly great etiquette.

You said that Ryanair have cancelled flights because there weren't enough pax. If you can't back it up, then you really shouldn't make such a wild accusation!

I said they have/had a rep for cancelling flights, completely different to stating that they have cancelled flights, please understand the difference, it's still up to you to prove it if you wish.

donkey balls

As someone who has worked for both an airline and a flight service company,The thoughts that a company will cancel a flight due to low pax figures is bull.
I remember one time loading an aircraft with about 500kgs of freight one guy said to me sure thats a waste of time sending the flight out,What he could not comprehend is that the returning sector would be full.
As for FR their aircraft do different sectors the morning could be DUB-STN-DUB then probely DUB-BCN-DUB later that morning FR also factor in the positioning of aircraft for MX tail swops etc.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Victor

Its hinted at here: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/turbulence-over-ryanair-flight-to-rugby-cup-final-1710068.html and here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60185811&postcount=10

senordingdong

Victor wrote: »

Its hinted at here: http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/turbulence-over-ryanair-flight-to-rugby-cup-final-1710068.html and here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60185811&postcount=10

Hmm...that alludes to a full flight though.
So it doesn't factor into his story of small pax.

David086

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nah don't think its to represent any airline. But I think FlyLo represents Ryanair in fairness.