Why are you so opposed to “low-fare” airlines apart from the global warming/climate change element, which is a quite separate debate and may or may not be relevant. Do you object to people being able to enjoy the benefits and adventure of travel provided by low cost airlines which they would otherwise not enjoy?
There is more – or much much less depending on your outlook – to Ryanair than any member of the public will ever realize. Ryanair has done more to harm the aviation industry than the sum of allowing more people to fly.
Make no mistake, flying is an expensive business from start-to-finish. The regulation that makes flying safer, often makes it more expensive. Think of part suppliers; Goodrich, Bridgestone, Honeywell, Liebherr who develop aircraft parts, and must certify their components for aircraft. Think of the training involved for the men and woman who handle, fly and maintain aircraft. Think of the people and experience required to manage, and control flight operation. Think of those that safely guide your aircraft from A-to-B (or-C). Start to build that mental image of all those involved in the day-to-day operations.
You will quickly figure (I hope) that a 737-800 full of “low-fares” doesn’t cover a great deal of the inherent costs.
What you have had over the years has been the continual degradation of pay, T&C’s and moral of those same people who were already in the industry. New staff are getting less and less and are expected to do the same job, for longer with less.
Just as the low-fares have ripped the **** from the industry, the full-fare airlines have been guilty of ripping of the flying public. They now have large cost base that cannot compete with the likes of Ryanair. There is a sweet-spot between these two extremes, but the public want to pay as little as possible.
I have seen far too many skillful, experienced people leave the industry – and that is the real cost of “low-fares”!
Sign In
