Ryanair in 2016

[stefanel]

an article in French saying FR will decrease its prices again
http://www.lalibre.be/economie/actualit ... 22d7a5e0c2

[Poiu]

As I predicted before on this forum, a massive overcapacity is waiting around the corner, this will lead to a price war and some of the financialy weaker airlines won't survive.
The revamped Ryanair is a big success, Ryanair hedged 80% of their 2018 fuel at 50$, which is lower than today's market price. Some of the legacies, today, still charge a fuel surcharge in order to post a very small profit. Those with high debts or older fleets will be in trouble when oil prices rise.
Time to dump airline shares me thinks.

[Passenger]

an article in French saying FR will decrease its prices again
http://www.lalibre.be/economie/actualit ... 22d7a5e0c2

What is happening now, and surely for Belgium, is that the terrorism attacks (22/03) and terrorism threats (ongoing) cause lower demand. People don't book a year in advance anymore (unless for long haul), so Ryanair and other low costs are unable to raise their fares to the top yield as they did in the past. Much to their regret, they will be forced to sell at a lower yield during a longer period. Increase the yield too early could lead to very low load factors.

Conclusion: only the most expensive fares will become cheaper. The "average" will indeed be lower, simply because there will be less seats sold at the top yield, but 75% of the passengers will pay exactly the same in 2017 as in 2016 as in 2015. Furthermore, the “7% cheaper” will only apply to the expensive basic fares, and not to all surcharges and fees: they will remain the most expensive on the market. No 7% off for them.

[sean1982]

an article in French saying FR will decrease its prices again
http://www.lalibre.be/economie/actualit ... 22d7a5e0c2

What is happening now, and surely for Belgium, is that the terrorism attacks (22/03) and terrorism threats (ongoing) cause lower demand. People don't book a year in advance anymore (unless for long haul), so Ryanair and other low costs are unable to raise their fares to the top yield as they did in the past. Much to their regret, they will be forced to sell at a lower yield during a longer period. Increase the yield too early could lead to very low load factors.

Conclusion: only the most expensive fares will become cheaper. The "average" will indeed be lower, simply because there will be less seats sold at the top yield, but 75% of the passengers will pay exactly the same in 2017 as in 2016 as in 2015. Furthermore, the “7% cheaper” will only apply to the expensive basic fares, and not to all surcharges and fees: they will remain the most expensive on the market. No 7% off for them.

False ... Again
The attacks in Belgium had very little impact on the travelling of anyone else in Europe. Im still surprised that some people here cannot see the fact that the belgian market is a very small part considered in whole of FR ops. Prices go down because FR does what it has always done, which is to follow the yield negative/load positive scenario and upping the LF's even more, while in the meantime forcing competitors to follow suit in lowering prices

Some airlines have slightly higher fees (note that FR's fees have already decreased significantly and are completely avoidable), other airlines keep charging fuel surcharges at a time that fuel prices are at an all time low (not avoidable). In FR you actually know what the fee is for, others charge you behind your back I prefer to know.
(On a LIS return flight, the fuel surcharge in june was listed 108€)

On a lighter note, since 2 days one of the aircraft based in BRU has the Boeing sky interior fitted.

[Passenger]

As I predicted before on this forum, a massive overcapacity is waiting around the corner, this will lead to a price war and some of the financialy weaker airlines won't survive.

Indeed. Your CEO O’Leary predicted this in November 2013, in Brussels, for Brussels Airlines. “Move away from Brussels Airport.. You can’t win from us… You are a small airline and we will crush you if you start a price battle”. But as “Shengenzone” already mentionned in the topic “Brussels Airlines fleet renewal”, the opposite happened with Ryanair versus Brussels Airlines.

Ryanair hedged 80% of their 2018 fuel at 50$, which is lower than today's market price.

Are you aware that aviation newsletters report that some have hedged at 40 or less? Or do you only read Ryanair’s peptalk towards the shareholders?

[sean1982]

As I predicted before on this forum, a massive overcapacity is waiting around the corner, this will lead to a price war and some of the financialy weaker airlines won't survive.

Indeed. Your CEO O’Leary predicted this in November 2013, in Brussels, for Brussels Airlines. “Move away from Brussels Airport.. You can’t win from us… You are a small airline and we will crush you if you start a price battle”. But as “Shengenzone” already mentionned in the topic “Brussels Airlines fleet renewal”, the opposite happened with Ryanair versus Brussels Airlines.

Really? Did FR get crushed by SN? Must have missed that

[Poiu]

Ryanair hedged 80% of their 2018 fuel at 50$, which is lower than today's market price.

Are you aware that aviation newsletters report that some have hedged at 40 or less? Or do you only read Ryanair’s peptalk towards the shareholders?[/quote]

I am talking about 2018 not 2017!!!
Some are struggling to pay yesterdays fuel with tomorrows tickets whilst Ryan is buying fuel more than two years in advance.
Bring on the price war! 39€ will buy you 4 or 5 tickets with FR in the forseeable future.

[Passenger]

Some of the legacies, today, still charge a fuel surcharge in order to post a very small profit.

Some airlines have slightly higher fees (note that FR's fees have already decreased significantly and are completely avoidable), other airlines keep charging fuel surcharges at a time that fuel prices are at an all time low (not avoidable). In FR you actually know what the fee is for, others charge you behind your back (On a LIS return flight, the fuel surcharge in june was listed 108€)

No need to post the same stuff twice under different nicknames.

Nobody in Europe charges fuel surcharges today. Non-waivable surcharges must be included in the ticket price: that is European legislation since 2008: EU-Rule 1008/2008 (British Airways will explain it once you work for them). The final ticket price must be shown in adverts and in the first window of the booking process. No extra airport tax allowed. No extra fuel surcharge allowed. No extra security tax allowed.

Yes, it's possible that some airlines still show a “fuel surcharge” somewhere in their detailled price info. But that is no “surcharge behind our back”, as you said: that is just a sidenote remark. Actually, if one doens’t ask the split up, one doens’t know it. It's just like Ryanair's 2 Euro “surcharge” for the cost of implementation of 261/2004: it's there and you pay it. But nobody knows it, nobody sees it.

- - -

Further off topic: even without that EU-Rule (1008/2008), a fuel charge by airlines was forbitten in Belgium (and most other EU countries) because consumer legislation allways stated that consumer prices must include all non-avoidable taxes & charges. Like VAT when you buy a fridge or a tv.

There is only one exception regarding fuel: the travel package legislation, allowing touroperators (and not airlines!) to charge a fuel surcharge under specific conditions. Why airlines charged a fuel surcharge? Simply, because it was presented very professionally as an authorized tax, and consumer organizations therefore failed to notice that an airline fuel surcharge was different from a touroperator fuel surcharge. Airlines were allowed to charge touroperators with a fuel surcharge, but airlines were not allowed to charge it to their own passengers.

[sean1982]

Some of the legacies, today, still charge a fuel surcharge in order to post a very small profit.

Some airlines have slightly higher fees (note that FR's fees have already decreased significantly and are completely avoidable), other airlines keep charging fuel surcharges at a time that fuel prices are at an all time low (not avoidable). In FR you actually know what the fee is for, others charge you behind your back (On a LIS return flight, the fuel surcharge in june was listed 108€)

No need to post the same stuff twice under different nicknames.

Nobody in Europe charges fuel surcharges today. Non-waivable surcharges must be included in the ticket price: that is European legislation since 2008: EU-Rule 1008/2008 (British Airways will explain it once you work for them). The final ticket price must be shown in adverts and in the first window of the booking process. No extra airport tax allowed. No extra fuel surcharge allowed. No extra security tax allowed.

Yes, it's possible that some airlines still show a “fuel surcharge” somewhere in their detailled price info. But that is no “surcharge behind our back”, as you said: that is just a sidenote remark. Actually, if one doens’t ask the split up, one doens’t know it. It's just like Ryanair's 2 Euro “surcharge” for the cost of implementation of 261/2004: it's there and you pay it. But nobody knows it, nobody sees it.

- - -

Further off topic: even without that EU-Rule (1008/2008), a fuel charge by airlines was forbitten in Belgium (and most other EU countries) because consumer legislation allways stated that consumer prices must include all non-avoidable taxes & charges. Like VAT when you buy a fridge or a tv.

There is only one exception regarding fuel: the travel package legislation, allowing touroperators (and not airlines!) to charge a fuel surcharge under specific conditions. Why airlines charged a fuel surcharge? Simply, because it was presented very professionally as an authorized tax, and consumer organizations therefore failed to notice that an airline fuel surcharge was different from a touroperator fuel surcharge. Airlines were allowed to charge touroperators with a fuel surcharge, but airlines were not allowed to charge it to their own passengers.

lmfao, it's not me who posting under different nicknames panebas ... I mean euh "passenger."
I know it's pretty inconceivable for SN fanatics to understand that not everyone sees them as the holy grail of aviation in Belgium. In fact, I was having a pretty interesting talk with a captain yesterday who was nearly declared mentally insane by an SN manager because he declined a direct entry captains contract and preferred to stay with FR.

Saying that they don't charge it because it is in the ticket price is saying the same as saying mayonaise has no oil as it is in the sauce. It is being charged and very hefty as well as seen in this example on a simple NY return. Much more than 2EUR indeed

[Stij]

And now back on topic, this isn't anymore about Ryanair at all!

[sn26567]

Ryanair will leave Oslo Rygge airport on 1 November, because of the introduction of a new 80 NOK (8.6 €) passenger tax. 31 routes cancelled, including one to CRL. 1.1 million passengers lost. And since Ryanair is the main customer of the airport, this one is set to close with the loss of 1000 jobs (direct and indirect).

Terrible effects of an unwanted tax!

[Passenger]

Ryanair will leave Oslo Rygge airport on 1 November, because of the introduction of a new 80 NOK (8.6 €) passenger tax. 31 routes cancelled, including one to CRL. 1.1 million passengers lost. And since Ryanair is the main customer of the airport, this one is set to close with the loss of 1000 jobs (direct and indirect). Terrible effects of an unwanted tax!

Let's hope that the passengers who have a confirmed booking will use Article 5 and Article 9 from the EU-Rule 261/2004 for cancelled flights = the right to assistance and the right, if necessary, for a hotel booking. Passengers now have the right indeed to demand a rerouting. And when Ryanair cannot offer a rerouting on the same day, Ryanair has to offer them hotel accommodation. Transport to/from Oslo Rygge to the new airport is on Ryanair's expenses off course.

About those "1.000 jobs": let's take an average annual salary cost of 30.000 Euro p/p. Annual salary cost for those "1.000 jobs" then is 30.000.000 Euro. With 1,1 mio passengers, that's 27 Euro salary-cost-subsidy for each passenger; a small contribition of 8,6 Euro per passenger seems quite fair, no? Looks like Oslo Rygge Airport and the Norwegian authorities took the right decision not to sponsor Ryanair's shareholders anymore.

edited: this airport cancellation was also posted in the topic "Ryanair in 2016", hence this double post indeed.

[sean1982]

About those "1.000 jobs": let's take an average annual salary cost of 30.000 Euro p/p. Annual salary cost for those "1.000 jobs" then is 30.000.000 Euro. With 1,1 mio passengers, that's 27 Euro salary-cost-subsidy for each passenger; a small contribition of 8,6 Euro per passenger seems quite fair, no? Looks like Oslo Rygge Airport and the Norwegian authorities took the right decision not to sponsor Ryanair's shareholders anymore.

(this route cancellation was also posted in the topic "Ryanair in 2016", hence this double post indeed)

If it wouldnt be that the actual average wage in norway is about 50.000€ per annum. Wrong again panebas
Further more, I dont know how you do your business there at SN, but a 30% increase in tax is quite substantial.
It's a all amount if you have a small amount of passengers yes.

This move by the government is another one in a looooong series to protect it's struggling flag carrier SAS. Not to worry, very soon Ryanair and Norwegian will start code sharing (something else you said would never happen ) and in X amount of time I see them merging

[Passenger]

About those "1.000 jobs": let's take an average annual salary cost of 30.000 Euro p/p. Annual salary cost for those "1.000 jobs" then is 30.000.000 Euro. With 1,1 mio passengers, that's 27 Euro salary-cost-subsidy for each passenger; a small contribition of 8,6 Euro per passenger seems quite fair, no? Looks like Oslo Rygge Airport and the Norwegian authorities took the right decision not to sponsor Ryanair's shareholders anymore.
(this route cancellation was also posted in the topic "Ryanair in 2016", hence this double post indeed)

Wrong again panebas

Further more, I dont know how you do your business there at SN, but a 30% increase in tax is quite substantial.

Thanks for giving me an upgrade to "pilot" - I'm really flattered - it's something I allways dreamed of.

No, seriously, read my lips: I am no pilot. I do not work for Brussels Airlines. Or Lufthansa. Or Swiss.

[sdbelgium]

Ryanair has been left with no choice but to:

• Close its Oslo Rygge base from 29 Oct 2016
• Cancel 16 routes
• Reduce its Norwegian traffic by 50% (-900,000 passengers)
• Move 4 aircraft & Ryanair jobs out of Norway to other Ryanair bases
• Switch its London Stansted & Vilnius routes to Oslo Gardermoen (where it can avail of low cost airport agreements at Stansted & Vilnius)
• Switch the remaining 8 Oslo Rygge routes to Oslo Torp, since Oslo Rygge has advised it cannot sustain reduced operations.

http://corporate.ryanair.com/news/news/ ... ?market=en

CRL is among the cancelled routes.

[Ozzie1969]

I'm still waiting for Ryanair to open a base at Oslo Spitsbergen.

[Passenger]

Ryanair has been left with no choice but to...

I know the above is a quote from the Ryanair press release, but it's really nonsense.

"No other choice"? They could have increased their fares with 8 Euro's. Last year they've increased most luggage surcharges with more then 20 Euro, so why not charge this 8 Euro's? It's clear they want to send out a message to all those regional airports who have put their eggs in one basket: "do what we ask you, or we quit".

[sean1982]

Ryanair has been left with no choice but to...

I know the above is a quote from the Ryanair press release, but it's really nonsense.

"No other choice"? They could have increased their fares with 8 Euro's. Last year they've increased most luggage surcharges with more then 20 Euro, so why not charge this 8 Euro's? It's clear they want to send out a message to all those regional airports who have put their eggs in one basket: "do what we ask you, or we quit".

What you are saying is nonsense, the government made the decision to close RYG before Ryanair made it's decision in another attempt to protect SAS from competitors.

[sn26567]

the government made the decision to close RYG before Ryanair made it's decision in another attempt to protect SAS from competitors.

Are you sure? I've read the contrary on many places: Ryanair decided to quit over the new tax, and there were not enough flights left to sustain operations at the airport.

[Passenger]

What you are saying is nonsense, the government made the decision to close RYG before Ryanair made it's decision in another attempt to protect SAS from competitors.

Nonsense? Really? Dozens of press releases and press reports proof that Ryanair decided to withdraw from RYG because of a new (and small) tax, and not because the airport was going to shut down.

This is just one of the many sources - a Norwegian source:
http://www.thelocal.no/20160525/ryanair ... ay-airport

...The board of directors at Moss Airport Rygge, located some 60 kilometres south of Oslo, have decided to shut down the airport's commercial operations after Irish carrier Ryanair threatened to abandon its base there. The budget airline had said it will close its base at Rygge because of Norway’s new mandatory passenger charge that is scheduled to take effect on June 1st...

“No Norwegian airports will close because of a fee on flights,” Prime Minister Erna Solberg wrote on Facebook. “In this specific instance, it is about Ryanair choosing not to use the airport at Rygge, apparently because of the new fee – a fee that doesn’t appear to hinder Ryanair from flying to other airports in Norway." Solberg said it was unfortunate that Moss Airport Rygge had become so dependent on Ryanair that the airline’s departure amounts to a death knell but she said the government wouldn’t bow in the face of pressure from Ryanair. “This government will not be pressured by Ryanair when it comes to a fee that the Norwegian national assembly has approved and which in principle goes toward a green transition,” she wrote...