I've created a separate thread for this as it's not related to the grounding as such.

Michael O'Leary has started that passengers won't get refunds if they refuse to fly the MAX, and when asked whether people might avoid booking it, elaborated as follows:

You won’t know, because on average you book seats on Ryanair six to eight weeks in advance of travel.


We only do the aircraft allocations the night before, because we don’t know which aircraft is where.

During the first year, you’ll have a 10 per cent chance you’ll be on a Max aircraft.

Will anyone know or care? Frankly, I don’t think they will.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-boeing-737-max-plane-crash-passenger-safety-aircraft-michael-oleary-a9255601.html


Now there is a good chance he is making this up on the spot, but given the capacity and seat plan will be different on the 737-8200, and passengers are prompted to choose seats when booking, do we think it's possible for Ryanair to operate the new planes mixed into the fleet like this, as if they were the same as the existing ones? Is that genuinely likely to be the plan? They'll be flying a lot of empty seats around if so, even if nobody refuses to fly.

We don't know which aircraft is where? Wtf?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

FR will know what routes and destinations the Max will operate on - like Easy know where the 321 will operate on.

No need to wonder about it. On the long run ALL Ryanair flights will be on a MAX, I meant 737-8-200.

"We only do the aircraft allocations the night before, because we don’t know which aircraft is where." This is a lie, full stop.

They have "bases"with aircraft essentially only shuttling out and in. Pretty easy to know where an aircraft will be operating.

oschkosch wrote:

We don't know which aircraft is where? Wtf?

Gesendet von meinem SM-G950F mit Tapatalk

I think he means that clarity increases with time...months ahead of a given flight date, they won't know...but as the date comes closer and closer, the fog will gradually lift...till one day before the flight date, they will know that it will/won't be a MAX with, say, 95% certainty...but last minute changes are still possible depending on unforeseen tech issues, very late arrivals, etc...

They will certainly know which of their aircraft are where at all times...what they won't know until the last couple of days say, is which of those aircraft precisely will be performing your flight...


Faro

MO'L said "Will anyone know or care? Frankly, I don’t think they will." - I think he's probably correct. It won't say MAX on the outside (it would be PR madness to do that), so almost no passengers will know what they are on.

what they won't know until the last couple of days say, is which of those aircraft precisely will be performing your flight

At the moment they can get away with that because the aircraft are all the same. I'm skeptical that it will work the same when there are 2 different configurations/types.

Within each typefleet (made up word) probably but not across the whole fleet. They need to fill those extra seats.

To be on the safe side I will boycott entirely the company and the other will try this trick. I will fly Lufthansa sas or anyone else does not play dirty. Eventually the news will hit the social media and fire back to MOL.
IMHO the max will never fly I don't see anyone signing the rts and pay for it if something happens. Also people are aware of the plane and won't book those trips.

If the modified MAX gets cleared to fly again it will be good to go. I don't care if it's some BA or FR MAX then.

I don't think the average customer will be able to tell if the seatmap is any different, and Ryanair or indeed other low cost airlines like easyJet and Notwegian don't disclose the aircraft type - on easyJet for instance there is no way of telling whether you're flying the A319 or the A321neo other than the seatmap. It doesn't even display on google flights. As for when MOL says that they do the scheduling the night before - I don't see how that can feasibly be the case given that loads of seats would be going out empty on the routes that are scheduled to be on a MAX.

Plus the MAX will be just as safe as a 737 so arguably passengers have no logical reason to refuse to fly on it once it's un-grounded.

People fly Ryanair mostly for cost reasons. Not many will care about what jet airliner will be carrying them from A to B. Even if pax wanted to avoid the MAX, I think most of those pax would be happy to fly on a 737-8-200 instead.

People choosing Ryanair only care about price and their own wallets.
Safe bet by Ryanair this won't affect their business.

jghealey wrote:

Plus the MAX will be just as safe as a 737 so arguably passengers have no logical reason to refuse to fly on it once it's un-grounded.

At the moment the MAX has a terrible safety record and it has been grounded almost a year. How can you say the MAX will be just as safe as a 737? Personally I don’t trust this aircraft. Sometimes I see the type already pop up in flight search engines when I am looking at tickets for spring travel, for example with Air Canada, Icelandair and Norwegian. As soon as that’s the case I select another airline who doesn’t plan to operate the MAX. Passengers don’t need a logical reason to avoid the MAX, they need to feel safe and that’s not what they believe Boeing is providing.

MartijnNL wrote:

jghealey wrote:

Plus the MAX will be just as safe as a 737 so arguably passengers have no logical reason to refuse to fly on it once it's un-grounded.

At the moment the MAX has a terrible safety record and it has been grounded almost a year. How can you say the MAX will be just as safe as a 737? Personally I don’t trust this aircraft. Sometimes I see the type already pop up in flight search engines when I am looking at tickets for spring travel, for example with Air Canada, Icelandair and Norwegian. As soon as that’s the case I select another airline who doesn’t plan to operate the MAX. Passengers don’t need a logical reason to avoid the MAX, they need to feel safe and that’s not what they believe Boeing is providing.

But it's literally gone through 10 months now of rigorous testing and re-certification... it'll literally be the safest plane in the skies once it's reapproved. There is no reason for passengers not to feel safe. And anyway, this conversation has been had so many times before I'm sure we don't need to have it again

Shortly after 9/11, people panicked that flying was no longer safe. Then airlines significantly lowered fares and people decided that if something was cheap enough, they would take risk (a sort of reverse-danger-money if you like)

Same thing will happen with the 737 Max; if knowing how to link a seatmap to being 737 Max becomes common knowledge, then airlines will just drop fares for a while on specific flights, and pax will decide the monetary saving is worth the risk. If there are no major incidents for 6 months, the whole thing will blow over

Mixing hopes and expectations. Maybe many passengers will take no risk on Ryanair given their communication strategy. Lots of alternatives. MOL would change his view overnight.

9-11, locked bullitproof cockpit doors, intens security checks, onboard security people, war on Afghanistan. Maybe it was a bit more than getting used too...

GCT64 wrote:

MO'L said "Will anyone know or care? Frankly, I don’t think they will." - I think he's probably correct. It won't say MAX on the outside (it would be PR madness to do that), so almost no passengers will know what they are on.

Well, he is wrong. I fly around 50-60 times a year and will not fly a MAX for at least a year after RTS. I have unburdened myself from the “human as super rational probability calculating computer model” a while ago (much to my joy). I go with how I feel, I will not feel comfortable in a MAX, I may be called irrational, but I do not care. I always know what kind of plane I am in and care. Occasionally, the plane type changes, you can still ask before boarding and look at the safety card at worst. Also, almost every airline website on which I make reservations tells me the aircraft type at the time of the reservation. When he says he does not think people will care, what he means is he hopes they will not. If he had said “I think nobody will care in time,” I would have understood, not early on. Just bad customer relations.

It wouldn’t concern me flying on the Max. The scrutiny it has received will make me think there is not a safer aircraft when it flies again.

I want to know reputational level of the pilot flying my plane, definitely in the top half. LOL

noviorbis77 wrote:

It wouldn’t concern me flying on the Max. The scrutiny it has received will make me think there is not a safer aircraft when it flies again.

This assumption is based on what exactly?

I have thought about this question for a while but didn’t want to derail a thread but I think it works here.

So you are a pax who has enough knowledge to know you are booking a MAX and you don’t want to be on a MAX because you think it is dangerous.

You are flying from OMA-DEN and need to be in DEN by noon for a major meeting. Your airline of choice is Southwest and Southwest is flying a 737-8. The only other option to get you to DEN on time is a United Express CRJ-200.

The southwest fare is $120 united is charging $400. Which do you choose?

You also have the option of going to DEN the night before on Southwest and buying a hotel room and spending an extra day on the road.

Or you have the option of connecting through ORD/MDW/MSP/DFW/IAH/SLC. All connecting fares are over $300.

I’m interested to hear what you have to say. Just how strong are your convictions. My bet is they are strong once maybe twice then you will start to slip. This is why most airlines are not concerned long term about the MAX reputation.

Doesn’t the MAX have more seats than the 737-800? You should be able to tell in advance because the seat map would show the MAX.

Arion640 wrote:

Doesn’t the MAX have more seats than the 737-800? You should be able to tell in advance because the seat map would show the MAX.

How many people know this? I can tel you that out of my non aviation friends the answer is zero.

jghealey wrote:

But it's literally gone through 10 months now of rigorous testing and re-certification... it'll literally be the safest plane in the skies once it's reapproved.

This is a complete fallacy, if it is "re-certified", it only means it meets the minimum standards, that is all, it does not make it the safest plane in the skies, it could still be the least safe new plane available. Indeed it's quite likely as we know features that are missing that limit the demands on pilots such as EICAS.

CriticalPoint wrote:

I have thought about this question for a while but didn’t want to derail a thread but I think it works here.

So you are a pax who has enough knowledge to know you are booking a MAX and you don’t want to be on a MAX because you think it is dangerous.

You are flying from OMA-DEN and need to be in DEN by noon for a major meeting. Your airline of choice is Southwest and Southwest is flying a 737-8. The only other option to get you to DEN on time is a United Express CRJ-200.

The southwest fare is $120 united is charging $400. Which do you choose?

You also have the option of going to DEN the night before on Southwest and buying a hotel room and spending an extra day on the road.

Or you have the option of connecting through ORD/MDW/MSP/DFW/IAH/SLC. All connecting fares are over $300.

I’m interested to hear what you have to say. Just how strong are your convictions. My bet is they are strong once maybe twice then you will start to slip. This is why most airlines are not concerned long term about the MAX reputation.

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

NonTechAvLover wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

I have thought about this question for a while but didn’t want to derail a thread but I think it works here.

So you are a pax who has enough knowledge to know you are booking a MAX and you don’t want to be on a MAX because you think it is dangerous.

You are flying from OMA-DEN and need to be in DEN by noon for a major meeting. Your airline of choice is Southwest and Southwest is flying a 737-8. The only other option to get you to DEN on time is a United Express CRJ-200.

The southwest fare is $120 united is charging $400. Which do you choose?

You also have the option of going to DEN the night before on Southwest and buying a hotel room and spending an extra day on the road.

Or you have the option of connecting through ORD/MDW/MSP/DFW/IAH/SLC. All connecting fares are over $300.

I’m interested to hear what you have to say. Just how strong are your convictions. My bet is they are strong once maybe twice then you will start to slip. This is why most airlines are not concerned long term about the MAX reputation.

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

My family and friends wld have no idea they're on a Max once it's back in the air. The only thing they'll tell me if I ask is that the plane seemed new. We aviation lovers make this a bigger deal than the avg person. Like its been stated previously, a majority of flyers care about price and schedules

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

I have thought about this question for a while but didn’t want to derail a thread but I think it works here.

So you are a pax who has enough knowledge to know you are booking a MAX and you don’t want to be on a MAX because you think it is dangerous.

You are flying from OMA-DEN and need to be in DEN by noon for a major meeting. Your airline of choice is Southwest and Southwest is flying a 737-8. The only other option to get you to DEN on time is a United Express CRJ-200.

The southwest fare is $120 united is charging $400. Which do you choose?

You also have the option of going to DEN the night before on Southwest and buying a hotel room and spending an extra day on the road.

Or you have the option of connecting through ORD/MDW/MSP/DFW/IAH/SLC. All connecting fares are over $300.

I’m interested to hear what you have to say. Just how strong are your convictions. My bet is they are strong once maybe twice then you will start to slip. This is why most airlines are not concerned long term about the MAX reputation.

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

It is one of those “it ain’t happening” situations for me and the MAX. A good-sized fleet flies for a year, all goes well and I am happily on it. Incidentally, I love almost all other Boeing planes.

NonTechAvLover wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

It is one of those “it ain’t happening” situations for me and the MAX. A good-sized fleet flies for a year, all goes well and I am happily on it. Incidentally, I love almost all other Boeing planes.

So your choice is to inconvenience yourself as pay more with a connection or a 9hr train ride. Pay a much higher price on a CRJ 200 or buy a hotel room and spend an extra day on the road away from your family.

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

I have thought about this question for a while but didn’t want to derail a thread but I think it works here.

So you are a pax who has enough knowledge to know you are booking a MAX and you don’t want to be on a MAX because you think it is dangerous.

You are flying from OMA-DEN and need to be in DEN by noon for a major meeting. Your airline of choice is Southwest and Southwest is flying a 737-8. The only other option to get you to DEN on time is a United Express CRJ-200.

The southwest fare is $120 united is charging $400. Which do you choose?

You also have the option of going to DEN the night before on Southwest and buying a hotel room and spending an extra day on the road.

Or you have the option of connecting through ORD/MDW/MSP/DFW/IAH/SLC. All connecting fares are over $300.

I’m interested to hear what you have to say. Just how strong are your convictions. My bet is they are strong once maybe twice then you will start to slip. This is why most airlines are not concerned long term about the MAX reputation.

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

I’ll just take whatever non-deadly option is next cheapest/most convenient.

OB1504 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

I’ll just take whatever non-deadly option is next cheapest/most convenient.

So out of the options presented what do you choose.

Both of you are not answering the question, you are just repeating the tired line of I won’t fly a MAX.

How much inconvenience is too much, how much are you willing to pay?

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

I have thought about this question for a while but didn’t want to derail a thread but I think it works here.

So you are a pax who has enough knowledge to know you are booking a MAX and you don’t want to be on a MAX because you think it is dangerous.

You are flying from OMA-DEN and need to be in DEN by noon for a major meeting. Your airline of choice is Southwest and Southwest is flying a 737-8. The only other option to get you to DEN on time is a United Express CRJ-200.

The southwest fare is $120 united is charging $400. Which do you choose?

You also have the option of going to DEN the night before on Southwest and buying a hotel room and spending an extra day on the road.

Or you have the option of connecting through ORD/MDW/MSP/DFW/IAH/SLC. All connecting fares are over $300.

I’m interested to hear what you have to say. Just how strong are your convictions. My bet is they are strong once maybe twice then you will start to slip. This is why most airlines are not concerned long term about the MAX reputation.

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

.
Someone life is very cheap I seee... I will take thie train as well or fly the previous evening.

Kikko19 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

8h 49 minutes and $104 on Amtrak, I am sure it is a lovely ride as well.

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

.
Someone life is very cheap I seee... I will take thie train as well or fly the previous evening.

Thank you for answering the question!

Modern life is all about convenience. Some can do with out but most can’t and those that can’t will fill that southwest 737-8 to DEN everyday In Order to save $200 . It’s not about life being cheap in my opinion.

No, convenience and feeling safe are qualitatively different matters for me. It sounds like for you the issue is one of convenience, it is not for me. I also think I am not the only one who feels this way.

And my apologies if my response was not clear before, when I said “it ain’t happening for me,” I meant I would take Amtrak or the United flight.

NonTechAvLover wrote:

No, convenience and feeling safe are qualitatively different matters for me. It sounds like for you the issue is one of convenience, it is not for me. I also think I am not the only one who feels this way.

Thanks for answering the question.

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

No, convenience and feeling safe are qualitatively different matters for me. It sounds like for you the issue is one of convenience, it is not for me. I also think I am not the only one who feels this way.

Ok so what path do you choose? You still in three posts have not answered the question

I edited my post to respond, but if I may ask a question: how is what path I would take relevant to this issue, once I say I will not take the MAX? What difference does it make to the MAX discussion if I take Amtrak, United or rent a car and drive overnight, as long as I am clear that I am not flying the MAX?

NonTechAvLover wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

NonTechAvLover wrote:

No, convenience and feeling safe are qualitatively different matters for me. It sounds like for you the issue is one of convenience, it is not for me. I also think I am not the only one who feels this way.

Ok so what path do you choose? You still in three posts have not answered the question

I edited my post to respond, but if I may ask a question: how is what path I would take relevant to this issue, once I say I will not take the MAX? What difference does it make to the MAX discussion if I take Amtrak, United or rent a car and drive overnight, as long as I am clear that I am not flying the MAX?

I edited my response thank you.

It makes a difference because SW will cut the OMA-DEN flight because no one will book it and UA will upgade to a 737-9 in order to pick up the traffic. So now your only Option is UA 737-9. Or in your case drive or train.

People still flew on the DC-10 after a string of crashes. If the Max flies again, people will fly on it.

O'Leary could have chosen his words more carefully however.

The issue won't be with Ryanair. The issue will be if large corporations' travel policies dicate that they don't want their people on MAX aircraft on full service carrriers.

PPVLC wrote:

Sorry but the idea that passengers don't know anything about planes or don't care what plane they're flying doesn't work in this case. Yes, people in general don't know much about aviation or aircraft type but the MAX has a very bad reputation and I already had people asking me about "that MAX plane that crashes". Unfortunately ignorance can be a great fuel for rumours and make things even worse when people go around repeating what they heard without any technical knowledge; there's also yellow journalism to make things worse. OTOH people are so gullible nowadays, nothing would surprise me...

In the 50’s and 60’s how many plane crashes were there a year? People still flew and paid a lot of money to do so. Why? Because it was convenient

People will say they care and don’t want to be on a MAX but when it’s time to go they will pick the cheapest most Convenient option.

CriticalPoint wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Ok does it get you there before noon?

If it doesn’t then how much for a state room so you can sleep? Or will you still need to buy a hote the night before plus sped 9 hours on a train?

I’ll just take whatever non-deadly option is next cheapest/most convenient.

So out of the options presented what do you choose.

Both of you are not answering the question, you are just repeating the tired line of I won’t fly a MAX.

How much inconvenience is too much, how much are you willing to pay?

I’d take the train option too. Or any other option to avoid flying on that plane. Don’t care if it is slower.

cpd wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

I’ll just take whatever non-deadly option is next cheapest/most convenient.

So out of the options presented what do you choose.

Both of you are not answering the question, you are just repeating the tired line of I won’t fly a MAX.

How much inconvenience is too much, how much are you willing to pay?

I’d take the train option too. Or any other option to avoid flying on that plane. Don’t care if it is slower.

What’s the evidence that WN MAXes are unsafe, please? Remember that they are differently equipped in relevant ways. “I won’t fly a MAX period ever” is an almost foolishly irrational position.

I don’t often agree with Ryanair, but if they start promising which type of plane they use for a specific flight can’t swap planes and lose flexibility. This will have an effect on prices and that is killing for a LCC.

99% of the leisure public will forget about the MAX problems the moment it starts flying again and it isn’t mentioned in the news anymore. And they don’t have to think about it because the grounding will only be lifted if the plane is a 100% save. These articles are made by journalists hoping for a quick score and aren’t ‘news’.

CriticalPoint wrote:

PPVLC wrote:

Sorry but the idea that passengers don't know anything about planes or don't care what plane they're flying doesn't work in this case. Yes, people in general don't know much about aviation or aircraft type but the MAX has a very bad reputation and I already had people asking me about "that MAX plane that crashes". Unfortunately ignorance can be a great fuel for rumours and make things even worse when people go around repeating what they heard without any technical knowledge; there's also yellow journalism to make things worse. OTOH people are so gullible nowadays, nothing would surprise me...

In the 50’s and 60’s how many plane crashes were there a year? People still flew and paid a lot of money to do so. Why? Because it was convenient

People will say they care and don’t want to be on a MAX but when it’s time to go they will pick the cheapest most Convenient option.

So now you drive a car without airbags, abs, and safety belts? I wouldn't.

So will the seatmap show 189 seats or 200.

If it shows 189 and they use a MAX then 11 empty seats.

If it shows 200 and they use an NG then you are bumping people.

With EU261, that soon gets expensive.

Kikko19 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

PPVLC wrote:

Sorry but the idea that passengers don't know anything about planes or don't care what plane they're flying doesn't work in this case. Yes, people in general don't know much about aviation or aircraft type but the MAX has a very bad reputation and I already had people asking me about "that MAX plane that crashes". Unfortunately ignorance can be a great fuel for rumours and make things even worse when people go around repeating what they heard without any technical knowledge; there's also yellow journalism to make things worse. OTOH people are so gullible nowadays, nothing would surprise me...

In the 50’s and 60’s how many plane crashes were there a year? People still flew and paid a lot of money to do so. Why? Because it was convenient

People will say they care and don’t want to be on a MAX but when it’s time to go they will pick the cheapest most Convenient option.

So now you drive a car without airbags, abs, and safety belts? I wouldn't.

I do all the time because I have a classic car. You missed my point entirely

So only 3 people have answered the question and all said they would take the train and one said they would pay an extra $270 to fly United. Most of us could stomach that or an extra night in a hotel to feel comfortable and safe. But now let’s it a family of 4 out there.

Same scenario I already posted, you still have the meeting at noon in DEN but now you decide to make a vacation out of it. It’s a one day meeting and then you are going to take your wife and 2 kids skiing for a couple days up in the mountains.

So the SW 737-8 it would cost $520 for tickets but we’re not going to do that. So we look at United and it’s $1600 that’s an extra $1080.

So then we look at the train, same price as SW but it’s a 9 hour trip with teenagers.....might be fun.....with the right kids. But now you have to leave a day early. So you pull the kids out of a day of school and book an extra night in the hotel. But you can’t buy 1 room you will need 2. You can’t have your 15 year old and 17 year old sleeping in the same bed.

The hotel is $150 a night so $300 for the 2 then you add $25 a night per room for the breakfast in the morning so you can feed your family.

So now you are out $350. Now you get to DEN on the train and need to feed your family Of 4 dinner so let’s say $75 so now you are at $425.

Taking United costs you an extra $1080
Taking the train will cost you an extra day and a 9 hour trip, a day of school and $450.

Do you honestly think these numbers are acceptable to the majority of families? Is it acceptable to you?