Ryanair vs Bertie

Ratchet

i would like to see 2nd terminal and nice bigger airport but this is just plain childish.

Sleepy

Childish but it's effective.

Ratchet

yeah, effectively proven that this could only happen in Ireland

Time Magazine

You know I don't think it's childish.

It's satirical childishness. It's also very effective because the Govt are negatively affected more by the child association than low-cost-no-frills Ryanair, so it probably irks them more than a normal ad.

I would, however, call it irritating .

Ratchet

i found some ads entertaining when initially published in the paper but YES

now find it irritating

sceptre

I had to google for torpor to find out what it was (and then check the secondary meaning, which is what they meant). Given that I speakah the English vairy good (well, I'm not completely illiterate), I suspect I won't be the only one.

I'd tend to agree with Angry Banana's irritating. I'd prefer to see that annoying frog singing "get off yer arse Bertie and go for a second terminal" on the telly if they want to run with something like this but then RTE probably wouldn't accept the advert anyway.

Ratchet

not defending Bertie and are for 2nd terminal but


this is getting more personal the anything else and is not going to speed up the process

it's kids play

Villain

Well FF's pre election mandate stated their would be a low fare facility by 2003!!!

lol anothe FF lie, why am I not surprised!

Roisin Dubh

As Michael O'Leary said on the news, this second terminal was promised in the 2002 manifesto and we were told it would be ready by Summer 2003. It is now nearly Summer 2005. What a joke!

We need competition. That will lower landing charges and end the unions power to close down all the Dublin airport terminals. Thus, the second terminal needs to be owned by the private-sector.

Another reason this should be so is that state-own companies tend to be very slow on this sort of thing.

shelsfan

I had to google for torpor to find out what it was

Yeah, me too, I presume:

A state of mental or physical inactivity

is what they mean.

If they want more media coverage of this they should have advertised it better (i've only seen it on the internet).

Slutmonkey57b

While I think that the ending of the Aer Rianta monopoly might be a good thing, in operational terms I can't see how handing Ryanair a monopoly on the new terminal is any better.

I don't trust them to run an airline, I certainly don't trust them to run an airport fairly, especially if other carriers are going to rely on Ryanair to "support" them getting their flights off on time etc.

Boggle

While I think that the ending of the Aer Rianta monopoly might be a good thing, in operational terms I can't see how handing Ryanair a monopoly on the new terminal is any better.

O'Leary doesn't give a crap who runs the 2nd terminal - he just wants a private second terminal available and doesn't care if he doesn't get to run it.

i would like to see 2nd terminal and nice bigger airport but this is just plain childish.

Unfortunately, while being childish, it is also the only way to get the present govt to pay attention to you - by insulting them.

And for thise of you who are so quick to slag off ryan-air, I take it you dont remember the pre-ryan air days when the cost of a plane ticket was completely extortionate?

Hydroquinone

shelsfan wrote:

If they want more media coverage of this they should have advertised it better (i've only seen it on the internet).

As you can only book a Ryanair flight on the internet, I reckon they're advertising it in exactly the right place. Captive audience of people interested in what they're selling. I had to laugh at these thousands of free flights they're offering for their supporters. There's only a few destinations and none of them are anywhere want to go. Maybe Im just fussy!!!

I'd go along with what Boggle says there about pre-Ryanair flights.
If it wasn't for Ryanair we'd not have reduced Aer Lingus fares. And little jaunts off to the UK and Europe would be not as common as they are now.I know it's quite trendy to slag off Ryanair and especially Michael O'Leary, but I reckon he's a real entrepreneur. He's shaken up commercial aviation as we know it and it reiterates to me that we're a nation of begrudgers. If you disagree withwhat he does and all he stands for, you should make it your business to boycott Ryanair and always fly Aer Lingus, the good old state airline. We're all paying for it after all.

bonkey

Hydroquinone wrote:

If it wasn't for Ryanair we'd not have reduced Aer Lingus fares.

I don't know about it being Ryanair specifically, but definitely airlines running that model in general have radically altered the "local" European model.

And little jaunts off to the UK and Europe would be not as common as they are now.

My girlfriend and I can now do the Ireland/Switzerland route together for less then one of us could do it when we first started dating...a whole six years ago.

I know it's quite trendy to slag off Ryanair and especially Michael O'Leary, but I reckon he's a real entrepreneur.

He most certainly is....but Ryanair isn't without its flaws, and should be criticised for them.

I got massively turned off them for a long time when they were still fleecing ppl on one-way tickets. Dunno if they still are, but I seem to recall it was EasyJet who introduced real "per leg" charging, where the cost of flying (say)Dublin-to-Stanstead was entirely independant of whether or not you bought a Stanstead-to-Dublin ticket for the same person at the same time.

He's shaken up commercial aviation as we know it and it reiterates to me that we're a nation of begrudgers.

I'm deeply grateful to the likes of Mr. O'Leary for helping contribute to the forces which have reshaped the market. I am not deeply grateful for some of the business practices he has engaged in along the way, and am glad that they have (mostly) fallen by the wayside.

I don't see why I shouldn't criticise and be grateful at the same time.

If you disagree withwhat he does and all he stands for, you should make it your business to boycott Ryanair and always fly Aer Lingus, the good old state airline. We're all paying for it after all.

Ah yes...but if you don't disagree with all he stands for, but only some aspects where some improvement would be nice....should you not still make your objections heard?

jc

MadsL

I'm just waiting for the day that O'Leary introduces pay-per-kilo baggage charges...

I will never forget having to transfer exactly 2 kilos from my luggage to my hand luggage, just because the check-in luggage was more than 15kg, even though my total weight of luggage was less than the maximum. Check-in staff clearly don't have LC Maths.

Hydroquinone

Can't argue with anything you say there, bonkey. Not at all.

Sleepy

MadsL wrote:

I'm just waiting for the day that O'Leary introduces pay-per-kilo baggage charges...

I will never forget having to transfer exactly 2 kilos from my luggage to my hand luggage, just because the check-in luggage was more than 15kg, even though my total weight of luggage was less than the maximum. Check-in staff clearly don't have LC Maths.

TBH, that sounds like a good idea to me. Once a provision is made for disabled passengers wheelchairs etc, I see it as only fair that someone travelling light should get a lower fare than someone taking half their wardrobe with them.

landser

Boggle wrote:

O'Leary doesn't give a crap who runs the 2nd terminal - he just wants a private second terminal available and doesn't care if he doesn't get to run it.

THis is wrong. O'Leary said in the press conference on Monday that he wouldn't touch the 2nd terminal if SIPTU were a shareholder in it, he wants the second terminal for ryanair, then he won't have to pay any landing charges

O'Leary is full of guff. the stuff re bringing in x hundred of thousands of passengers per year is just plucked from the air with nothing to back it up... it's just advertising for Ryanair... the man is a master of marketing... but pretty obnoxious in every other way

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

TBH, that sounds like a good idea to me.

Likewise...although I'm sure that were it to be introduced I'd be amongst the first thinking that a fixed-price for the first X kilos would be far more convenient, cause then I could fly for a fixed price, rather than having to always have to pay at the check-in-desk (complete with resultant delays etc.)

Once a provision is made for disabled passengers wheelchairs

The irony...

wasn't it O'Leary who was told that legally he was obliged to supply disabled passengers with wheelchairs to get on/off the plane...so he implemented it as a charged service ????

I see it as only fair that someone travelling light should get a lower fare than someone taking half their wardrobe with them.

Definitely...but would you be willing to queue for an extra potentially huge chuink of time(as everyone's luggage was weighed, charges made/paid, and all the ensuing complications argued out ("I'm not paying that" / "I can't afford that" / etc.) in order to save those few quid?

Me...I'd be looking for the "pay extra to not have to queue" option....

There's costs and costs.

One of my favourite things about Ryanair flights....they board in about half the time of other planes. I can't understand airlines' penchant for filling a plane from the front to back...so that every single passenger causes the maximum flow-disruption possible.

I'd pay *extra* to get rid of allocated seating in order to cut out that crap.

jc

Boggle

THis is wrong. O'Leary said in the press conference on Monday that he wouldn't touch the 2nd terminal if SIPTU were a shareholder in it, he wants the second terminal for ryanair, then he won't have to pay any landing charges

He was on Mat Cooper's Show on Today FM not so long ago and he stated that he would like the second terminal but if he doesn't get it he doesn't mind as long as it is built.

What I'm sure he meant by not touching the second terminal if SIPTU were a part of it is generally more to do with his dislike of trade unions. I reckon he attributes most of the problems at the first terminal to the trade unions and reckons if they ran the place it'd be a disaster. I would also hazard a guess that if he does get it then there wont be a union allowed within a mile of the door...

Hard to blame him really seeing as they always appear to be on striking.

por

bonkey wrote:

Definitely...but would you be willing to queue for an extra potentially huge chuink of time(as everyone's luggage was weighed, charges made/paid, and all the ensuing complications argued out ("I'm not paying that" / "I can't afford that" / etc.) in order to save those few quid?

Neither would Ryanir like the above situation, they are in the business of quickest possible turn around times for their planes, therefore extra time at the checking desk is not in their plans.

Occidental

O'Leary has said many times that he has no interest in running a second terminal at Dublin. What he wants is a second terminal which is not controlled by Aer Rianta(DAA) or SIPTU. Funnily enough, a certain Mr Walsh was also after the same thing.

oscarBravo

landser wrote:

O'Leary is full of guff. the stuff re bringing in x hundred of thousands of passengers per year is just plucked from the air with nothing to back it up...

I dunno. Ryanair seem to be almost singlehandedly keeping the Boeing's 737 production line in operation. Of all the complaints you can justly level at O'Leary, I don't think a failure to deliver passenger numbers is one of them.

BCB

Damn Ryanair :mad: cheap flights my arse,only to selective destainations and a lot of time you have to travel early midweek,try getting a cheap flight to Gatwick at the weekend..no chance....... :mad:

Slutmonkey57b

Realistically, O'Leary isn't the one you have to thank for low fares, it's Southwest Airlines who were doing this in the 80's, followed by Easy Jet, followed by a lot of other operators. Ryanair might be cheap but they're not innovative.

BuffyBot

Ryanair might be cheap but they're not innovative.

Well..being the first "no-frills" operator in Europe gives them a bit of an edge...easyJet didn't come along until after. So yeah, Ryanair was an innovator in its market.

Roisin Dubh

While I think that the ending of the Aer Rianta monopoly might be a good thing, in operational terms I can't see how handing Ryanair a monopoly on the new terminal is any better.

Ryanair isn't offering to built/own the new terminal. The DAA is a monopoly because it runs the only airport terminal in Dublin. So if someone else owns the new terminal, that ends the DAA's monopoly, rather than creating a new one. It introduces competition, which would likely lead to the competing terminals trying to undercut each other in terms of landing-charges, which in turn would allow airlines to cut fares due to the fall in their costs.

As the Ryanair ad recently said, Socialism doesn't work Bertie. We need to dilute the absolute power of SIPTU to shut down the flights out of Dublin.

landser

oscarBravo wrote:

I dunno. Ryanair seem to be almost singlehandedly keeping the Boeing's 737 production line in operation. Of all the complaints you can justly level at O'Leary, I don't think a failure to deliver passenger numbers is one of them.

the point i made was that O'Leary states as fact that the failure to bring in a second terminal has meant the loss of hundreds of thousands of bums on seats and 5,ooo jobs. he has never shown any concrete studies which back up his assertions. the figures are just plucked from the air.

O'Leary wants the second terminal for himself, or, to have a such a dominant feture in the second terminal, in terms of businees coming to the terminal, such as he has in airports on mainalnd europe and in kerry etc., that he can name his price for landing charges, and seek the "marketing monies" that airports such as Chalreroi have paid to him. He is anti SIPTU for many reasons, one if which is that he knows they would not put up with allowing Ryanair to enter into a quasi monopoly situation in the new terminal.

I am no fan of SIPTU, but O'Leary likes to portray himself as some sort of avenging angel for the Irish consumer, driving down prices and standing up to the unions.... he isn't. he uses the constant reinforement of his message that Ryanair is the "low fares airline", when in fact they are the "some of our seats are low cost, but most are not" airline. I use the airline myself, but only ever as a very last resort.

As for their new planes, they certainly need them. i flew to stansted last month on a 737-200 which was so old, i think the first pilot to have flown it was the Red Baron. It shook the bejaysus out of everyone on board and the passengers were quite perturbed by the experience and some complained to the cabin crew that they had been scared by the poor condition of the aircraft.

Their trolly dollies are pretty gammy looking too

Occidental

landser wrote:

O'Leary wants the second terminal for himself, or, to have a such a dominant feture in the second terminal, in terms of businees coming to the terminal, such as he has in airports on mainalnd europe and in kerry etc., that he can name his price for landing charges, and seek the "marketing monies" that airports such as Chalreroi have paid to him. He is anti SIPTU for many reasons, one if which is that he knows they would not put up with allowing Ryanair to enter into a quasi monopoly situation in the new terminal.

What he said he wants is a low cost terminal with easy access, so that the maximum number of passengers can be moved through with minimum fuss and at minimum cost. What he does not want is the Aer Rianta nirvana, of a shopping centre with an airport tacked on.

I find it a bit rich that you're talking about SIPTU protecting us from a monopoly, when SIPTU's aim is to protect and enhance the current monopoly.

Boggle

O'Leary wants the second terminal for himself, or, to have a such a dominant feture in the second terminal, in terms of businees coming to the terminal, such as he has in airports on mainalnd europe and in kerry etc., that he can name his price for landing charges, and seek the "marketing monies" that airports such as Chalreroi have paid to him.

What he wants is a second COMPETING termial in Dublin as competition = lower prices.

Roisin Dubh said this already and yet you fail to read it.
PABLO INGLAIS SENIOR??? :rolleyes:

landser

Boggle wrote:

What he wants is a second COMPETING termial in Dublin as competition = lower prices.

Roisin Dubh said this already and yet you fail to read it.
PABLO INGLAIS SENIOR??? :rolleyes:

I do speak english and from your post it is abundantly clear that you do not speak spanish, but this chap, Pablo Inglais Snr, sounds like a very nice fellow indeed.

As for Roisin Dubh's post, i did read same. I just don't agree with it a lot of it. Ryanair has offered to build the new terminal and run it, but O'Leary has said that it will operate at that terminal if someone else owns it so long as it is a "low cost" facility.

Whilst competition is to be welcomed, there have been no empirical studies carried out that have shown that a second terminal at dublin airport will cut the costs of flights. what is accepted is that the growth of the airport has necessitated the consideration of a second terminal.

Competition does not always equal lower prices... a basic knowledge of economics will teach us that. what really lowers prices is less customer service.

O'Learys comments re a shopping centre with an airport attached are nonsense. whoever runs the new terminal will make shopping there as much a priority as flights as there is big money with little outlay to be made... unless your only plan is to build a barn with an airport attached a la beauvais, ciampino etc.

Victor

landser wrote:

THis is wrong. O'Leary said in the press conference on Monday that he wouldn't touch the 2nd terminal if SIPTU were a shareholder in it, he wants the second terminal for ryanair, then he won't have to pay any landing charges

They will still have to pay aircraft landing charges and passenger handling charges.