Cheap Airlines: What do you think of them ?

[Halcyon]

One of the many conversations I had over Christmas was a topic on cheap airfares and the numerous cheap airlines that are around.
I started by saying that I had been from London Stansted to Graz in Austria (2 1/2 hours flight) on Ryan Air and was pretty impressed with it because the flight cost me a total of £34.48.

Ok so I didn’t have an in flight movie, served meals, or given any luxuries, but I didn’t need them for such a short flight.
I thought It was adequate and I didn’t have anything to complain about.

Now this is where my uncle comes in and says that he would never fly with these low fare airlines because they are disasters waiting to happen.
According to him, the price I paid to get to Austria is about the same price I'd pay for a train ticket from Leicester to London.
He says that in no way could airlines fly for such cheap prices.
It costs more to fly a plane than a train.

So, I see where he is coming from here, but I always thought Ryan air make their money from people with excess baggage and quick turnarounds of aircraft constantly in the air, as well as not refunding customers who miss their flights.

My uncle went on to say that many of these low fare airlines are possibly, instead, cutting wages and offering lower wages to staff, which can lead to people not wanting to do their jobs properly, and not doing necessary work on aircraft, which can result in accidents.
He works in accident research in France and says that many of these airlines buy planes and then do not service them as often as they should do. So eventually something could go wrong.
I don’t know if there is much difference in France, but I thought that all planes had to adhere to set guidelines here in the UK.
He mentioned a company in France that holds back on tyre replacements and does not replace them as often as they should be replaced, for example.

Another point that was brought to my attention is the flying time pilots have before allowed to take to the skies with tonnes of passengers.
Some airlines seem to accept pilots with a lot less flying hours (and thus flying experience) than Air France or British Airways, for example.

So the conclusion my uncle made was that he would rather pay more and fly Air France or British Airways and know that he will be flying safer than Ryan air.
As a student I can't really afford to go splashing out on airfares so I go for the cheaper, Ryan Air.
But according to my uncle, I'm chancing it, and could possibly end up dying faster than I would flying with larger companies.

So, I just wondered what your opinions were on this ?
Does anyone know anything about the way these companies are run ?
Would you favour a cheaper Ryan Air flight over a British Airways flight, when in most cases they will get you to your same destination in almost the same way ?

I'm interested in finding out more about this and am going to go hunting around for more info.

[gazzae]

If the more you pay means the safer the fight is then how come concorde crashed?

[Halcyon]

Yes, exactly.
I am trying to find accident records for Ryan Air and so far the company seems to be quite safe.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by gazzae

If the more you pay means the safer the fight is then how come concorde crashed?

Very good point.

Pardon me Halycon, but your uncle sounds either a) paranoid, b) snobby, or c) just a little foolish.

I travel abroad about 6 times a year, and nearly always use easyjet, bmibaby etc etc. I've also travelled with Virgin, BA and Continental. The only difference (apart from the ticket price) is the uniforms, and the inflight meal.

[Shaun]

According to him, the price I paid to get to Austria is about the same price I'd pay for a train ticket from Leicester to London

Nope that's £15 or £19/£25 first class.

Edit - Also what OB said, never had trouble with Easyjet or BMIbaby When I go to Scotland I'd rather fly cheapo airlines than take the train, not because of safety but because it takes HOURS to get there otherwise.

[Halcyon]

Yeah I think my Uncle does go over the top sometimes and likes to tell things how he wants them to be and not take any other opinions onbard. His constant long talks can get annoying sometimes.
Family huh.....cant stand them...cant live without them.

I agree with you and will continue using Ryan air. I cant see why they would want to not service their aircraft regularly as otherwise in case of a crash they would loose too much as the planes dont come cheap.
I think someone must have started spereading this kind of stuff to try and get British airways and all the other big companies back in business as when a competitor arrives, they dont seem to like it.
I'm using Ryan Air again in Febrauary and cant see the big difference. It gets me to the place so thats what counts.

Maybe if it was some really new cheapish airline in a country that is known for risks then I might worry, but here I find it ridiculous to think Ryan Air and other budget airlines in the UK would not pass tests.
I still believe we live in a society where safety comes before money so I will trust that any airline that I use will keep that in mind over making money.

[sav_c]

The difference is not necessarily in the flights but in what happens if something goes wrong. Ryanair are regularly in the media for stranding passengers in the middle of nowhere airports if they miss flights or if Ryanair cancels the flight themselves. You don't hear of BA doing that.

I don't know if the other low cost carriers are as bad but Ryanair does have a tendency to treat it's customers pretty badly. You only have to look at the disabled guy suing them a couple of weeks ago for charging him for the use of a wheelchair.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by sav_c

<snip>

I don't know if the other low cost carriers are as bad but Ryanair does have a tendency to treat it's customers pretty badly. You only have to look at the disabled guy suing them a couple of weeks ago for charging him for the use of a wheelchair.

SAurely that's just business though. Wheelchairs weigh a bit and are a fair size even when folded. Extra weight and space combined of a wheelchair = to more costs on the airline's behalf to travel. I don't really see being charged for extra weight/space as being treated badly?

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by orangebird

SAurely that's just business though. Wheelchairs weigh a bit and are a fair size even when folded. Extra weight and space combined of a wheelchair = to more costs on the airline's behalf to travel. I don't really see being charged for extra weight/space as being treated badly?

I believe it was for use of a wheelchair in the airport. But either way I think it's against the new disability discrimination act. Can see your point though.

[orangebird]

Originally Posted by dellwear

I believe it was for use of a wheelchair in the airport. But either way I think it's against the new disability discrimination act. Can see your point though.

My nanny was wheelchair bound - if we booked taxis etc to go out, we always had to pay a little more for the right kind of vehicle to accomodate us etc, which TBH I think is quite fair.

But in the airport???????? That is outrageous.

Originally Posted by orangebird

My nanny was wheelchair bound - if we booked taxis etc to go out, we always had to pay a little more for the right kind of vehicle to accomodate us etc, which TBH I think is quite fair.

But in the airport???????? That is outrageous.

The argument was basically that Ryan Air didn't think they were obliged to supply a free wheelchair to get someone from the check in desk to the departure lounge and that they were within their rights to charge £18 for the privilege.

Ryan Air had said that since this charge was levied by BAA, Stanstead airport's owners, they should be responsible for providing a free service for disabled people, not the airline.

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4112791.stm for the full story.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by orangebird

My nanny was wheelchair bound - if we booked taxis etc to go out, we always had to pay a little more for the right kind of vehicle to accomodate us etc, which TBH I think is quite fair.

But in the airport???????? That is outrageous.

Thanks Graham for confirming that for us.

Like I said OB I see your point however if it was for the other scenario it may be worth considering that "normal" people are allowed to take extra luggage with them for sport or work (i.e. snowboard, laptop) why shouldn't someone with a disability be able to take their chair?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by gazzae

If the more you pay means the safer the fight is then how come concorde crashed?

Concorde crashed because the plane was nearly 40 years old..

In theory, planes (properly maintained) are safe at that age. However, bear in mind that when sending Freight under a letter of credit (a promise from a bank to pay for the goods put simply), the bank that issues that credit will specify that the plane used is no older than 15 :disturbed:

I have to admit, the only really bad airline I have been in is "Air2000" who seem to have bought a load of Virgin airliners in the 80s, then changed them slightly. Most uncomfortable flights I have had..

BTW, I am not joking. The airliner I went on looked like it had not been refitted for a long time (tatty furnishings inside), and I could still make out the Virgin logo in some places.

[Chris]

The low cost airlines have done us all a big favour. I was eavesdropping on a conversation last week in which someone was bragging at the ticket price he got for a BA flight, and then slagging off Easyjet for being more expensive and not offering an inflight meal. It was all I could do to stop myself butting in and pointing out that without the likes of Easyjet shaking up the market, he would likely as not have paid three times more for his precious BA ticket.

The fact is, 'traditional' airlines are stuck with a business model in which too many planes are on the ground for too long, where they not only incur parking fees but also sit empty, i.e. not earning their keep by carrying passengers; with fleets of a wide range of aircraft, thereby pushing up maintenance costs; and with service standards that require free food on every flight whether the passengers want it or not. Of course most people will take an apple lattice pie and a coffee if you put it under their nose, but on a 50-minute Glasgow-London flight, is it necessary? Many people commute for longer than that by train every day and don't expect a free meal.

I am a big fan of budget air travel. That said, I don't think all budget carriers are equal. Easyjet seems able to run a fairly-priced operation while still landing you within reasonable distance of your final destination city. Ryanair, on the other hand, really does take the ****. I have never flown with them because when planning a journey, I try to factor in the cost of onward travel. When you do that, Ryanair is often quite expensive. Certainly they have never been the best option for me - a journey from Hemel Hempstead to the West End of Glasgow involves a journey of about 10 or 15 miles at either end with Easyjet (Luton - Glasgow International) but more like 30 miles with Ryanair (Stansted - Prestwick).

[Chris]

Originally Posted by scastle

Concorde crashed because the plane was nearly 40 years old..

In theory, planes (properly maintained) are safe at that age. However, bear in mind that when sending Freight under a letter of credit (a promise from a bank to pay for the goods put simply), the bank that issues that credit will specify that the plane used is no older than 15 :disturbed:

I have to admit, the only really bad airline I have been in is "Air2000" who seem to have bought a load of Virgin airliners in the 80s, then changed them slightly. Most uncomfortable flights I have had..

BTW, I am not joking. The airliner I went on looked like it had not been refitted for a long time (tatty furnishings inside), and I could still make out the Virgin logo in some places.

Concorde crashed because a piece of runway debris punctured one of its fuel tanks. It was a freak accident that could quite possibly have happened to any other plane. I'm not sure what age has to do with it. Other than that one incident, Concorde's record is impeccable. It would still be flying if Air France hadn't decided to cut its losses and terminate the service. BAe wasn't prepared to continue its maintenance work on the aircraft if BA was its only customer.