Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19348 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2642 times:
Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 1): If it's true, it'll be a minor PR setback for Ryanair...
The public will ask "If the fees are outrageous, why can another LCC (EasyJet) fly there and Ryanair can't?"
answer: Someone's too stingy or someone's too generous...
Of course they won't. Why? Because your average person (read: 99.9% of the population) either don't know about it or, if they do, don't give a damn. And rightly so.
Besides, it's got nothing to do with being stingy: by reducing your costs (which include airport fees) and by becoming more efficient, you can offer lower airfares (which is becoming increasingly demanded in today's price-conscious times) or have higher profit margins. Either way, they can hopefully better achieve what they're in business to do - to earn as good a profit as possible.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
Mhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2527 times:
U2 have never been low cost where airports are concerned, apart form in the UK. They operate into almost all major cities (AMS, CDG and ORY, HAM, MAD) in Europe, so flying into MLA shouldn't affect their cost base like it might affect FR who drive down airport charges so the airport operators actually have an airline flying there.
MLA is an established airport, with fixed fees and a history, unlike many of FR's airports where they are the sole airline, and thus have the upper hand where negotiations are concerned.
No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced