Slashdot Log In
Airline Cancels All Flights Booked Through Third-Party Systems
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Aug 08, 2008 05:29 PM
from the funny-if-it-weren't-so-stupid dept.
from the funny-if-it-weren't-so-stupid dept.
TechDirt is reporting that one airline is planning on canceling all flights booked through third-party systems. This isn't the first time that an airline has fought against the inevitable wave of easier-to-search third party websites, but certainly tops the stupid scale. "We were already confused enough by American Airlines' desire not to be listed on the sites where people search for airfare, and easyJet's plan to sue the sites that send it customers, but Irish-based airline Ryanair is taking this all to a new level. Beyond just being upset about those 3rd party sites (i.e., sites that send it business!), it's planning to cancel the flights for everyone who booked through one of those services."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Funny)
Ryanair, ryAnAIR, RIAnAyr, RIAA.
Who the hell is "Nyr"?
Parent
Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if that's the way they want it, it's their airline. I don't have to fly it...
From what I've heard of Ryanair, you wouldn't want to fly it anyway.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
Of course you'd want to fly Ryanair! And during today's flight, we'd like to tell you about a great offer that we're running with our trusted partners, ScrewYouOutOfYourMoney.com...
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
From what I've heard of Ryanair, you wouldn't want to fly it anyway.
Not even when they offer Beds & Blowjobs [ryanair.com]?
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
I'd hope they supply free mouthwash to get the taste out of your mouth afterwards, too.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
Stay home.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Insightful)
Stay home.
I'll drive. Wait, that's what I already do. Screw the airlines and especially the TSA.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:4, Insightful)
Buy the tickets from their website directly?
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how they plan on winnning that battle by turning away paying customers (Maybe they have enough time to fill the seats with normal customers). Anyway, no one had played devil's advocate yet, so here it is.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, competition can be real bad for companies. But ignoring it is even worse. These guys will crash and burn if they persist in this.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
These guys will crash and burn if they persist in this.
Kind of an unfortunate expression to use when discussing an airline...
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Informative)
Services like expedia.ca make it easy to search many airlines from one form.
Interestingly, I just used Expedia to do precisely that a couple days ago.
The odd thing about it, though, was that once I selected the flights that I wanted, I was able to go directly to the airline's website (Air Canada, in this case) and buy the tickets for cheaper than Expedia was offering.
So, yes, services like that make it easy to search many airlines from one form, but it's certainly in your interest to check the airline's website as well to make sure you're getting the best price.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Funny)
In the United States, we would revoke their access to taxpayer funded airports. Try to fly the planes with nowhere to land, jerks.
Ha ha... just kidding. We'd give them a hundred billion dollar bailout.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Informative)
When I go on my honeymoon to BC (I'm east coast), I'm going to have to fly *again*.
The trans-Canada Rocky Mountain tours [canadaviarail.com] are very romantic.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Insightful)
Free markets rely on the myth of the well-informed consumer.
Have you met the "average" consumer? I think my case is made...
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Insightful)
Correction, the myth of free markets leading to the efficency relies on, among other things, the myth of the well-informed consumer.
The presence of trade in the short term does not disprove a market failure.
Right, but the existence of tools to help correlate that data, especially free and easy ones, certainly increases the likelihood that consumers will.
Parent
Re:Well, if that's the way they want it (Score:5, Interesting)
Heheh, you seem(are) enlightened. Nice. Let's discuss.
Correction, the myth of free markets leading to the efficency relies on, among other things, the myth of the well-informed consumer.
I'm not sure of the point you are trying to make here, so I am going to talk to my assumption, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Logics aimed at the free market being a false ideal based on the existence, or lack of, of an "informed" consumer are somewhat fallacious. There is no such thing as a free market. ALL markets have regulations. The definition of an "informed" consumer is subjective to the item being purchased, the availability of information regarding said purchase type, and the actual culture of the purchasing entity. In purely economic terms, the culture element is barely recognized, but in a working definition - the observable behavior of the consumer is most definitely included in the definition of "informed".
The presence of trade in the short term does not disprove a market failure.
True. Most definitely true.
Right, but the existence of tools to help correlate that data, especially free and easy ones, certainly increases the likelihood that consumers will.
I have to vehemently disagree. It certainly increases the ability of the consumer to do research, but it doesn't mean they will. One of the cultural distortions I have noticed is that many people feel dumb when faced with the raw data they are given. They will actually STOP researching things once they feel they are out of their element. If you look at how specialized we have become as a whole (regarding employed function), people feel ignorant more often than not regarding consumer research. They know a lot about what it is they do, and fuck all about what they don't. People quit doing research once that research returns data they don't understand.
Parent
One way or the other, it's asking for trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:One way or the other, it's asking for trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
True, this won't go well for them. And with fuel prices as they are, the airlines really don't need to be pointing guns at their own feet and telling Legal to pull the trigger. This move is nonsensical.
Air travel is an industry where the pricing simply makes no sense. The person sitting next to you on a flight may have paid $500 more or less than you did, for no reason. The newfound ability to use aggregator sites to compare prices was the one thing that made it bearable to book flights. Airlines should accept that the market answered their customers' demands without their help.
Parent
Price discrimination is essential (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, they are paying a different price because they were willing to pay that price. That should be reason enough, but the situation is more fundamental. Imagine everyone on the plane had to pay the same price. Are you sure that there would be any price point which was profitable? Set it too low, and the plane would be full but the fares wouldn't cover costs. Too high, and you wouldn't have enough passengers. But a mix of passengers some paying more than others can be profitable.
People who book early want to be sure of the flight, and will probably pay a bit more. People who book last-minute must travel and will pay more. People who search on priceline probably care more about prices than people who go to the airline's website and book the most convenient itinerary. This mix increases the airline of maximizing their profits, by charging each customer as much as they will pay. It also increases the chances that there will be a way for me to buy a ticket at a price I like. I don't think it's unfair that other people are willing to pay more than I am for a similar service -- it's their problem. I also don't care that some people will not pay the price I'm willing to pay. They are willing to put in more effort into finding a cheaper flight.
Aggregator sites help reduce prices by facilitating comparisons. However, this has nothing to do with price discrimination, which the aggregators facilitate by giving the airlines another way to subdivide the market: people who search through the aggregator are quoted different prices than people who search on the airline's website, and both are quoted different prices than travel agents.
Parent
Re:Price discrimination is essential (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, they are paying a different price because they were willing to pay that price. That should be reason enough, but the situation is more fundamental. Imagine everyone on the plane had to pay the same price. Are you sure that there would be any price point which was profitable?
No kidding! That'd be like expecting to pay the same price as the person at the next table in a restaurant, or in line to buy a TV, or at a theater, or going to a football game. Just because they're getting the exact same service doesn't mean you should expect to pay the same! That's craziness and unlike anything else you spend your money on.
Parent
Re:One way or the other, it's asking for trouble (Score:5, Informative)
I've worked with people that had to fly weekly as part of their job. Say you're trying to fly from ..oh.. I dunno.. Atlanta to Dallas. That flight might be $750. However, you can get a trip from Atlanta to Houston, with a stop in Dallas, for $400. (I'm making up these numbers btw, just using them as an example). So said instructor would purchase tickets for the atlanta to houston flight, and just walk off the plane in Dallas. Of course, this only works if you have no checked baggage, but for what they're charging for that these days......
Airline ticket prices are tricky though. It's a rare product that increases in value the closer you get to departure time. It will go from it's highest value to worthless in a moment's time. If you just figure out a reasonable average fare and charge that from the beginning, you'll sell out all your seats 3+ weeks prior to departure. That might seem fine from a business perspective, but you always have customers that absolutely must fly with only a day's ... or even a few hours notice. Obviously these customers are willing to pay top dollar, so you want tickets available for them. But not TOO many tickets, otherwise you'll have empty seats, becuase the demand at those high prices aren't there. So tickets will increase in price the closer you get to departure. Buy them far enough in advance, you get a great deal.
Now, take the multi-leg flight I used as an example. What you really have here is two separate flights. Atlanta to Dallas, and Dallas to Houston. You've also got NYC to Dallas, LAX to Dallas, etc. So 3 weeks out, you've got the Dallas to houston flight that's got a surplus of seats. You have 15 extra seats that you project you're not going to be able to fill on that flight. On each of the 3 flights to dallas, you expect a surplus of 5 seats. You want to fill up ALL the planes. However, if you lower just the cost of the tickets to Dallas, you're not going to fill the Houston leg. So you lower the cost of the tickets from atlanta, nyc and lax to houston that have a layover in Dallas, thereby increasing demand on that specific flight, and filling the seats. So why not just lower the cost of the Dallas to Houston flights? The problem is, other than the 15 extra seats, you're filling the plane anyway. Why offer the other 100+ seats in the plane at a lower rate when those customers are perfectly willing to pay the higher rate, just so you can fill an extra 15 seats. You want a lower rate on JUST those 15 seats.
Keep in mind, this is just one scenario, one very small factor in the complicated mess that makes up the business side of airline travel. You schedule flights not only on the expectation that you'll fill seats, but also so that you'll have planes where you need them when you need them, so pilots don't fly too many hours in a row, get enough sleep, and have as few nights out of town as possible. All of that considered, ticket prices are going to be variable and nonsensical.
-Restil
Parent
Re:One way or the other, it's asking for trouble (Score:5, Insightful)
This was like ten years ago, but I've had a similar experience. We were booking a trip to Israel and wanted to stop in London for a few days on the way over. Adding the London stop to the trip raised the price by thousands. So we said screw it, just book us straight through to Israel. The flight we got had a stopover in, you guessed it, London. So we asked for a 5 day "layover" which they were happy to do at the much lower rate.
Parent
Re:One way or the other, it's asking for trouble (Score:5, Informative)
You want to fly from Boston to Salt Lake City. A well known airline offers that flight for 899$. If you would have booked BOS > LAX then the offer would have been 399$ for all the way to Los Angeles. This is despite the fact that well known airline uses SLC as one of its major hubs and you actually have to switch planes in SLC.
What did the savvy traveler do? Why of course he got out in SLC and dumped the remaining coupon to LAX.
Another famous strategy was nested booking, which used the Saturday night stayover rule (flights where your return segment is on a Sunday or later are a lot cheaper, this is to gouge the business traveler). It works like this:
Wednesday JFK > MSP and Friday MSP > JFK : 1299$
Wednesday JFK > MSP, Monday MSP > JFK : 299$
So what you do is you buy two return tickets, like:
Wednesday JFK > MSP, Monday MSP > JFK : 299 and Friday MSP > JFK (with a return whenever the next week) : 249 $.
And ergo: You saved a lot of money.
I'm not sure if this still works nowadays, since the airlines naturally hate it and put all sorts of fine print into the T&C to prohibit that.
Airline pricing and yield management. A fascinating subject that never ceases to amaze.
Parent
Re:One way or the other, it's asking for trouble (Score:5, Interesting)
And being a reasonable human being, you only saw those two options. However, these dips are taking the third unmentioned option.
They are refunding the WEBSITES directly and making it their problem to get the money back to the customer who bought the ticket. The stated goal of "We want to cause as much chaos for the [websites] as possible,"
Unless this is the only airline servicing an area, I say it's time for them to suddenly find out how quickly their bottom line would drop if they just suddenly disappeared from said sites.
Parent
perfect business (Score:5, Informative)
We'd have ourselves a perfect business system if it wasn't for those pesky customers messing things up.
Irish eyes are smiling.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Irish eyes are smiling.... (Score:5, Funny)
Being Irish I resent that remark.
We never sober up.
Parent
Marketing gone wild ? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't work out why they'd want to block 3rd party bookings now, especially as they've recently been told they actually have to publish the REAL TOTAL price of the airfare on the first page instead of that whole "99 pence" crap (with 99 pounds in taxes and airport surcharges added on the final bill).
You'd think they'd need all the help they could get. Still, they are Irish ... (dons his flameproof underwear ready for the inevitable politically correct flamers).
Re:Marketing gone wild ? (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think they'd need all the help they could get. Still, they are Irish ... (dons his flameproof underwear ready for the inevitable politically correct flamers).
That's probably true, but it won't be us (the Irish) modding you down, we'll all be drunkenly laughing at your comments, blame the racist mods who think the Irish can't take a joke.
Parent
I am with Ryanair on this (Score:5, Interesting)
"The real issue here in our view is that Ryanair is concerned about losing out on the sale of other services such as travel insurance, hotels, car hire and to stop this they want to prevent consumers from using comparison websites"
I think they have a point. Maybe not a good one, but who are we to decide for them? They want customers to buy Ryanair Tickets from the Ryanair Website, and it's their right to "enforce" this IMHO. Cancelling the bookings may piss of some users, but it makes their point.
I think this is a bit like direct linking an image from a website, when the creator explicitly asked not to do it.
And on top of it lastminute.com, v-tours, tui and Opodo usually charge more for the Tickets than what they would normally cost: "Mr O'Leary also stressed that passengers were "getting stiffed" by these websites as their prices were invariably higher than those available on ryanair.com".
Re:I am with Ryanair on this (Score:5, Interesting)
Deciding to no longer allow ticket sales through third parties is one thing (though I would still argue it is a bad move). But how can they get away with not honoring tickets already sold?
Parent
Re:I am with Ryanair on this (Score:5, Interesting)
That was NOT Ryanair's position. That was an opinion by the Consumer's Association. Other than that I can understand your position of supporting them.
The real issue here is that ALL the other websites offer prices higher than Ryanair's own website. In a very real sense, Ryanair is protecting all of it's potential customers from being ripped off. Some may say that on the other hand it affects legitimate travel agents from servicing their clients. That is not true either, since a travel agent could book directly with Ryanair.
Another serious problem is that the other websites are using a shady process called screen scraping to use Ryanair's own website to book the flights. It abuses the companies webservers and bandwidth which could be a pretty good reason to stop the websites as well.
Now they may be within their rights to do this, but it is still not very smart. Ryanair cannot protect all the idiots of the world. If those people are determined to not use common sense and check Ryanair's website beforehand for a price comparison, then maybe they deserve what they get.
So Ryanair finally pulled out the WMD on all the websites, but in doing so it may have ultimately harmed itself more than it expected.
Parent
Ryanair are awful, though (Score:4, Insightful)
Them not being listed on 3rd party sites would be doing people a favour - otherwise you might accidentally book a flight with them or something. And you will not like it. You'll likely end up 50 miles away from your real destination at some godforsaken nowhere airport, and any money you "saved" with the cheap flight will be gone on road or train transport to your real destination. That or your baggage fees (ryanair often has a baggage allowance of 0. ALL baggage is therefore charged as excess baggage.).
If you must fly with an Irish airline for whatever reason (you're going to Ireland, say...), try Aer Lingus [aerlingus.com] or Aer Arann [aerarann.com]. They're often similarly cheap, and far less incompetent. At least until/unless Ryanair buys them and fucks them up.
With other airlines, you might even get assigned seating in advance!
Re:Ryanair are awful, though (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Comparison sites bad for business (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd heard that a lot of these 3rd party booking sites weren't using any sanctioned API, but scraping the airline's own retail sites for fares and proxying customers' credit card details etc. for making bookings, then charging a premium for the flight. By cancelling these fares the airlines are rocking confidence in comparison sites, and obviously pushing some business away, but I don't think they're opening themselves to lawsuits since customers didn't book with them direct. Only the booking sites might have a case against them, and that seems unlikely given the hoops they had to jump through to make the booking in the first place!
Maybe this is not so unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
After clicking past the blog speedbump to the actual article [independent.ie] I can see why the airline is doing this. The airline has their own website which handles the booking and also ties in other services like hotels, car rentals, insurance, and so on. These third party websites aren't going through an established booking system, instead they are screen scraping and acting as a front-end to the airline's website. This would be like a third party mirroring Slashdot's stories without Slashdot's advertisements, costing Slashdot revenue.
Using the airline's website in this manner is not only illegal but it also causes a lot of slowdowns and other problems for the people who actually go to the airline's website.
Now the airline is punishing the wrong people by canceling all the bookings done through the third parties. The right thing to do would be to allow the passengers to keep their bookings, but then sue the third party website. Yes, canceling the booking will cause more trouble for the third party sites but it will also mess up the customers and give them a bad impression of the airline, also hurting their business.
Maybe the easiest thing to do is to have some sort of partner network where they provide access to their booking system for the third parties for a fee while they mess up the screen scrapers with technology and lawsuits. This would make their booking system more accessible while providing a side revenue stream for people who don't use the airline's website and all the extra money makers on there.
the WalMart of European travel (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally love the true capitalistic cut-throat cunning that RyanAir has employed to keep costs low and profits high.
-- They modeled Southwests early success, but stayed much more true to mission as a budget carrier.
--They intentionally use stairs to the tarmac at the plane's doors in Dublin to save on maintenance (and surreptitiously discourage disabled people from flying with them to shorten the amount of time the plane is on the ground).
--They have brand-spanking new planes that were purchases shortly after 9-11 at pennies on the dollar because Boeing was fearing utter calamity.
--They make a ton of money from people buying early for nothing tickets and then not showing up.
--They are militantly union-busting and have fired striking workers before, and will do it again.
Basically in American terms, they are the WalMart of travel -- they have revolutionized European air travel and made it much more accessible to the average person. Their customers realise it's completely no-frills. I personally find the little jingle that plays when disembarking to be the funniest.
The good ole' days of flight are over... (Score:5, Interesting)
... and they ain't coming back.
Disclaimer: I work for an airport.
In the opinion of most people that work in commercial aviation, the airline business is in the middle of a huge contraction and consolidation. Fuel costs aren't the reason, they're just the latest body blow in a series of punches that is destroying air travel as you know it.
First off, improving communicatins technology began lessening the need for business air travel in the late 90's. And business travel has always been the lifeblood of the airline industry, it's driving force on a day to day basis. Then September 11th happened. People were scared to fly, they hated the new security measures, and just decided they'd rather drive, thanks. Then came fuel prices.
The US airline industry is undergoing the same fate as the rail industry after WW II, and the military aviation sector after the Cold War ended. A combination of forces is radically shrinking it. Just as there's one passenger rail service now (AmTrak, and subsidized at that), just as there are now only two major airframe builders left in the US (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin), there will probably be, within ten years, only a few passenger airlines left in the US. Delta is already consuming Northwest, and word in the industry is that US Airways is already putting feelers out to Delta; "Hey, buy us out too". Most airports have something of an airline deadpool going. The people I work with are in agreement that we'll probably end up with no more than three major passenger airlines in the US when all is said and done. The biggest air carriers in the world have already changed from passenger companies to freight companies. FedEx and UPS already far outstrip the top US passenger line, Delta, in terms of fleet size, traffic, and numbers of flights. That's only going to accelerate in the future.
More people are going to take "staycations" in the future. If gas prices keep going down, they'll start driving for vacations more, but the heyday of passenger service is done, and it's not coming back. More and more businesses will do their routine "business travel" via teleconferencing. Many smaller airports will either go to skeleton crews to cut costs or just close outright as airlines stop serving them. Even if you brought back massive regulation (and the extra costs that come with it), nothing is going to stop this process. As better and cheaper business broadband becomes more widely available, the paring back of business travel will only accelerate. It'll never completely disappear, but its definitely downsizing, if you will.
Private jets and old biz models. (Score:5, Insightful)
The other thing is that private jet sales are increasing yearly. CEOs, mostly, are buying them up at shareholder's expense so they won't have to wait for security and fly with us regular people. Boeing actually has a 737 based "business" jet that has a hot tub. It's good to be King (CEO).
And some companies actually send their regular employees on the corp jet because it's just so much more efficient and reliable than commercial jets.
I think your right. Commercial flying is dead as we know it. I for one, will drive anywhere that takes less than 8 hours in a car. When you think about it: 1 hour to the airport, 2 hours security, 1 hour flight time to anywhere (assuming they're actually on time), and then another hour to where you want to be. That's five hours. For an extra 3 hours: I save hundred of dollars; I can use any fucking electronic device I want; I can say "bomb", "mom", "terrorist", etc..; I don't have some snot serving me water who thinks she's been made in flight goddess because of 9/11 and I better not question her authoritay!; I have plenty of elbow room; I don't have to wait in line to pee - just get off the highway; and it goes on and on. ...
Parent
Let me see if I get this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Airlines have been decreasing the services to their customers: Overcrowding planes, ever smaller seats, less leg room, fewer in-flight amenities, increased overbooking, ever more delayed flights and a myriad of new fees.
In addition, the TSA has made air travel more cumbersome with security theater (remove your shoes, don't bring liquids, etc.) with unspecified policies so that you never know if the policies in place when you fly somewhere will be the same policies in place for your return trip. For example, I know I would have been very upset if I travelled to London before the big liquid scare and had to put my laptop in the belly of the beast with the baggage gorillas when I returned.
In addition, the airlines also implemented a pricing policy for their tickets to try to maximize the price charged for each passenger. The whole "why sell a ticket for $200 if the customer would be willing to pay $500" philosophy. So customers began using services that would help them decrease their ticket prices because the airlines would overcharge them if at all possible. So now the airlines are offering the minimum service possible and are surprised that passengers want to pay the minimum amount possible for this service. When you abuse your customers for your own financial gain, the customers will lose respect for your company and when they have the power to stop feeding your greed they will do so. Once this happens, getting these customers to business with you again will be incredibly costly and may very well bankrupt the company. This is true for airlines and will also be true for phone companies, ISPs, Microsoft and the music industry. Ultimately, customers will punish usurious greed, it just may take them a while to have the power to do so.
Thats not all! (Score:5, Interesting)
how about add-on sales for a budget airline (Score:5, Insightful)
Ryanair is a budget airline that makes little on each ticket and makes up for that by a couple of methods. one is of course volume but other very important methods are add on sales like car rentals, hotels, money changing, travel credit cards, travel insurance, etc.
Everyone seems to be thinking that these 3rd party bookings help ryanair, when they actually hurt them by removing the possibility of add on sales. this is not some american airline that makes(or tries to) their money almost entirely on ticket sales. Ryanair is much more like a gas station, they make little on gas but rake in their cash on soda and chip sales.
just some food for thought.
The two worst flights of my life (Score:5, Informative)
The return flight was almost as bad. The flight was overloaded due to an earlier flight being cancelled, and the replacement plane was a series-100 737 with the old turbojet engines and not the modern -600 series with the CFM engines. The plane was filled to capacity and because it was mostly skiers returning from a winter break, the luggage hold was full of skis and heavy clothing and so on. Basically I'm pretty sure that the plane was at or over MTW as it took an age to get off the runway, and then had to circle the airport for about 45 minutes to gain enough height to get over the Alps. I kept looking out of the window and just not seeing the ground getting any further away - we seemed to be at about 2000ft for ages, so given the previous landing experience I really felt quite nervous for the first time ever when flying. I'd recently qualified for my PPL so I had some knowledge of what was going on - maybe too much for comfort. The landing was bad also, with a manual approach flown by an apparently rookie pilot - the throttle was up, down, up, down, up, down and constantly jinking left and right and pitching up and down - obviously having trouble maintaining the ILS. In the end gave up and did a go-around which added another half an hour due to the very poor climb performance. The second approach was smooth as - must have decided to switch on the autopilot. Even when a go-around and/or a manual approach are standard OP, passengers do get nervous because it doesn't "feel normal". And anxiety is contagious, so once again after landing there was an obvious sense of relief. Since then I have avoided flying with RyanAir - any airline that packs them in that tight and then treats a fare-paying flight as a training exercise for its junior pilots isn't really treating the customer with respect.
I still use travel agents (Score:5, Interesting)
I still use travel agents. I've tried Expedia, Cheap Tickets, etc. and they can really get you into a mess. One flight, Denver-Chicago-Dusseldor-Kiev had us with 10 minute flight changes! If one flight were 1 minute late, we'd have been screwed even if the departing flight was at the adjacent gate! There is no way to make some of the schedules these single web sites setup.
Then, they tell you they have flights ranging in price from some low value to God knows what. Try and get the low priced flight. It doesn't exist. OK, try and get economy to Chicago but Business over the water for the long duration. You can't do it.
So, I tell my agent that I want such-and-such airline because I have frequent flyer cards with them. I want economy to Chicago but Business to Europe. I want a minimum of 2 hours but no more than 4 between flights and, the fewest number of flights possible.
In almost every case, she can get me what I want at a LOWER price than the net services! The best part is I don't have to spend hours on the web comparing this to that and getting frustrated. I give her a phone call, she gives me 3 or 4 options and I say OK. It's that simple and usually cheaper too. Besides, she knows my food and seating preferences for all my international flights.
Re:Why?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ryanair usually has the lowest fares, even when you count in all their extra charges (credit card booking fee, checking in fee, luggage fee (different from checking in fee), airport fee (if you fly from Knock in Ireland, someone stiffs you for another 20 EUR or so just before you board).
O'Leary (Ryanair CEO) has never made good customer service a priority. Basically, he sees airplane travel as like bus travel: cut the price down as much as possible, headline it as even lower (i.e. not including extra fees), and pack 'em in.
His strategy, as it is, is to force people to come back solely on price, even if their experience was miserable. When price differentials in the plane business can be well over 100 EUR from one option to the next, this works, alas.
So, here in this news item he is punishing two people: customers who dared to book outside Ryanair's system, and screen scrapers who might be able to level the price visibility playing field (even though Ryanair usually wins here as it is).
He's relying on the fact that the low prices are such a big draw that he can afford to push customers around.
Flying Ryanair is a bit like taking a cheap bus driven by an unpleasant bouncer. It's usually the cheapest option (often by quite a ways) to get from A to B, but if you piss off the driver, he has no qualms about breaking your nose for you.
Parent
Re:Dinosaurs continue to resist change (Score:5, Interesting)
If comparison shopping is a threat to your business model, perhaps you have a flawed business model?
Maybe if the aggregators were just listing the fares from the RyanAir website, and directing customers there when they selected a flight or airline them you'd have a viable argument.
But the aggregators were scraping teh RyanAir website, adding in a margin for THEMSELVES, and processing the transaction.
In other words, they were ripping Ryanair customers off. These Aggregator customers would have been better off just booking through the RyanAir website directly.
Additionally, this move wouldn't affect any aggregator that redirected customers to book through the Ryanair website, because the customer bookings would still go directly through the ryanair website. So if all you were doing was providing convenient (adsupported) flight rate comparisons this move didn't actually affect you. It *only* affected aggregators that actually processed the bookings (and these guys invariably added some margin for themselves.)
I get what you are saying and agree, if blocking comparison shopping is your business model, then something isn't going to go well... but its hard to be critical of Ryanair here. I'm much more inclined to call these aggregator sites that this affected as the badguys here. They were effectively misrepresenting what they were actually offering.
Parent
HIJACKED! for a good cause - attempted humour! (Score:5, Funny)
Well fuck me, all those recent outbreaks of common sense [slashdot.org] came at a cost after all - an outbreak of pure, unadulterated stupidity.
Thus the world is balanced and continues to spin for yet another day...
Parent