Any chance in RyanAir going to offer overseas (USA) connections?

wrote:

I'll add here that recently I inquired on how much it would cost to fly to Cairo
on (cheapest then) Autrian Airlines. The trip would take me from London to Vienna
and then from Vienna to Cairo. The cost was something like 450 euros.
Thinking I could save some dough using RyanAir to fly to Austria and then use
Austrian Airlines for the remaining leg. To My dismay it exactly the same to fly
from Vienna to Cairo as London-Vienna-Cairo. Now where's the econonomics in that?
A quick roundabout in other airlines www sites turned out same sqrewed price
scenario.

Pricing takes many things into account, not only the costs involved, but
also the competition, and what prices customers are willing to pay.

A good example of this are airfares between a first world and a third
world city. The cities are the same, the fixed costs are basically the
same, but the passengers are different. Generally people from the first
world country are more willing (and able) to pay more for a ticket to
the third world country than vice versa. Or, the week end example.
People are more willing to pay more money for a Las Vegas weekend trip
than a midweek trip.

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:42:53 +0200, AJC wrote:

Have you been fooled by Ryanair's from prices? Not all, not most, not
many seats are sold at those prices, most people end up paying more
than those prices.

I have NEVER failed to get the advertised fare on Ryanair. Next time
Ryanair publishes their financial results, try dividing the turnover
with the number of passengers. You might be surprised.

In fact a recent survey by one of the papers found
that full service airlines were more often cheaper than Ryanair when
they tested certain routes and dates.

If that was the survey quoted here a few days ago, then those
results were somewhat unconvincing.

--
Don't be sorry to email me.

AJC wrote:
It is perfectly sensible economics. People are willing to pay more for
convenience, comfort, etc. The most convenient, comfortable way from
London to Cairo is a non-stop flight. Austrian were catering for the
segment of the market that will accept the inconvenience and
discomfort of a longer journey with change of flight, in exchange for
a lower fare.

This is exactly why so many USA airlines are nearly dead. If airline 1 has an
efficient operation between A and B, airline 2 should never match the price if
its operation isn't as efficient. Having a passenger transit via a hub costs
much more than having a non-stop flight, all things being equal.

Hubs are designed to gather passengers from small airports and generate
sufficient traffic at the hub to warrant services to many large cities. It
isn't the most efficient way, it is the only way. You can't justify service
from Otumwah Iowa to London England. But combine the small demand from
Otumwah, Toledo, Crabapple Cove and many other cities, and then you have large
enough demand to justify the flight to London.

Hubs have been abused in the USA because they have been used as a tool to
increase appearance of frequency between 2 cities. But flying a pax between
NYC and LA is far costlier if he must transit through Chicago, Dallas etc
instead of a non-stop flight. So the old airlines cannot compete on price with
the new ones who offer only point to point service without the concept of a
hub. Wit Jetblue, if you must change planes at NYC, you essentially have to
buy 2 tickets. No artificial pricing as the old airlines do.

If Ryannair were to offer Dublin-New York flights, passengers would first have
to pay to get to Dublin.

AJC wrote:
You don't think that maybe the cost of buying/leasing, maintaining,
crewing a 737 is a litle bit more than for a bus?

But in a 24 hour period, a low cost carrier will be able to load a 737 with
new passengers many more times than a bus which will end up doing far fewer
trips. So while the 737 may be more expensive, it can generate more revenus on
short haul routes.

Long haul routes may be more "efficient", but they don't generate revenus as
often each day, so you have to price the tickets accordingly.

than those prices. In fact a recent survey by one of the papers found
that full service airlines were more often cheaper than Ryanair when
they tested certain routes and dates.

I have a feeling that this was a BA (or old airline) sponsored survey. Sure, I
bet BA has fares that are lower than Easyjet or Ryannair. While these fares
may look great on a computer display, how often are they available when you
need them. What you need to look at as a metric is the average fare paid by a
Ryannair passenger versus a BA passenger on the same route.

If we can assume a proportional relationship between the total trip
distance, and the acceptable distance between nominal and actual
destination, then their NYC airport will probably be Halifax.

Halifax Nova Scotia, or Halifax Yorkshire?

Kind Regards, Howard

Nose Hair wrote in message ...

Hubs are designed to gather passengers from small airports and generate
sufficient traffic at the hub to warrant services to many large cities. It
isn't the most efficient way, it is the only way. You can't justify service
from Otumwah Iowa to London England. But combine the small demand from
Otumwah, Toledo, Crabapple Cove and many other cities, and then you have large
enough demand to justify the flight to London.

Crabapple Cove? What's the airport code there?

Any chance in RyanAir going to offer overseas (USA) connections?

Considering how little legroom discount carriers like RyanAir
give passengers, you'd best be shorter than average to want to
fly them over the pond. I'll pass.


Casey

Ryanair is more comfortable and spacious (both in width and legroom) than
Air Transat, the charter airline I have used for two 9-hour trips to London.

Traveler

"Casey" wrote in message
ink.net...
Any chance in RyanAir going to offer overseas (USA) connections?

Considering how little legroom discount carriers like RyanAir
give passengers, you'd best be shorter than average to want to
fly them over the pond. I'll pass.


Casey

Howard Long wrote:
If we can assume a proportional relationship between the total trip
distance, and the acceptable distance between nominal and actual
destination, then their NYC airport will probably be Halifax.

Halifax Nova Scotia, or Halifax Yorkshire?

Well, from one to the other.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Howard Long wrote:
If we can assume a proportional relationship between the total trip
distance, and the acceptable distance between nominal and actual
destination, then their NYC airport will probably be Halifax.

Halifax Nova Scotia, or Halifax Yorkshire?

Well, from one to the other.

miguel
--
That would be marketed as London (Leeds/Bradford) to Toronto (Halifax).
The one-way fare would be GBP £0.01 or Euro ¤0.01 with a Credit Card fee
of £50, taxes and other charges of £100 and non-optional bus to and from
the Airports of £75. And, of course, a baggage allowance of 15Kg.

JohnT