Ryanair bid for Aer Lingus

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

Let's be fair here and not blinded by hatred.

FR have a useless debit card that almost no-one would want, but none the less it exists and you can avoid the €6 charge with it.

EI require a Visa Electron which is not issued in Ireland, and therefore the €6 is totally unavoidable.

Scores for Irish customer service on this particular issue:
FR 1 out of 100
EI 0 out of 100

Its not like FR manage to get another % from the rest of their shambolic service, however.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

Its not like FR manage to get another % from the rest of their shambolic service, however.

Maybe not, but lets not let blind hatred stand in the way of the actual facts.

bmaxi wrote:

You come across as a supporter of Ryanair.

My only loyalty is to my wallet. I fly with whoever gives me the best deal, be it FR, EI, or whoever.

thomasj

MYOB wrote: »

EU blocked it when they controlled far less (combined) of Irish traffic; EU will block it again.

O'Leary is just trying to drive the share price up to sell his stake to someone else.

Agree 100%!

Also isnt there a pending court case in the UK by competition authorities over there

thomasj

aer lingus is the reason you are seeing reasonable prices by Ryanair.

Do you think you'd be seeing the sane reasonable prices by Ryanair if aer lingus was to disappear?

SeanW

ballooba wrote: »

It's not an open market, because Aer Lingus is there providing a mediocre service to an undiscerning market.

Ehh ... isn't that Ryanair you're talking about?

As has been explained to you, Ryanairs' M.O. is to use its cash reserves to finance anti-competitive actions - gaining monopolies and scaring off competitors by lowering fares to cutthroat levels when faced with a new competitor only to jack fares way back up when the new competitor has fled.

They want a monopoly in Ireland. Pure and simple.

You are welcome to explain to us how it will benefit tourists etc to have one very ruthless company dominating a majority/plurality of all air traffic in and out of Ireland.

devnull

Aer Lingus are excellent on an average day of the year and are probably a little better than Ryanair on such days.

The trouble is they can't handle disruption very well, be that weather or any kind of disruption, Ryanair are much better in this regard and are much more reliable on such days.

Chinasea

thomasj wrote: »

aer lingus is the reason you are seeing reasonable prices by Ryanair.

Do you think you'd be seeing the sane reasonable prices by Ryanair if aer lingus was to disappear?

Oh wow.

The only reason that the ordinary person has been able to fly in the last 20 years outa and off this island is because of Ryanair. Anyway, if I'd have to start digging up the prices that we were all held ransom to pay by the 'beloved' government backed monopolised cartel airline called Aer Lingus I would be wasting my time.

We have seen on many of the routes that only Ryan Air fly to no outrageous over the top charges, all offered in the sale fares when they become available also.

Not very many of us were able to afford the extortionate prices that Aer Lingus charged in the 60’s,70’s & 80’s, and we were forced to puke our way back and forth on the sloppy boats to the UK and beyond.

As I said guys, keep going with your unfounded consternation for Ryanair, and we will be stranded on this godforsaken bankrupt island once again.

howiya

Chinasea wrote: »

Oh wow.

The only reason that the ordinary person has been able to fly in the last 20 years outa and off this island is because of Ryanair.

Wrong. The reason that the ordinary person can afford air travel is competition

thomasj

howiya wrote: »

Chinasea wrote: »

Oh wow.

The only reason that the ordinary person has been able to fly in the last 20 years outa and off this island is because of Ryanair.

Wrong. The reason that the ordinary person can afford air travel is competition

Nail on head! i would not trust one company - semistate or privitised to have sole ownership of the irish air industry. Lessons surely have been learned from when aer lingus was the only irish airline and had a grip dictating prices of flights.

We cannot afford to let o'leary have that sort of power.

n97 mini

thomasj wrote: »

aer lingus is the reason you are seeing reasonable prices by Ryanair.

And vice versa.

L1011

Chinasea wrote: »

The only reason that the ordinary person has been able to fly in the last 20 years outa and off this island is because of Ryanair.

No, its deregulation. No Ryanair and it'd have been another airline.

You appear to manage to forget that it wasn't just Aer Lingus charging those prices back then - most routes across all of Europe including Ireland had a duopoly of both national carriers of the end countries.

It wasn't Ryanair who brought prices down in the rest of Europe, seeing as when deregulation came about they were teetering towards bankruptcy and charging nearly the same price as Aer Lingus for an inferior attempt at full service (business class, loyalty scheme, food on board, the works) in wrecks of aircraft.

Chinasea wrote: »

As I said guys, keep going with your unfounded consternation for Ryanair, and we will be stranded on this godforsaken bankrupt island once again.

Its Ryanair who want to bring us back to a monopoly situation, nobody else. When they get told they can't buy Aer Lingus they aren't going to pull their remaining flights out in a huff.

And if they did, you can be that Jet2, EasyJet and Wizz would be in in a minute.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

they were teetering towards bankruptcy and charging nearly the same price as Aer Lingus for an inferior attempt at full service (business class, loyalty scheme, food on board, the works) in wrecks of aircraft.

I flew Ryanair when they were a full fat airline, and while I was dubious at the time about their future, the service and aircraft were comparable to EI's. The only thing EI had that FR didn't have was control over the Irish market via protectionism.

Chinasea

thomasj wrote: »

We cannot afford to let o'leary have that sort of power.

I'm not sure that is something you need to worry about. I don't think you would see a big queue of other air lines wanting to step in and work out of a country that is besieged with Industrial Relations issues, brown envelopes, and xenophobia.

Ask Richard Branson how he felt when he tried.... all he faced was the above listed nightmares and the rest.

ballooba

Chinasea wrote: »

Ask Richard Branson how he felt when he tried.... all he faced was the above listed nightmares and the rest.

I didn't realise that Virgin used to operate out of Ireland. It's funny that Brussels Airlines, which was partially formed from Virgin Express, is now owned by Etihad. Etihad now own 10% of Virgin Australia too, and could be a buyer for EI. God bless my EY Gold Card.

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

I flew Ryanair when they were a full fat airline, and while I was dubious at the time about their future, the service and aircraft were comparable to EI's. The only thing EI had that FR didn't have was control over the Irish market via protectionism.

The aircraft were only comparable if you were blind and/or (preferably and) deaf.

ROMBAC 1-11's and antique 737-200s vs. virtually brand new 737 Classics.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

The aircraft were only comparable if you were blind and/or (preferably and) deaf.

ROMBAC 1-11's and antique 737-200s vs. virtually brand new 737 Classics.

EI had BAC 1-11's up till when, 1990? FR operated them at the same time, and I don't recall them being significantly different.

By 1992 EI had a new set of aircraft, mostly funded by the tax-payer, in preparation for deregulation, but in 1990 FR re-launched itself as a low fares airline so comparing the planes or service from 1990 onwards is pointless.

Solair

I think people need to realise that it's competition between Ryanair and Aer Lingus that has driven prices down in Ireland.

If the two become one, we end up with less choice and higher prices.

Aer Lingus is also an extremely efficient carrier by any international comparison and has extremely competitive ticket prices on most routes.

Also, because Ryanair's an ultra-low-frills carrier. Effectively, it's the Aldi of aviation, it is not the kind of airline that is going to be attractive to people who do actually value a bit of comfort in aviation.

While Aer Lingus doesn't have business class on short haul anymore, it is still a hell of a lot more pleasant to use than Ryanair and does offer premium seating, reserved seating, lounges etc.

I just cannot see how this deal could be anything but bad for choice and bad for consumers and bad for Ireland.

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

EI had BAC 1-11's up till when, 1990? FR operated them at the same time, and I don't recall them being significantly different.

By 1992 EI had a new set of aircraft, mostly funded by the tax-payer, in preparation for deregulation, but in 1990 FR re-launched itself as a low fares airline so comparing the planes or service from 1990 onwards is pointless.

EIs were original production and properly maintained. FR's were Romanian licenced production and not.

More importantly, FR's relaunch as low cost was later than 1990 - more like 1992 or 3; I'd need to check.

Had they gone bust, a LCC from elsewhere would have entered the market and competition would have come from that front. The rewritten history that Ryanair were a shining white knight of cheap fares that burst on the scene to reduce prices is just that - a rewrite. Not true, didn't happen. Deregulation reduced prices, across Europe; not Ryanair.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

EIs were original production and properly maintained. FR's were Romanian licenced production and not.

I wasn't party to maintenance routines, and as I said I don't remember as a customer much difference between FR's 1-11's and anyone else's. Tell me, did you actually travel on an FR 1-11?

MYOB wrote: »

The rewritten history that Ryanair were a shining white knight of cheap fares that burst on the scene to reduce prices is just that - a rewrite. Not true, didn't happen. Deregulation reduced prices, across Europe; not Ryanair.

No-one is claiming otherwise?

MYOB wrote: »

More importantly, FR's relaunch as low cost was later than 1990 - more like 1992 or 3; I'd need to check.

Ryanair website wrote:

1990
After three years of rapid growth in aircraft, routes and intense price competition with Aer Lingus and British Airways, Ryanair accumulates £20m in losses and goes through a substantial restructuring. The Ryan family invest a further £20m. in the company, and copying the Southwest Airlines low fares model the airline is re-launched under new management as Europe's first low fares airline

Who's rewriting history now then?

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

I wasn't party to maintenance routines, and as I said I don't remember as a customer much difference between FR's 1-11's and anyone else's. Tell me, did you actually travel on an FR 1-11?

Yes, once thankfully

Suffered the 737-200s far more than I'd wish on my worst enemy.

n97 mini wrote: »

Who's rewriting history now then?

Ryanair. Or more accurately, they're using "1990" to refer to the beginning of a restructuring program, that did not consist solely of them deciding to be an LCC overnight.

They flew full-service to the new STN terminal - which opened in 1991. Full service and frills continued for some time after 1990; the start of the restructuring primarily consisted of cutting their route network back to virtually nothing.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

Suffered the 737-200s far more than I'd wish on my worst enemy.

Do you feel as a customer that FR's 737-200s were worse than EI's 737-200s?

MYOB wrote: »

Ryanair. Or more accurately, they're using "1990" to refer to the beginning of a restructuring program, that did not consist solely of them deciding to be an LCC overnight.

So they began in 1990 and finished around the same time EI had replaced its fleet in 1992, but the point still stands: Shiny new 737s owned by a high cost airline compared to older 737s owned by a LCC.

A friend of mine has a hate for FR that's largely based on things in his own brain, yet he still flies with them. He's a PITA.

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

Do you feel as a customer that FR's 737-200s were worse than EI's 737-200s?

I never travelled on an EI 737-200, however FR's were in a condition so appalling that I doubt EI have ever used a craft that bad. I've certainly never encountered one.

My last FR 737-200 flight involved sitting in a seat with a faulty reclining mechanism that slowly lowered me in to the passenger behind during the flight, and there wasn't another seat free. Should probably have notified the IAA about it as there isn't a chance it would have been safe in an accident, a bit late now though.

That craft (EI-CJE, Jaguar logojet) was actually withdrawn exactly a month later so I suspect there was a serious case of "can't be bothered" about mx work.

n97 mini wrote: »

So they began in 1990 and finished around the same time EI had replaced its fleet in 1992, but the point still stands: Shiny new 737s owned by a high cost airline compared to older 737s owned by a LCC.

A friend of mine has a hate for FR that's largely based on things in his own brain, yet he still flies with them. He's a PITA.

They began a restructuring plan in 1990. I'm still fairly certain they didn't begin any LCC efforts for some years after that. They still spent a fair amount of time attempting to compete as a full service carrier with wrecks, nothing can erase that bit of history. Even when EI had on paper identical craft, FRs were multiple-hand, poorly maintained heaps.

I've not flown FR in some years, and its not likely I ever will again.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

I've not flown FR in some years, and its not likely I ever will again.

Did you have a bad experience?

Personally I have not had any bad experience with any airline. I fly 5 or 6 times a year, shorthall, chose who I fly with on price only, which means it's not always but nearly always FR.

L1011

n97 mini wrote: »

Did you have a bad experience?

Not one particular experience, but many minor things:

being treated like dirt for daring to disturb the crew with my presence; wonky planes (that 732 wasn't the only one - I know their 738 fleet doesn't have those issues, yet anyway); dirty planes; delayed flights getting cancelled to preserve an on-time figure; being denied boarding in a time frame that any other airline would accept - and then later finding out the flight was delayed 30 minutes; being kept awake to be hawked crap, constantly, all flight; bugles for landing "on time" in an allocated flight time a Cessna 172 would have met easily; "We know you could have chosen another airline" speech on a monopoly route; being nickel and dimed at every opportunity; a booking website that if you make one slight change turns every available extra that you deselected back on.

I'm sure I can remember more.

n97 mini wrote: »

Personally I have not had any bad experience with any airline. I fly 5 or 6 times a year, shorthall, chose who I fly with on price only, which means it's not always but nearly always FR.

I fly 3-4 times a month in a normal month, some months more, few to no months less. And yes, that is mostly leisure flying. Price is important, but seeing as the difference to get treated properly is often 10% or less; its not important enough.

There has only been one single case where I spent significantly more than the FR price out of the last 100 sectors or so I've flown. DUB-LON at two days notice; and the main advantage of not flying FR was that the flight I got was at a respectable hour, not 6:30. And I do still check prices, just to reassure myself that I'm not pissing money away - and I'm not.

n97 mini

MYOB wrote: »

being treated like dirt for daring to disturb the crew with my presence;
wonky planes (that 732 wasn't the only one - I know their 738 fleet doesn't have those issues, yet anyway);
dirty planes;
delayed flights getting cancelled to preserve an on-time figure;
being denied boarding in a time frame that any other airline would accept - and then later finding out the flight was delayed 30 minutes;
being kept awake to be hawked crap, constantly, all flight;
bugles for landing "on time" in an allocated flight time a Cessna 172 would have met easily;
"We know you could have chosen another airline" speech on a monopoly route;
being nickel and dimed at every opportunity;
a booking website that if you make one slight change turns every available extra that you deselected back on.

I haven't had any of those on any airline, bar the being kept awake on an hour long flight due to the crew selling sh1te -- which I wouldn't have slept on anyway as I can't fall asleep on demand -- and the trumpets as a prelude to punctuality, which, while corny, is a minor foible. Neither are a reason not to fly with any airline on non-transatlantic routes in fairness.

MYOB wrote: »

Price is important, but seeing as the difference to get treated properly is often 10% or less; its not important enough.

Quite often I find the next nearest competitor is EI, and they can be 100% more expensive. But that's a moot point. If FR and EI were the same price all the time I would split my custom 50-50. For the same money EI provide a marginally better service but I can't forget how they shafted me and my family for decades.

MYOB wrote: »

And I do still check prices, just to reassure myself that I'm not pissing money away - and I'm not.

8 weeks in advance is the optimal time to book a flight, and my own research has shown that EI are generally twice the price of FR at that timeframe. That's of course not to say that FR are the cheapest either, but in 5 out of 6 cases they are cheaper than EI.

Capt'n Midnight

I can remember the Ryanair ATR 42's

weren't the RyanAir 737's ex-Lufthansa ?

timeline here
https://www.ryanair.com/en/about

ballooba

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9436735/Etihad-eyes-seat-on-Aer-Lingus-board.html

Etihad wants board position, codeshare starts Tuesday.