Ryanair have now extended their reserved seating to cover all flights – but the service is still only available for the first two rows and for the extra legroom seats by the over-wing emergency exits.
The service costs €10 per person per flight sector. Other passengers can still pay €5 for priority boarding.
Does this make you any more likely to fly with Ryanair?
At long last, Chancellor Alistair Darling has said what we’ve known all along – that flight taxes (Air Passenger Duty) are used to sort out the dodgy banks, and nothing to do with the environment. Speaking to Northeast website The Journal last week, Darlin said:
I am quite blunt about it, we need to raise money to pay for some of the things we have done. If unemployment goes up there is a cost obviously to the family, there is cost in increased benefits, Northern Rock has cost a lot of money.
Now to be honest, no-one is going to step forward and offer their sympathy for the bankers, but many would still say that the bailouts had to be made in order to save the financial services industry. So, should airlines be made to suffer so another sector can survive?
Well, Darling seems to think so:
But if you think about it, what we are doing is putting a pound on to your average ticket, which about three quarters of people travel on. And you consider the cost of an air ticket, I don’t think a pound is that unreasonable.
The problem of course is that it isn’t “just a pound” on the average flight ticket. Last year, air passenger duty was doubled overnight in a move which saw one of the few taxes to have been reduced under the Labour government get re-stealthed. To make matters worse and add insult to injury, taxes had to be collected on flights which were already paid for – as if the chancellor (and former transport minister) was more interested in act of vengeance than a fair tax. Of course, Mr Darling, as MP for Edinburgh Central, is a fully paid-up member of the “you shouldn’t fly but I will” brigade, and that’s long before we bring up the issue of MP’s expenses.
Unlike some airlines and passengers, I don’t have a problem with air passengers paying their way through a ‘reasonable’ level of taxation – and I fully accept that the aviation industry must pay for its environmental costs. But let’s not forget that whereas motoring taxes are supposed to pay for the upkeep of the roads, usage of airports is already covered by separate airport handling fees levied by the (predominantly) private companies who run Britain’s airports.
Environmental costs should be covered by a global carbon trading agreement, due to be discussed in Copenhagen next month. Of course there’s loads of other arguments about the benefits of switching passengers from short hop flights to high speed rail, but that’s for another time. Or maybe, if that’s where APD funds were being directed, the travelling public wouldn’t mind so much. Mr Darling, if you are reading this, that isn’t an excuse to double APD again on you’re next whim!
And so to the final ‘dragon’ in my review of the arguments for and against Heathrow’s Third runway.
If we just looked at the airlines serving Heathrow, then support for a third runway would be overwhelmingly positive. But no frills airlines such as Easyjet and Ryanair, who are being asked to pay increased landing charges at Gatwick and Stansted in order to help fund Heathrow’s infrastructure improvements, are less keen. As I haven’t yet mentioned the alternative High Speed Rail, perhaps this is the place to consider what ‘rail based airlines’ might think.
Heathrow’s existing Tennants
British Airways are unsurprisingly the most vocal in favour of a third runway at Heathrow, as they already benefit from having a massive hub operation in Terminal 5, which they want to expand by having extra runway capacity. In terms of the environmental damage caused by airlines, BA boss Willie Walsh was in New York recently, arguing that airlines across the world could achieve a 50% reduction in CO2 emmissions by 2050 – but many environmentalists are cynical about the industry’s ability to meet such targets, and even those that believe they are achievable do not consider that a 50% reduction is enough. So how does this relate to Heathrow, which is after all, just one airport out of several thousands worldwide which operate passenger flights, albeit the busiest one in terms of international passengers? The current government have made reductions in CO2 emmissions part of the conditions which would have to be met in order for Heathrow to gain approval. Obviously, this is all immaterial if the Conservatives stick with their policy to block an additional runway at Heathrow, but as Willie Walsh argued on Questiontime back in January, politicians in opposition can always play a completely different role once the enter government. At last week’s CIMTIG meeting, BAA’s director for Runway 3 said that “Conservative policy is about going after easy votes. As a transport policy, it is indefensible.”
Virgin meanwhile are pinning their environmental credentials on a massive investment of ‘all Virgin profits for the next 10 years’ in alternative fuels. Clearly both of these airlines believe that the aviation industry can still grow and cut emmissions at the same time. BMI also support a third runway, although speculation is that they will have been snapped up by one of their larger rivals by the time it gets built!
Non Heathrow based airlines
Ryanair in particular have launched legal challenges against BAA over the fees they are charged at Stansted, and have repeatedly refused to pay passenger handling bills, as they claim they are being forced to payin advance for infrastructure which they will never actually use.
High Speed Rail as an Alternative
The Conservatives have said that they will spend £20 billion on a high speed rail line between London and Manchester, and that they will encourage more people to travel to Continental Europe by train, in order to reduce the demand for a third runway at Heathrow. However, as BAA management have pointed out, offering easier rail access to Heathrow will only end up making it far more attractive for customers from the North of England. Meanwhile, Eurostar already have a 75% market share for point to point travel between London and Paris and Brussels, so there is little that government policy could do to switch more people onto the trains, apart from ban these flights entirely – a move which would be very un-Conservative! Although there is potential to see Eurostar services extended to cities such as Cologne and Amsterdam, this is a commercial matter for Eurostar to decide, and there is very little that a UK government could do to influence this, when the track and station access needed to make this happen is in other EU countries.
Verdict: Just as it goes without saying that most of Heathrow’s neighbours will be against further expansion, it can also be taken for granted that the main airlines using Heathrow would want to see it expand. But this misses out on the wider picture, especially as it is the no-frills airlines who are investing most heavily in new aircraft and new routes. It is therefore not a foregone conclusion to assume that the airline industry as a whole would say ‘we’re in’.
Final score – some of the referee’s decisions may be controversial, but my verdict is 2-3 against.
One of the most frequent complaints at the moment about low-cost airlines — and even some very high cost airlines nowadays as well, especially for flying across the pond — is the amount being charged for checked baggage, sometimes up to £16 for shorthaul flights within Europe.
Personally, I’ve always felt that it is much fairer to charge for baggage, rather than giving people who want to carry a lot more with them a free ride, but the flipside of this is that the legacy airlines which don’t charge for checked baggage can suddenly become much better value when compared with their rivals which do.
When baggage charges started at just a few pounds each way, the little bit extra didn’t make that much difference, but £16 doubled could make a seemingly expensive £100 flight with an airline like British Airways, which would also include free food and drink, become much better value than a £70 return flight with Easyjet, and this is before you add in the cost of getting to and from a more remote airport like Stansted or Luton.
However, these extra luggage charges really do just reinforce the argument in favour of travelling light, not to mention making sure that you do know how much you are carrying before you leave. For this, we would have to recommend buying some form of travel scale — I have a simple lightweight analogue scale, made by Gotravel products, and available in the travel department of many major stores.
Here are a few personal tips for travelling light:
If you do find yourself scrunching everything down just to fit in one bag to get through the airport, you might want to take a foldable backpack so that you can put your coat in it once you have reached your sunny destination.
Have you been annoyed by airlines charging you up to £9.50 per person for a return flight booking, just for the privilege of handing over your own money to them? Do you know that if you fly with Aer Lingus, they add an £8 handling fee towards the end of the booking fee, but that there is a way of not having to pay this?
Avoiding card charge rip offs
The answer is simple – you just have to have the right piece of plastic:
The Visa Electron Card
Ironically, this card was previously associated with basic current accounts for people with a poor credit history. Most current accounts come with Visa Debit of Maestro Cards, and these can still attract the same high fees as paying by credit card. Although Easyjet charges more to pay by credit card, both Ryanair and Aer Lingus charge the same rate, regardless of how you pay – except if you use a Visa Electron card.
Fortunately, you don’t need to go round destroying your credit history in order to get a Visa Electron card. All you need to do is have an account with a bank which will issue you one. Ask you current account provider if they can do this. If not, we would recommend opening up a simple Cashminder account with the Co-operative bank. This can be topped up at any post office, so you don’t need to worry about whether or not you have a Co-op branch close to you. The account is even marketed as coming with no frills (just like the airlines) and no fuss (not like any airline we know!).
Once you have opened up one of these accounts, you just need to top it up each time you want to book a no frills flight – in much the same way that you might do for a pay as you go mobile. So we now have pay as you fly – it might be a bit more hassle than using your regular credit card, but it will cost you much less in the long run.