Ryanair To The USA

L1011

owenc wrote: »

Well um if they are expensive why have them at all?

Because on full-service longhaul people demand them. On budget/charter people don't. There used to be threads on with people panicking and trying to rebook when they got an EI A330 without them when they were mid-refit for instance.

owenc

MYOB wrote: »

Charging people to be a tourist and hence contribute to your economy is an odd one. There's also a unique rake of taxes on flights in the US - Customs User Fee, Immigration User Fee, APHIS User Fee, Federal Transportation Tax, 9/11 Security Charge and Passenger Service Charge all show as separate entries on my next fare breakdown.

Aye we booked for £2,200 and it turns out the actual flight cost like £1,600.

owenc

MYOB wrote: »

Because on full-service longhaul people demand them. On budget/charter people don't.

No I mean why have the overhead ones?

Jack1985

WiFi streaming through passengers own PEDs with there own movie/music channels streamed is a brilliant idea, and I would think it would be a minimal cost compared to say consoles on each-headrest. Say a deal like €20 for WiFi and on-demand material on a flight using your own PED would be a great deal IMO.

L1011

owenc wrote: »

No I mean why have the overhead ones?

Minimum standard expected on a 5+ hour flight is a crappy movie to try shut the kids up. Same thing basically.

Zonda999

There are numerous reasons why Ryanair to the USA would never have PTV's. As well as all the reasons mentioned thus far, they make seats thicker than they might be which would definitely be a big no for Ryanair

As well, I was on a 12 Hours flight from KUL to AMS last year (Malaysian B777-200ER for the record..) and there was a f**kin PTV box in my footwell which was annoying to say the least..

L1011

Zonda999 wrote: »

There are numerous reasons why Ryanair to the USA would never have PTV's. As well as all the reasons mentioned thus far, they make seats thicker than they might be which would definitely be a big no for Ryanair.

It won't be FR to the US, though; even if it does happen. O'Leary has as much admitted it. Its pretty obvious that LCC service transatlantic is nothing but a recipe for bankruptcy.

New PTV systems have finally got shift of the box. Doesn't help with the thousands of installed systems though.

JCX BXC

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Edit: Carnacalla, if you're travelling in relation to your new transatlantic airline, you'll need a work visa, so interview required - get them to stamp your visitors visa at the same time

Haha it wasn't:P

JCX BXC

MYOB wrote: »

Minimum standard expected on a 5+ hour flight is a crappy movie to try shut the kids up. Same thing basically.

They have them on the 2hr 15min flight to palma.

JCX BXC

Jack1985 wrote: »

WiFi streaming through passengers own PEDs with there own movie/music channels streamed is a brilliant idea, and I would think it would be a minimal cost compared to say consoles on each-headrest. Say a deal like €20 for WiFi and on-demand material on a flight using your own PED would be a great deal IMO.

That will not happen in the next 5 years anyway.
WI-FI on flight is slow for 1 person imagine 180!
Congestion would be way too high, and wifi in flight is not as cheap as people are making it out to be.

owenc

Its actually not slow. In america its about 10mbps

JCX BXC

owenc wrote: »

Its actually not slow. In america its about 10mbps

In america, some plans use cell towers on the ground to beam up internet signals, of course that is useless when you go to sea. Also only about 20-30 people use it due to the high cost, what about when 180 use it?

Jack1985

That will not happen in the next 5 years anyway.
WI-FI on flight is slow for 1 person imagine 180!
Congestion would be way too high, and wifi in flight is not as cheap as people are making it out to be.

I've heard the speeds on the transatlantic's with EI is great and there can and usually is upwards of 300 people on those flights, haven't heard complaints bar a few blackouts North of Greenland which is to be expected. Haven't used it myself personally, but I wouldn't agree there's a time issue with its implementation. Have heard EI were interested in it, but WiFi on Short-Haul seems dead in the water for a while now unfortunately.

JCX BXC

Jack1985 wrote: »

I've heard the speeds on the transatlantic's with EI is great and there can and usually is upwards of 300 people on those flights, haven't heard complaints bar a few blackouts North of Greenland which is to be expected. Haven't used it myself personally, but I wouldn't agree there's a time issue with its implementation. Have heard EI were interested in it, but WiFi on Short-Haul seems dead in the water for a while now unfortunately.

But if you have 300 on a flight, how many are going to pay for wifi? All of my family certainly wouldnt. Nor many of the people i know.
Im pretty sure aer lingus dosnt fly around north greenland. They are usually about 100-200 miles below greenland when going to the east coast. Check flight radar.

If your out in the sea, yours using satilitte for your wifi. If you have 4 other aer lingus a 330's within 100 miles of you, their probably using the same satilitte. If you have 1000 people using the wifi, you will not be able to sustain speeds that are usuable for streaming. Technology will get better and allow you to do these things, but personally, I dont see that happening in the near future.

If you could stream movies from a database in the airplane over wifi, thats a possibility. But I dont think their is software compatibility for that yet. Although that is something thats could happen, and may work.

Another problem with ditching the built in screens is, do you expect everybody to have their own, working eletronic devices? What if I have a 2 year old without a tablet? What do they do? Sleep? I know from my cousions, thats not always the case.

Maybe supply tablets? If you going to supply tablets, id say an entertainment system would be cheaper.

Feel free to challenge any of my points.

Larry Wildman

People often argue that the Ryanair model of quick turnarounds won't work for long haul to the US.

But they're already flying to places like Moscow which are "medium haul".

I'd argue that Dublin to New York is more medium haul rather than long haul.

Jack1985

But if you have 300 on a flight, how many are going to pay for wifi? All of my family certainly wouldnt.

You are 100% right apologies, of course no where near that amount will be using WiFi, don't ask why I posted the 300 figure :P. The only information I have to hand with the brief blackouts (and its minutes mainly) are the flights to SFO just after passing Greenland before reaching Hudson Bay (and yes SFO does track over Northern Greenland), EI are trying to deal with that but it is only brief.

An example of the use of PEDs by airlines include Virgin America they were doing this trial of Google pads for loan on flights i.e. you picked it up at the Gate at LAX and handed it to crew landing in SFO, don't know how that investment worked for them but its a good idea although its a lot of cash upfront by the airline for that investment. But the amount of people now with iPhone's/iPad's and Android devices is staggering something like 70% penetration regards devices used by people these days, so I definitely would believe any investment in this area should be in that direction where demand is headed certainly not in the direction of solely entertainment equipment which will run its course fairly soon - There needs to be a variety, WiFi is certainly dear to operate but if you open up what the passenger can do using it i.e. stream something similar to Netflix and be able to access the Internet for say a flat fee of €25 on a long-haul flight I could see the cost of installation being relatively recouped well over-time, although admittedly I have no idea of the airlines instillation of the satcom device needed as well as maintenance costs which definitely are not cheap.

billy few mates

What if I have a 2 year old without a tablet? What do they do? Sleep? I know from my cousions, thats not always the case.

Maybe supply tablets?

Yes, tablets would definitely help them sleep.....

billie1b

Jack1985 wrote: »

The only information I have to hand with the brief blackouts (and its minutes mainly) are the flights to SFO just after passing Greenland before reaching Hudson Bay (and yes SFO does track over Northern Greenland).

EI track south of Greenland on the SFO route. They don't even fly over Iceland.

JCX BXC

billy few mates wrote: »

Yes, tablets would definitely help them sleep.....

Thats not what i was intending.

ProfessorPlum

billie1b wrote: »

EI track south of Greenland on the SFO route. They don't even fly over Iceland.

Sorry Billie, you're wrong there. Great circle route takes you over Greenland, and while it would be south of Iceland, not by far, so the planned route could easily go over Iceland depending on winds/weather.

JCX BXC

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Sorry Billie, you're wrong there. Great circle route takes you over Greenland, and while it would be south of Iceland, not by far, so the planned route could easily go over Iceland depending on winds/weather.

I will watch it on flight radar.

JCX BXC

Notice the flight paths. Shannon to boston is very low. San Francisco is high enough.

billie1b

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Sorry Billie, you're wrong there. Great circle route takes you over Greenland, and while it would be south of Iceland, not by far, so the planned route could easily go over Iceland depending on winds/weather.

I know about the great circle route and winds/weather but generally the planned route for SFO is south of greenland not north.

ProfessorPlum

billie1b wrote: »

I know about the great circle route and winds/weather but generally the planned route for SFO is south of greenland not north.

Really? That's news to me. Care to back it up with some flight plans??

Without wanting to waste anymore of my time on it, todays flight, yesterdays flight, and three random ones that I've checked from last week, plus the one I was on the week before that, all routed over Greenland. It's the shortest distance, and outside of weather issues, there's no good reason not to go that way.


Edit @Carnacalla, the ORD route will sometimes have you routing over the south of greenland too.

Jack1985

Ill get the flight-plan late tonight when I'm in work.

billie1b

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Really? That's news to me. Care to back it up with some flight plans??

Without wanting to waste anymore of my time on it, todays flight, yesterdays flight, and three random ones that I've checked from last week, plus the one I was on the week before that, all routed over Greenland. It's the shortest distance, and outside of weather issues, there's no good reason not to go that way.


Edit @Carnacalla, the ORD route will sometimes have you routing over the south of greenland too.

Jesus whats to back up?, it tracks over the south of Greenland, how many times do I need to say it, Carnacalla even showed a picture of it, it very rarely will track north. Whats the problem with it for you? Do you not like admitting a mistake or something?

ProfessorPlum

billie1b wrote: »

Jesus whats to back up?, it tracks over the south of Greenland, how many times do I need to say it, Carnacalla even showed a picture of it, it very rarely will track north. Whats the problem with it for you? Do you not like admitting a mistake or something?

Difficulties with English, or difficulties admitting you're wrong. Back to school for you. That's the first time you've said it tracks over the south of Greenland. Tracking south of greenland means something very different. I would have thought someone involved in the business would know that.

Jack1985

The dotted red-line is what's known as the ''Great Circle route'' i.e. direct, its the other line you're interested in, the blanks are where coverage ceases. I'll be able to provide clearer detail later.

billie1b

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Difficulties with English, or difficulties admitting you're wrong. Back to school for you. That's the first time you've said it tracks over the south of Greenland. Tracking south of greenland means something very different. I would have thought someone involved in the business would know that.

No it means the south of Greenland, your twisting words to fix it for yourself, i've no problems with English but it seems you do yourself.
North of Greenland means the North of the country, South of Greenland means the South of the country. If the aircraft was not overflying greenland it would track under the south of Greenland. I never once said it doesn't track over Greenland, I said it tracks 'South of Greenland, not North'. Easily understood for a person with even the littlest of English

ProfessorPlum

billie1b wrote: »

No it means the south of Greenland, your twisting words to fix it for yourself, i've no problems with English but it seems you do yourself.
North of Greenland means the North of the country, South of Greenland means the South of the country. If the aircraft was not overflying greenland it would track under the south of Greenland. I never once said it doesn't track over Greenland, I said it tracks 'South of Greenland, not North'. Easily understood for a person with even the littlest of English

OK, I'm not going to get into it with you. But a word of advice - if you're every communicating with ATC and tell them that you'll be routing 'south of their control zone', I'd make damn sure you stay out of it and not route over the south of it!