Ryanair Strike, Industrial relations discussion Mod note in post 1

billy few mates

vectorvictor wrote: »

You would need to think through the maths and how load factors work and the fact that the charges you have mentioned are irrelevant when the base fare has to be reduced to make the overall fare meet the requirement of delivering the desired load factor .

For a simple example €100 base fare plus let's say €10 of made up charges (wchr,your levy etc..). Yield management detects that the rate of sale (number of seats booked by each day prior to departure) is below that required to achieve the desired load factor. Yield management reduces the base fare to €90 to stimulate demand. The overall fare will always be the maximum the market can bare to achieve the load factor - it's just the composition of it that will be different if you add extra charges but the end fare will always be the same. In this example if that maximum the market for a particular sector can bare is €100 then that is the maximum you can achieve. It doesnt matter whether you charge €100 all in or €50 plus €50 charges. You will not (when aggregated and averaged) ever be able to achieve €101.

Why do you think there are so many seat sales. It is because the algorithm has detected that the fare being offered will not complete the flight load factor and it tests the market by reducing yield to increase load factor and then increasing once the rate of sale brings the sector back on track with its lf target.

Ryanair would not being saying no to €130,000,000 extra revenue per year if your idea was as simple as you make it out. Doing what you've suggested would decimate load factor.

You still haven't explained why the wheelchair levy on every ticket sold is a good thing but any other levy could bring the whole house down...?



https://m.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/ryanair-to-introduce-8-charge-for-second-carryon-bag-for-nonpriority-customers-37245828.html

vectorvictor

billy few mates wrote: »

You still haven't explained why the wheelchair levy on every ticket sold is a good thing but any other levy could bring the whole house down...?



https://m.independent.ie/life/travel/travel-news/ryanair-to-introduce-8-charge-for-second-carryon-bag-for-nonpriority-customers-37245828.html

I have explained exactly that. You can add as many charges as you want but it will not increase the maximum fare you can achieve.

You have linked to an article about ancillaries, I'm not sure why.

I never said it was a good thing

I don't know why you are so arrogant in your posting style. I tried to explain to help you , if it is over your head do some more reading up on the matter or ask questions.

L1011

If a quid on tickets will repel passengers, what are the baggage fee changes going to do?

flexcon

L1011 wrote: »

If a quid on tickets will repel passengers, what are the baggage fee changes going to do?

Good question.

It's all swapping Peter to Pay Paul really.

I recently booked a flight from cork to Standstead for €16.98. I then paid €4 to pick my seat. I then paid €6 for priority boarding. That means my flight add-ons are over 50% of the cost of the original fair. A grand total of €26.

Aer lingus offered the flights for €21.99 all in to include my hand luggage. add on for booking your seat is €4.99.

It's like an all in holiday package I paid for that includes a playground for the kids on the resort, even though I don't have kids.

Irish Steve

L1011 wrote: »

If a quid on tickets will repel passengers, what are the baggage fee changes going to do?

Significantly reduce the already limited number of flights we take, when you're on a fixed income, you plan accordingly, and charges for bags will in some cases almost double the cost of the flight.


It was only a matter of time, the additional staff to handle gate tagging and getting the bags on the aircraft at the gate have to be paid for somehow.

vectorvictor

L1011 wrote: »

If a quid on tickets will repel passengers, what are the baggage fee changes going to do?

All ancillaries, completely different equations than dealing with a base fare particularly when dealing with the human factor

L1011

vectorvictor wrote: »

All ancillaries, completely different equations than dealing with a base fare particularly when dealing with the human factor

If it doesn't have a significantly higher impact I'd be astounded. It does appear to be the cut too far for most people.

vectorvictor

L1011 wrote: »

If it doesn't have a significantly higher impact I'd be astounded. It does appear to be the cut too far for most people.

Same response from people to every change.
The market will decide.
Either people will adjust their travelling habits and continue to book or they will shift buying habits to other airlines and the policy will be reversed.

I agree though, brutal policy at a time they should be fighting to win custom not alienate their customers further

Wanderer78

vectorvictor wrote:

I agree though, brutal policy at a time they should be fighting to win custom not alienate their customers further

Ryanair doesn't particularly care for its passengers, this is clearly obvious, but I do imagine this price hike will be largely accepted, and we ll role on to the next charge, this is clearly their business model which has proven to be very successful to date, and imagine it to continue

flexcon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Ryanair doesn't particularly care for its passengers, this is clearly obvious, but I do imagine this price hike will be largely accepted, and we ll role on to the next charge, this is clearly their business model which has proven to be very successful to date, and imagine it to continue

I wouldn't agree that they don't care about their customers as such. They would be a company that is ready to take on the challenge of changing customer behaviors.

Apple is another example. Remove the HeadJack. Remove the inbuilt CD drive. Remove the earphones from the iPads. Remove the power extension cord from the Macbook Pro.

Each and every time they did this there was noticeable uproar yet look at the company now. This isn't to say they are right, just, the numbers show what they did positively contributed to the company and customers were not pissed off enough to leave. I totally agree with your point about their business model as such.

Wanderer78

flexcon wrote:

Each and every time they did this there was noticeable uproar yet look at the company now. This isn't to say they are right, just, the numbers show what they did positively contributed to the company and customers were not pissed off enough to leave. I totally agree with your point about their business model as such.

But dont these actions show that such companies don't actually truly care for their customers, that they are effectively controlling and manipulating the market? You d be surprised how such acts force those industries to change, including competitors

Bob24

L1011 wrote: »

If a quid on tickets will repel passengers, what are the baggage fee changes going to do?

They’ve actually lost me as a regular customer for some time because of things like this. Everyone has a different tolerance level for these measures which annoy passengers and mine might be pretty low, but what’s for sure is the more they add-up the more people they will annoy (and it is not really the psychological decision of having to pay for an add-on - people are smart enough to compare final prices with all the addons anyway - it is more the annoyance factor which comes with these things).

They had lost me as a customer a first time in the early 2010s because of similar things and gotten me back a few years ago when MOL decided it was time to stop annoying customers and actually implemented changes (disappointing figures probably helped the decision). I feel they have fallen for the temptation to annoy customers for small extra revenue again which is why I have been avoiding them, but I think eventually it will hit their financial figures as people get tired of it and they will roll-back some of these measures so I might start using them again then.

And to go back on topic, all that stuff is *way* more important in my decision to fly Ryanair or not than an extra euro on my ticket.

rivegauche

L1011 wrote: »

The protective notice is a sham; the reduction is flights is annual.

Those who don't know how the airline works and has worked for years may believe its something different to normal.

People are being played by Ryanair PR here, unsurprisingly.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0823/986940-ryanair/

It is understood that Ryanair is expected to remove the threat of job losses if the deal with pilots is ratified.

Last month, the airline issued 90-day protective notices to 100 pilots and 200 cabin crew based at Dublin Airport, partly blaming the effect of strikes.

It said it would cut the Dublin fleet by six planes and move them to Poland.

However, as part of the agreement reached overnight, it is understood the airline's negotiators will recommend to the board that the protective notices are removed if the deal is passed.

I'm quite content with the way things are progressing. Jobs which were due to be lost come winter have been saved and now that Industrial Relations between Employer and Employees are on a good solid footing the continued growth of Ryanair in Ireland is assured. If the employees at other locations within the Ryanair network can't come to agreement with their employer then that will only be to the benefit of Irish employees.
Roll on Cabin Crew negotiations. May they be granted everything that they can reasonably expect.

L1011

The jobs were never going to be lost. Only you and the media believe that they were.

rivegauche

That is only your contention. You have nothing to prove that. I have official announcements and protective notices to support my position. You still persist in making this unfounded claim that the jobs were never in danger.

L1011

rivegauche wrote: »

That is only your contention. You have nothing to prove that. I have official announcements and protective notices to support my position. You still persist in making this unfounded claim that the jobs were never in danger.

I have knowledge of how the aviation industry works; as do the other posters who have also stated that the protective notice was a sham. You have zero knowledge of the industry.

Notice that no flights were cut and no flights will now be added. The schedule never changed. The jobs were never going.

rivegauche

You deny that the pilots were on Protective Notice? Protective Notice either ends, is extended or staff are made redundant.
This is an uncomfortable fact for you.
Your claimed "knowledge" of the industry doesn't trump protective notice. The pilots dodged a bullet here. It was a very clear statement of intent which made the other party to the negotiations more amenable to compromise.

L1011

rivegauche wrote: »

You deny that the pilots were on Protective Notice? Protective Notice either ends, is extended or staff are made redundant.
This is an uncomfortable fact for you.
Your claimed "knowledge" of the industry doesn't trump protective notice. The pilots dodged a bullet here. It was a very clear statement of intent which made the other party to the negotiations more amenable to compromise.

The protective notice was a sham, never to be acted on, to convince the gullible. It had zero impact on the unions. You tried to claim it did by quoting an RTE journalist who had also fallen for it due to not understanding anything.

You refuse to accept anything that dents your narrative of Ryanair having an advantage in this situation. This shows in your fantastical, financially crippling "proposals" also.

billy few mates

vectorvictor wrote: »

I have explained exactly that. You can add as many charges as you want but it will not increase the maximum fare you can achieve.

You have linked to an article about ancillaries, I'm not sure why.

I never said it was a good thing

I don't know why you are so arrogant in your posting style. I tried to explain to help you , if it is over your head do some more reading up on the matter or ask questions.

I fully understand the concept of yield management and the difference between load factor and yield. Apologies if my response came across as arrogant, that genuinely wasn't my intention, it's just that you tried to answer my question with a wide ranging explanation of the system of YM which fails to answer the question I asked.
For the sake of argument let me pitch the levy at 50c per seat sold, the same as the wheelchair levy. Now can you explain how the Ryanair business model can sustain the wheelchair levy while an additional similar levy which does not completely go straight into their trouser pocket could bring about its collapse?
Are you honestly suggesting the market would baulk at an additional 50c per ticket but won't react to an additional €8 per bag...?

vectorvictor

billy few mates wrote: »

I fully understand the concept of yield management and the difference between load factor and yield. Apologies if my response came across as arrogant, that genuinely wasn't my intention, it's just that you tried to answer my question with a wide ranging explanation of the system of YM which fails to answer the question I asked.
For the sake of argument let me pitch the levy at 50c per seat sold, the same as the wheelchair levy. Now can you explain how the Ryanair business model can sustain the wheelchair levy while an additional similar levy which does not completely go straight into their trouser pocket could bring about its collapse?
Are you honestly suggesting the market would baulk at an additional 50c per ticket but won't react to an additional €8 per bag...?

All answered in detail and you've completely missed the point. I can't think how to make it simpler. My wide ranging answer addressed how extras such as the 50c are accommodated into yield management and the impact on the base fare.

I've addressed the ancillary point too about bags.

You've asked me a number of times to explain something that is explained in detail in the post . I can't simplify it any further, if you read it slowly you will see all the answers.

rivegauche

L1011 wrote: »

You refuse to accept anything that dents your narrative

You've said this all before. I know nothing, yada, yada, yada...
You accuse me of trying to misrepresent the situation. Look at yourself.
I state that you are a very biased commentator and you make the same accusation of me.
Ryanair have airplanes which fly out of plenty of airports early in the morning and don't return until shift end.
You suggest that this is damaging to their business model when it is actually at the core of their business model.

L1011

rivegauche wrote: »

You've said this all before. I know nothing, yada, yada, yada...

Because you don't. Generally people who have their gaping lack of knowledge pointed out to them go learn some of what is required - you dig in. Grasping at the vague idea that because Ryanair run W routes to airports without bases and expanding it to suggest they replace large bases with W patterns is just a facet of this - it would ensure they lost market share and competitiveness at a significant financial cost. But you just ignore that.

As goes bias - you seem to think that calling your nonsense out as such is bias. It isn't. You can accept this or quietly decide not to - repeatedly stating it won't make it so.

You need to vastly improve the quality of your posts.

rivegauche

This is the Q&A for the Q1 2019 results
https://investor.ryanair.com/results/q1-results-fy19/
At 8m10seconds M O'L tells his audience who are the investors in his company that the flights will be removed. That is not a lie. He is not allowed to lie to the investors. He can tell the media whatever he likes outside of earning calls but he has an obligation to be 100% truthful in these calls as Investors makes their decisions based on what he communicates.
I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

Now, I ask you for once and for all to stop claiming that this wasn't a genuine statement as to what Ryanair's plans for Winter were.

rivegauche

L1011 wrote: »

You need to vastly improve the quality of your posts.

The threat of a ban always hangs over me, doesn't it.

L1011

Flights weren't removed. It is really quite as simple as that. It wasn't a genuine statement, the protective notice was a sham.

rivegauche wrote: »

The threat of a ban always hangs over me, doesn't it.

Because of your posting history and infraction/ban history, yes.

rivegauche

I give up. You don't have the first clue what that video was about, why it was recorded, who the audience was or its import.

billy few mates

rivegauche wrote: »

You deny that the pilots were on Protective Notice? Protective Notice either ends, is extended or staff are made redundant.
This is an uncomfortable fact for you.
Your claimed "knowledge" of the industry doesn't trump protective notice. The pilots dodged a bullet here. It was a very clear statement of intent which made the other party to the negotiations more amenable to compromise.

Yeah, we'll go with that version so...;)

L1011

rivegauche wrote: »

I give up.

Please do.

rivegauche

once you agree not to contradict the fact that this wasn't a sham action by Ryanair management but rather a considered decision which was of such significance that it would be of interest to institutional investors and rating agencies.

L1011

rivegauche wrote: »

once you agree not to contradict the fact that this wasn't a sham action by Ryanair management but rather a considered decision which was of such significance that it would be of interest to institutional investors and rating agencies.

There is no such fact. No flights were cancelled. It was a logistical impossibility for them to lay off staff in such a situation and the notice was only issued to convinced the gullible that there was any risk.

If you believe this means investors were misled I suggest you report Ryanair to the ODCE.