Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair Restroom Size Equivalent To 11 Seats  
User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 782 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 20308 times:

G'day

Here

http://www.ch-aviation.ch/portal/new...s-with-boeing-over-b737-max-millar

it says

Quote:

Ryanair is pursuing is the possibility of removing one of the Max's rear toilets in order to fit an extra 11 seats

Unquote:

11 seats is a lot of real estate. How on earth are they going to get 11 seats in the space of a typical airline lavatory? The airline lavatories I have seen so far seat one. At times I wonder how some of the bigger passengers get through the door and even more so how they go about their business in there, but that is not the point of this post. I was also not aware that Ryanair treats their customers with Emirates first class style of real bathrooms (powder rooms for you American ladies) that feature a shower and a pissoir err urinal for their male clientele.

The article also implies that they are removing one of the rear toilets, meaning one will stay for the time being until they have figured out how to fit another 11 seats and meeting the minimum crew requirement without adding another crew member (first officer serving the first two seat rows maybe?).

So likely they will fit the extra seats rows across the one remaining rear lavatory and likely using galley space as well (do Ryanair have a galley?). And will they be charging extra for the privilege of sitting next to the lavatory with all those passengers in need roaming around, trying to figure out how the pay for the usage fee and the various extra smells?

Numerous questions I know, but there must be some A-nutters that can answer some, for the remaining of us to get a clear picture, thanks  


Cheers

Peter


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10364 posts, RR: 30
Reply 1, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19840 times:

I think Howard Millar is not telling the whole story. Ryanair currently uses 30" seat pitch, they can get another row with six seats by reducing the pitch to 28-29". Removing one of the aft lavatories will give them another 3 seats. Now we only need to find 2 more seats   

http://oi44.tinypic.com/wvrhh3.jpg



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlinejoost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3159 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19840 times:

Quoting Heavierthanair (Thread starter):
11 seats is a lot of real estate. How on earth are they going to get 11 seats in the space of a typical airline lavatory? The airline lavatories I have seen so far seat one.

A typical lavatory takes the space of about one and a half row of seats, so say 4.5 seats. It's wider than 29" and runs all the way from the aisle to the cabin, so the width of 3 seats. If there is some space between the last seats and the lavatory now, it might well be a 6 seats gain.

Still not 11, but there's probably more to the story.
1) Ryanair uses a 30" seat pitch. As they are installing 189 seats (the maximum for the 738), there is no use for them to tighten the seat pitch. 29" gives them the space for one extra row (6 seats)
2) On the 737-900ER, Boeing has installed a flat rear pressure bulkhead, instead of a cone-shaped on the 737-800. Boeing is at least considering using the flat bulkhead on all 737 MAX models, providing additional interior space.


Quoting Heavierthanair (Thread starter):
meaning one will stay for the time being until they have figured out how to fit another 11 seats and meeting the minimum crew requirement without adding another crew member (first officer serving the first two seat rows maybe?).

The Ryanair goal is 200 seats, 11 up from the current 189. At 50 seats per F/A, 200 seats is the maximum number of seats for 4 F/A's.

The challenge is to get the 737-8MAX certified for 200 pax. And FR is trying to make Boeing do that.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4098 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 19728 times:

Goody, another reason to bash FR again.

Quoting Heavierthanair (Thread starter):
The airline lavatories I have seen so far seat one.

But they also need room for the plumbing and the sink and, well I know that the lavs in aircraft really don't have that much room but if FR also goes ahead with charging for use of the toilet, there may not be a need for all the toilets on an aircraft. I for one do not like using those places on the aircraft unless I absolutely find it necessary. They are disgusting places and I don't like even sitting near one.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6479 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 19338 times:

Now you make me wonder why Ryanair is not lobbying EASA to change the rule for the number of F/A, or maybe they are ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17602 times:

Quoting joost (Reply 2):

The challenge is to get the 737-8MAX certified for 200 pax. And FR is trying to make Boeing do that.

Boeing's name MAX is really going to be appropriate!  


User currently offlinenicholasjet From United Kingdom, joined May 2013, 60 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15831 times:

I think you'll find there is a difference in the widths of the galleys in their current 737-800 fleets, the forward galley is fairly narrow on some, meaning more space for an extra row at least.... This combined with the removal of the rear galley by the R2 door might allow for another 2-3 rows. Still... I think the '200' is just an easier goal to say for the airline, instead of 198.... which would make much more sense....

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15505 times:

What are they trying to do, get regulations enacted to govern the minimum number of lavs per passenger?   Also, at some point, you will bump into the max number of passengers the plane is certified for (due to evacuation capacities of the exits). And I wonder if FR realizes that when you add passengers, at some point, you have to add an (expensive) flight attendant to the aircraft. I guess in FR's case, it's just one more person to stroll the aisles in flight peddling watches, etc. 


Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19186 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 15304 times:

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
And I wonder if FR realizes that when you add passengers, at some point, you have to add an (expensive) flight attendant to the aircraft

One for every 50 seats, so they require four with their present 189 seats (max certified) or 200.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlinedavies2911 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2011, 40 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 15166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

On the Easyjet A320 I went on a few months ago, one of the toilets was in the back wall behind the door.

Would the flat pressure bulkhead allow something like this, along with a half galley, would that not free up the space for the extra seats?


User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3915 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14896 times:

I'm sure FR are more than well aware of the maximum certified capacity of the -800, it's 189 their current seat capacity. I'm sure they are also aware of the 50:1 ratio for cabin crew. It's why easyJet's 156 seat A319s have four cabin crew. It's also the reason FR are pushing for 200 seats, it's not a co-incidence. What FR are trying to do is seat more people in the same space. Where would the space come from?
1) Reduce seat pitch
As already mentioned the 73H could seat 195 (an extra row) just by reducing the pitch by 1".29" of pitch is still 1" better than easyJet's A319. Sadly the seats FR currently use are chunky affairs, by using slimline seats FR may well make the cabin more comfortable.
2) Remove galley aft of 1R
Currently FRs 73H have a galley where 1DEF could be. Replacing this with seating could add another 3 seats.
3) Remove one rear lav.
Removing a rear toilet could add another 3 seats.
4) Remove both rear lavs
Removing both rear lavs and placing one or both of them against the rear bulkhead could add 6 seats. Airbus are doing this with SpaceFlex, I'm not sure if boeing could squeeze a little galley in as well as 2 lavs, as Airbus do.

So it seems possible to add even more than 11 seats to the 738, possibly up to 15 extra seats, if Boeing can get it certified. It seems possible to get 9 extra seats without even removing a toilet. If FR would be happy with 2 lav for 200 passengers than no changes to the rear bulkhead would be needed. A 204 seat 738MAX would have amazing seat mile costs and look great in comparison charts in the brochures against the 180 seat A320



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
User currently offlinehoMsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14856 times:

Wouldn't the door configuration have to be changed? Wasn't the main reason the 737-900's max capacity was the same as the 737-800 because they had the same exit door configuration (which is why Boeing had to throw in the extra door behind the wings on the -900ER)?


I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1542 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 12538 times:

Remember DL said they could cram a few extra seats into their 737s by reconfiguring the aft lavatory into a previously unused rear bulkhead space or something like that. Perhaps Ryan is taking advantage of that space in the back for seats rather than a lav.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6479 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9848 times:

192 seats A320. Apparently that's what Airbus promised U2.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinezkncj From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9434 times:

Quoting Heavierthanair (Thread starter):
The article also implies that they are removing one of the rear toilets, meaning one will stay for the time being until they have figured out how to fit another 11 seats

Easy, I would say there planning a layout allot like NZ 171D A320 (http://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/seat-map-airbus-a320-171d) just without the 35" pitch up front


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9466 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9287 times:

Lavatories are not what limit 737-800s to 189 seats. It is exit configuration. No narrow bodies in the 2 front door 2 rear door and 4 window exit configuration have been certified for more than 189 seats as far as I know. How will they get past that barrier?


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1402 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9256 times:

What is the effect of using the rear bulkhead space on safety and maintenance?

User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5167 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 9223 times:

Quoting davies2911 (Reply 9):
On the Easyjet A320 I went on a few months ago, one of the toilets was in the back wall behind the door.

Would the flat pressure bulkhead allow something like this, along with a half galley



That is how QF's 737-400s are configured, with the lavatory on the ABC side and galley on the DEF side against the back wall, behind the doors. I would therefore assume that it is possible on the 800 if they can do it on the 400.

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 10):
Sadly the seats FR currently use are chunky affairs, by using slimline seats FR may well make the cabin more comfortable

True. Those seats surely aren't particularly light compared to current models, so I would assume that at some point they will introduce new seats.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8487 times:

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 15):
No narrow bodies in the 2 front door 2 rear door and 4 window exit configuration have been certified for more than 189 seats as far as I know. How will they get past that barrier?

Demonstrate they can evacuate it within the 90 seconds? Or would they go so far as to add two more exits, similar to the 737-900ER? Thinking way way back, there were 727-200's that had an extra set of exits between the wing and nose. I think United pushed for it with the intent of making it a "high density" configuration (at least high density at that time) for specific routes that had a lot of traffic....e.g. SFO - LAX, maybe ORD to LGA or similar.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7346 times:

Quoting cschleic (Reply 18):
Thinking way way back, there were 727-200's that had an extra set of exits between the wing and nose.

Never seen or heard of that.


Do you have a picture or the name of the operator with this configuration ?



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7199 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 19):
Never seen or heard of that.


Do you have a picture or the name of the operator with this configuration ?

Here's a link to earlier discussions.

United Boeing 727-200's With 11 Emergency Exits? (by WesternDC1010 Jul 30 2003 in Civil Aviation)



Link to two photos in the database:

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Unite...d=ed18f69e3f1d78af65d09e3ff0ba5f42

http://www.airliners.net/photo/349476/M/


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4325 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7038 times:

Thanks, interesting.


Looks like where the Galley service door was on the -100.



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30434 posts, RR: 84
Reply 22, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6871 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting joost (Reply 2):
On the 737-900ER, Boeing has installed a flat rear pressure bulkhead, instead of a cone-shaped on the 737-800. Boeing is at least considering using the flat bulkhead on all 737 MAX models, providing additional interior space.

Section 25.365 of the FAA TCDS for the 737 family does make note that the 737-800 can be fitted with a flat rear pressure bulkhead, as well:

Quote:
For 737-800 airplanes configured with a flat aft pressure bulkhead, the airplane is also designed to withstand the effects of a sudden release of pressure venting aft through any 820 square inch opening in that bulkhead at any operating altitude.
Quoting hoMsar (Reply 11):
Wouldn't the door configuration have to be changed?
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 15):
No narrow bodies in the 2 front door 2 rear door and 4 window exit configuration have been certified for more than 189 seats as far as I know. How will they get past that barrier?

There were some rumors awhile back that Boeing was considering changing the doors for the MAX.

Looking at the EASA TCDS, the 737-800 has four Type I exit doors and four Type III overwing exits, but the forward LH door is sized like a Type B and the other three are sized like Type Cs which I assume is why the plane is certified for 189 instead of 160 (which would be the limit with 2xType I and 2xType III per side).

Boeing could move to Type II overwing exits, which would raise the per exit limit from 35 to 40 (giving 10 additional seats on the 737-800).


User currently offlinecschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6726 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Boeing could move to Type II overwing exits, which would raise the per exit limit from 35 to 40 (giving 10 additional seats on the 737-800).

What's the difference between Type III overwing and Type II? I know the NG's have the emergency exits that hinge upward and, I think, are larger than the previous models. Is there another type that's even larger than that...if that's the criteria for more seats in the plane? Or something else?


User currently offlineescapehere From Australia, joined Jan 2011, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5623 times:

I highly doubt the regulator will allow a plane with 2 lavs for 200 people.

User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (9 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 5616 times:

One LAV should be enough. It alos means you carry less water and less waste water. Maybe one could also agree that one FA fpr 75 pax is enough and the seat pitch can be reduced to 26-27". People want to fly for low prices, the governments should not stop airlines from offering that.

User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 3
Reply 26, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5399 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 8):
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
And I wonder if FR realizes that when you add passengers, at some point, you have to add an (expensive) flight attendant to the aircraft

One for every 50 seats, so they require four with their present 189 seats (max certified) or 200.

Is that under JAA/EASA rules? I thought the 1 FA/50 PAX rule was FAA only  



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlinezkncj From New Zealand, joined Nov 2005, 488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4672 times:

Quoting escapehere (Reply 24):
I highly doubt the regulator will allow a plane with 2 lavs for 200 people.

Air New Zealand does 2 to 171 on there Domestic A320


User currently offlineBAWairbus From UK - England, joined Jun 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3693 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 25):
Maybe one could also agree that one FA fpr 75 pax is enough People want to fly for low prices, the governments should not stop airlines from offering that.

They certainly should when safety is involved. I don't think we can expect the ruling on the ratio of cabin crew to passengers to change and I don't think it should! Airlines are businesses. They have to evolve their business plan to the times they are operating in and the legislation that applies to them, just like anyone else. Granted there is a lot more regulation for airlines to contend with than the average business, but it's all part and parcel. If they wan't to be profitable, they should figure out how to do it without stamping their feet and expecting the goalposts to be moved.

Also, I really don't think one toilet would be enough on a 737... especially on some of the missions FR uses them on.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10364 posts, RR: 30
Reply 29, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting BAWairbus (Reply 28):
Also, I really don't think one toilet would be enough on a 737... especially on some of the missions FR uses them on.

They have one in the front too so that would make 2 toilets instead of 3.

[Edited 2013-09-30 03:05:11]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineBAWairbus From UK - England, joined Jun 2013, 14 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3542 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 29):
They have one in the front too so that would make 2 toilets instead of 3.

I was just referencing seahawk in reply 25 who seemed to be suggesting that one would be enough for the entire aircraft.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 10364 posts, RR: 30
Reply 31, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

Quoting BAWairbus (Reply 30):
I was just referencing seahawk in reply 25 who seemed to be suggesting that one would be enough for the entire aircraft.

I see. In that case I also agree that one toilet would not be enough.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1724 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2974 times:

Quoting escapehere (Reply 24):
I highly doubt the regulator will allow a plane with 2 lavs for 200 people.

Does the FAA require lavs?


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1878 posts, RR: 1
Reply 33, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 25):
One LAV should be enough. It alos means you carry less water and less waste water. Maybe one could also agree that one FA fpr 75 pax is enough and the seat pitch can be reduced to 26-27". People want to fly for low prices, the governments should not stop airlines from offering that.

I think a few of the posters failed to see your sarcasm  


User currently offlinespeedygonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2846 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
There were some rumors awhile back that Boeing was considering changing the doors for the MAX.

Looking at the EASA TCDS, the 737-800 has four Type I exit doors and four Type III overwing exits, but the forward LH door is sized like a Type B and the other three are sized like Type Cs which I assume is why the plane is certified for 189 instead of 160 (which would be the limit with 2xType I and 2xType III per side).

Boeing could move to Type II overwing exits, which would raise the per exit limit from 35 to 40 (giving 10 additional seats on the 737-800).

What about the extra door behind the wing from the -900ER, but only one overwing exit? Would that be sufficient for 200 pax?



Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineseahawk From Germany, joined May 2005, 916 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 33):
I think a few of the posters failed to see your sarcasm

Sarcasm? Who would ever think that anything Ryanair does has another intention than offering the customer the cheapest tickets?   Remember it is the airline which considered taking a "toilet fee" on their flights.

The only bad thing is that people still fly with them.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19186 posts, RR: 52
Reply 36, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2712 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 35):

The only bad thing is that people still fly with them.

81 million in fact.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30434 posts, RR: 84
Reply 37, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cschleic (Reply 23):
What's the difference between Type III overwing and Type II?

The FAA defines a Type II Exit as a rectangular opening not less than 20 inches wide by 44 inches high. A Type III Exit is not less than 20 inches wide by 36 inches high, A pair of Type II Exits is rated for 40 passengers, while a pair of Type III are rated for 35.



Quoting cschleic (Reply 23):
I know the NG's have the emergency exits that hinge upward and, I think, are larger than the previous models.


The Type III exits on the 737NG are 20x36 inches per the EASA TCDS.

Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 23):
Is there another type that's even larger than that...if that's the criteria for more seats in the plane?


Replacing both Type III sets of overwing exits with Type II exits would increase the Exit Limit by 10 (from 189 to 199).


Quoting speedygonzales (Reply 34):
What about the extra door behind the wing from the -900ER, but only one overwing exit? Would that be sufficient for 200 pax?

The 737-900ER Mid-Cabin Emergency Door can be rated as either a Type I or Type II exit. The difference between the two is 5 passengers, so a Type II raises the Exit Limit from 189 to 215 and a Type II raises it to 220. A Type III exit is worth 35 passengers, so removing one is not an option.

[Edited 2013-09-30 08:50:39]

User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7687 posts, RR: 21
Reply 38, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2588 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seahawk (Reply 35):
Who would ever think that anything Ryanair does has another intention than offering the customer the cheapest tickets?

I only ever fly them if it's super cheap, and that's pretty often. Last week for £40 return, for example. It's no bad thing.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 35):
Remember it is the airline which considered taking a "toilet fee" on their flights.

*Yawn*. It's the only airline who could say such a thing where you'd KNOW that it was complete rubbish and would never happen. Hear it from another airline and you'd know it was real trouble.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 35):
The only bad thing is that people still fly with them.

Based on? People generally fly them because the price is right. They generally complain only if they did something stupid and failed to follow the very well-known rules.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19186 posts, RR: 52
Reply 39, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 38):
People generally fly them because the price is right.

Of course. But also because FR is one of the few airlines where you get exactly what is promised and for which you're willing to pay.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineescapehere From Australia, joined Jan 2011, 74 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2300 times:

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 33):

I don't know, but I'm sure they would. It's a health and safety issue, especially if one of them breaks mid flight. 2 toilets is probably enough for short 1-1.5 hour hops, but not for longer flights - say UK - Greece.

I was recently on a United A320 from Denver to Dallas, one of the rear toilets was out of order. Although it was a short flight, it still caused a long line to form down the middle of the plane and some rather uncomfortable looking passengers. You would think in situations like this they would allow passengers to use the J class lav at the front, which sat there unused while the line grew ever longer.


User currently offlineawacsooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1878 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2223 times:

Quoting seahawk (Reply 35):
The only bad thing is that people still fly with them.

I know you're not the only one here who feels that way, but man are you brave for actually stating that.

Quoting escapehere (Reply 40):
I was recently on a United A320 from Denver to Dallas, one of the rear toilets was out of order.

Back in 04, I was delayed for 3 hours on a flight from DEN-LAX cause the A320 had a broken lav in the back...NOT fun!


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3994 posts, RR: 13
Reply 42, posted (9 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

Unfortunately the 757 is not among us anymore. The same zeal applied to the 757-300 would lead to the 300-seater narrow body.

That would be positively the cheapest capacity around for about 3000 nm. Ryanair could base them in MAN and DUB and send them across the pond to the NE US.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Issues Layoff Notices To 11,000 Employees posted Tue Sep 18 2012 16:47:07 by av8orwalk
Airlines Hiding Seats To Push Pax To Premium Seats posted Wed Nov 2 2011 19:23:30 by catiii
AA To Retire Up To 11 757s; Trim Capacity 3% posted Mon Oct 10 2011 16:11:19 by SkedGuy
United Continental To Cut Seats On U.S. Flights posted Tue Dec 21 2010 22:54:41 by Coairman
Ryanair Interested In Up To 300 A320 NEOs posted Mon Oct 4 2010 16:55:37 by keesje
Boeing 787-8 Limited To 250 Seats posted Thu Jul 22 2010 05:51:13 by 328JET
Not Official: EK To Change J Seats On A380 posted Sat Jun 26 2010 06:39:13 by uaeflyer
KL And PY Ups AMS-PBM To 11 Weekly posted Tue Feb 9 2010 08:16:54 by hardiwv
DL 764 Conversion To Flat Seats posted Sat Nov 21 2009 03:48:29 by Davescj
Ryanair - Are They Allowed To Do This? posted Mon Oct 26 2009 01:22:48 by Woodentom