How to avoid getting stuck with the middle seat on a Ryanair flight
nathancunn.com
nathancunn.com
I booked tickets with my girlfriend. Almost 50% of the seats were still available (this was a month before the flight), but all the middle seats were taken. We wanted to pay for seats beside each other, but that wasn't possible, because they gave away all the middle seats. When there are three seats on each side of the aisle, that means no two seats are available beside each other. So, we didn't pay, we just took the random seats, and then asked people to switch after we boarded. We probably could have paid for a window and aisle seat, then asked the middle person to happily switch, but if we're paying for seats, we shouldn't have to do that.
Sadly the article lacks evidence that this is the algorithm Ryanair uses. They could equally well hold back the middle seats and offer them to the passengers most likely to pay for an upgrade. In fact, since on a full flight the hypothesized algorithm (give middle seats to the first passengers to check in) should not improve Ryanair's outcome over the old algorithm (give middle seats to the last passengers to check in) I'd guess they are indeed doing something like that.
And I agree, an R analysis is unnecessary but I've been telling people this conclusion for ages and they don't seem to get it!
I wonder if Ryan air balanced the bias so it lies roughly at this critical point. This comes with the 'upside' of being more fair, as this system can't be gamed by changing your check-in time.
Update: I see that Ryanair does not overbook, which puts some perspective on the complaints about it - I don't care about meals but I do about the risk of being bumped.
Update 2: I overlooked one part of the alternative algorithm, but I think that it actually makes it less likely: if they are holding back middle seats on the chance of upselling to later arrivals, where are they going to put those people? It seems that they are likely to end up with a bunch of middle seats with no chance of upselling even to passengers who would have done so, or possibly having (even more) disgruntled passengers who paid to choose but got a middle seat anyway, depending on exactly how this scheme works.
The queues or electronic waiting lists for standby seats (people at the gate who aren't yet confirmed on this flight) are something I notice when travelling in the US that I don't really see in Europe.
Complete BS. Cost of expensive meals and cost for suitcases aren't "random costs". They are entirely predictable and you have to make your decisions based on that. The people who can't do that end up paying for the ones that do.
One of those arbitrary costs of budget airlines is paying €50 for having your ticket printed at the airport (Lufthansa). Sometimes you just don't have a printer or the possibility to check in beforehand. Sure, I could 'plan ahead' and buy a cheap printer along the way to the airport and do it myself right then and there and it would be cheaper. I'd then throw away the printer or give it to someone else. How is $60 a reasonable price for airport check-in?
Many airlines still offer 'free' food in the plane, some don't and charge large amounts of money for very crappy food. Sure, I could 'plan ahead' and bring a large bag of food for me and my family, but then I have less room for other things and I get closer and closer to the weight limits that keep getting lower and lower. I can't even bring water from outside the airport past security. Some airlines offer complementary (due to higher ticket prices) drinks, but others ask for €4 for a 0.25ml drink. Planning ahead would mean I end up paying slightly less at the shops at the gate.
I understand the model that budget airlines use to make money; basic ticket prices and paying for upgrades. I am saying that I'd rather pay more for the tickets and then not be charged for everything along the way. It is much more transparent that way and I don't end up packing a picknick or chasing after hotel owners to print tickets, etc.
I have good news for you then. Ryanair no longer demands that you print the ticket. You can do everything from their app.
Ryanair allow you to use your phone, you don't need it printed up. You only have to pay if you want to check in at the airport. If everyone checked in online then Ryanair wouldn't need to have any staff at the check-in desk in the airport, if you don't check in in advance then you need to subsidise the costs of paying those staff members. If check in at the airport is free what that really means is that everyone else is subsidising you checking in early.
> Many airlines still offer 'free' food in the plane, some don't and charge large amounts of money for very crappy food.
Again, this amounts to everyone else subsidising your food. The airlines have to pay for it somehow, either they charge you or they increase the ticket prices. I hate airline food, and if I can avoid paying for it at all then great. Most Ryanair flights are <3 hours, you can manage that without eating.
> I can't even bring water from outside the airport past security. Some airlines offer complementary (due to higher ticket prices) drinks, but others ask for €4 for a 0.25ml drink. Planning ahead would mean I end up paying slightly less at the shops at the gate.
The water thing is universal. You can empty your bottle out and many airports have free fountains beyond security to refill.
> I am saying that I'd rather pay more for the tickets and then not be charged for everything along the way. It is much more transparent that way and I don't end up packing a picknick or chasing after hotel owners to print tickets, etc.
Why though? You're saying you'd rather not have the choice to pay for these things. You'd rather get a flight with higher costs just in case you feel like eating on the flight or having a bottle of water. Not only that, but you want everyone else on the flight who doesn't want those things to chip in and pay for your convenience.
They are always the cheapest, even EasyJet doesn't compete for some reason. I prefer Ryanair over any other airline and use them whenever possible.
Do they ever say "No"?
Not once this far! I'm if course asking politely and explaining that I'm a bit short of leg space here.
There would be great possibilities for a real-time booking app feature and the nervous tension as the check-in window begins to close as you attempt to get one last closing bid in ...
Another marvelous opportunity to turn inconvenience for some into more profits and cheaper flights for others.
\s
I spent a total of 8 EUR to travel from Germany to Bulgaria and back again two years ago with Ryanair. I fly with them whenever possible because they're by far the cheapest option available and I simply manage to not eat or drink something or go online for 2-3 hours, which really should be manageable for pretty much anyone.
Equally amazing too that people won't pay for a designated seat but will then spend 30 euros on drinks and snacks?
I think in general, people are very lazy and rather pay extra instead of plan ahead.
How on earth that is possible remains one of the best kept secrets (to me). But I am sure there is a boat load of tax money involved.
America is probably the poster child for how bad this can be, by looking at Amtrak. For all but the shortest routes along the northeast corridor, taking the train is slower, many times MUCH slower (like going cross-country), yet it can cost far, far more. Taking an Amtrak from DC to Seattle is horribly expensive and takes days, compared to an airplane which is a fraction of the cost and takes 6 hours or so. Why would anyone take an Amtrak for a long route like this? Mainly, it's just people who want the quaint experience of "seeing the country"; for actual travel between these points it makes no economic sense whatsoever. Even on the northeast corridor it doesn't make much sense for many cases/routes. Even worse, it's frequently much cheaper to take a bus (such as MegaBus) for inter-city trips in the NE corridor than Amtrak, if you don't mind it being slow (but not that much slower than Amtrak).
I'd love to vow to never use them again after this, but unfortunately they are the only airline flying anywhere near where I want to be most of the time.
I'm sorry but that is nonsense. I live abroad so am a frequent flyer back (say 5 or 6 times a year at regular intervals) home, for the past 5 years. I always compare the prices, never once have a rival airline beaten Ryanair. I've never had a bad issue either.
Personally as a 6ft 2 guy I love that they don't have seats which can recline :) the bane of my life on other airlines.
For people who don't want any food in-flight, and who can carry all their stuff in their carry-on luggage, it sounds like a good deal to me.
As for leg room, according to another comment here, the seats on RyanAir do not recline. As another tall guy, I'd rather have that than another inch of legroom. Legroom isn't that great when the person in front of you reclines their seat into your personal space.
Psychologically, it feels like being taken advantage of. No brand loyalty or other customer value to be had. Expect people to abandon in droves when similarly priced travel comes along.
The only issue I have with RA is that some airports they use are far outside the cities they "cover", so you sometimes need an hour or more (by a train or bus) to get into the actual city.
I would expect Ryanair to be fine with that. Their business model is that a very large subset of passengers select their flights based on price, and price alone, that price is the only customer value that matters. They are explicitly not investing in fluffy brand loyalty.
I fly a lot on expensive, flexible tickets on legacy carriers, and have status, so I'm reasonably "loyal", and have fast track and lounge access to show for it, but the BS airlines come up with that is supposed to make non-status holders in economy "feel the brand" (despite the objectively sad quality of the hard product) triggers my gag reflex.
Ryanair (not a UK company btw) have been a pioneer in this area with aggressive discounting of basic level airfares but with lots of 'upgrade' options.
Does letting you choose your seat increase their costs? If not, then I can see why people see it as a scam.
In transport, you can choose between comfort, speed, time, flexibility, reliability, and a few other factors, and make your choice. London to Manchester options on the train have
* Time -- travel by train "offpeak" and save a fortune over peak
* Comfort -- travel by train "peak" and have more space. Travel in First Class and have more space.
* Speed -- travel by London Midland and Northern rather than Virgin and save a fortune
* Flexibility -- book a fixed train and save
In addition to the plethora of options on the train there's also * Fly -- can be faster (depends where you're going, but from west London to West Manchester it's faster), can be cheaper, can be more comfortable (you're guarenteed a seat), tends to be pricey if you want an element of flexibility, not as flexible as the train or car
* Coach - slower, less comfortable, cheaper
* Drive -- very flexible, slower than the train, requires effort, twice the off peak train cost
* Taxi -- not that expensive, especially for a few people
However people complain that "it's too expensive", despite being able to travel from Manchester right now for £20, or in a couple of hours for £12.
There's also the fact that long-distance travel in the UK is priced significantly better than short-distance travel. There's been times where I've been able to get to London from a small town for cheaper than it'd cost to get to the nearest city. First class on East Coast used to be priced at a rate where it was cheaper to upgrade (and get food and drinks included) than to get food on the go - on local services, there's often no competition aside from a car, so prices even for standard class can be raised almost arbitrarily, especially if there's any tourist traffic on the line.
Even for long-distance journeys, pick the wrong date or need to be there for the morning, and my options become far, far more limited, and far, far pricier, since we don't have sufficient capacity for peak dates - we barely have capacity for everyday services on some modes of transport - and we have very few overnight services.
Edinburgh to Paris next month - we were stuck with the choices of taking the bus, or flying for 2-3x the price. Train was more expensive than the flight - a remarkably common occurrence, even for travel entirely within the UK. We eventually chose the bus, despite it being a 24 hour journey.
The downsides of hiring the car
- time isn't very useful while you're driving (compared to on a train/plane where you can work, or read, or watch netflix)
- usually slower - especially with city centre to city centre
- parking stress
- Driving is tiring, and more dangerous. A 3 hour drive, then an 8 hour day, then another 3 hour drive.
Choice is wonderful.
Ideally I'd have something that costs 5p per mile, runs every 5 minutes, is is door to door, and I travel on my own sofa with 300mbit wifi, power, and waiter service.
However as that's not possible I, as a consumer, can choose what's important for me for a given journey. Sometimes that's the train, sometimes it's the plane, sometimes it's a coach, sometimes I'll drive
Choice is a right pain, but it allows you to choose what's important
Edinburgh to Paris is a long trip - 1360 mile return. That's £600 for a car (HMRC give you 45p per mile, they wouldn't give you that if that was a grossly high amount), plus the cost of the ferry.
I can get a train leaving tomorrow and coming back on Saturday for £400 return, or 30p per mile. I can fly on the same days for £276 return, or 20p per mile. What is a fair price?
Transport is a low margin industry. The fact that some people can travel really cheaply is possible because others are willing to pay more for flexibility. This means those who want flexibility win (London to Edinburgh trains every half hour), and those that want cheap tickets win (12p/mile), and those willing to shop around win (even less than 12p/mile).
What would you change?
Given the large amount of people you can place in a large vehicle, one would hope that a private car is significantly more expensive than public transport without having to convince anyone to pay for bizarre things like being able to pick a seat. The fact that it isn't is, in fact, utterly bizarre.
In the case of the dates we have to travel for a conference, the bus is £150 pp, and flights are £300+ pp - with no flexibility whatsoever in either case. Trains come out to £400 pp or more, which is bizarre given the passenger density of long-distance rail.
Anyway, the point was, the cheap option only exists if you know how to look for it - it's really, really not obvious, and the only reason I know how to do it is that public transport is my full-time hobby. And then once you pick the cheap option and suffer a delay - which is almost guaranteed to happen on a regular enough basis to make the cheap option actually more expensive in many cases, given the state of the country's transport infrastructure - you're stuck on your own, because we have no concept of a joined-up multimodal journey in this country, unlike the rest of Europe. Hell, if you go for the cheap option, staff may even treat you with suspicion and assume you're lying about what your ticket allows you to do, and what you're entitled to.
If you go to the National Rail Enquiries site today and ask for a ticket from London to Manchester tomorrow, you'll be sold a completely non-flexible ticket totalling about £100 if it matches up with your schedule, or up to £169 otherwise. Compare this to e.g. Switzerland, well-known for having an exceptionally high cost of living - where I can book a train from Zurich to Geneva for £54 tomorrow with nothing but a quick google search for "trains zurich to geneva", or £24 if I want to travel in a couple of days. (And on much more comfortable trains, I might add.) There's no need to worry about booking weeks in advance or poring over whether the bus or the plane will be cheaper or whether there's a split ticket that works - the infrastructure exists to allow fast, cheap, somewhat flexible travel on comfortable services.
A walk up simple London to Manchester ticket is £86 return, unless you're travelling before 9:30am. Those willing to buy from https://trainsplit.com/ can get a return for £47, or buy the tickets manually and it drops to £39. That's just like those who know going to Aldi will be cheaper than shopping at harrods.
That "slow train" which costs £20 each way, in the peak, and is still quicker than a car.
The money made from open tickets is pumped back into the rail industry to subsidise rural branches in Cornwall. It also subsdises the frequency, where trains are running with say 20 people per carriage (with 80 seats), but are running every 20 minutes. Some people are willing to pay a lot for that frequency - hence the reason they sell £500 returns.
I would like to see thetrainline shut down, but they advertise their inferior product heavily and people use it.
Make sure you add $20/seat though. A few months back United switched to "Basic Economy" as their lowest option which again does not include carry-on bags (not just checked bags) or picking a seat. For an apples-to-apples you need to upgrade to at least regular economy to start comparing flights with United.
In some sense, this leads to a better allocation of seats, as it allows those who desire some seats to pay for them, whilst those who have to preference get a cheaper flight. Now, people who used to be fine with the dice-roll of not paying get a worse experience. But this comes with the upside of those who really wanting the seats having a better chance.
This isn't an upgrade or anything, people who wanted to pay to reserve seats could already do so. You could have also not paid, and picked whatever was available, switch with your neighbors, and so on. Obviously, since Ryan Air figured out that they can extract some extra bucks out of that, you're now assigned a place and can no longer just pick whatever is available once you board. This is a standard rent-seeking behavior with no advantage for the customers.
Ryanair are fairly clear about what you must pay for when booking, and there are plenty of routes where they have competition from EasyJet, Norwegian etc.
It does if they use the extra income to reduce the ticket price. Which would sound pie-in-the-sky for most other companies, but considering Ryanair's prices, it wouldn't surprise me.
Aren't they a budget airline that prides themselves on being friendly as well?
They don't do assigned seating at all - you pick an available seat when you board. Boarding position is generally assigned based on when you check in, though you can pay extra to board earlier. They include two checked bags per person and standard carry-on allowances in the price of the ticket. No "gotcha" fees.
One similarity is that there are a lot of larger airports that they don't service, instead using other nearby airports.
They're inexpensive if you book well in advance, but last minute fares can be very expensive.
Edit: Oh, it's a trick for couples. Very smart.
It seems like an obvious loophole I would have expected other airlines to have spotted?
Fly BA instead.
I've got a flight coming up next week with them to Nairobi, on a tired old 747, which I'm not looking forward to. In years past I'd paid a fortune for such a flight, now unless BA is at least £400 return cheaper than someone like Lufthansa, I won't fly them.
I did fly BA in January (again to Nairobi), was amazed how empty the plane was.
However even up front their experience is lacklusture. I'd rather fly business on Qatar than First on BA, and certainly rather business on Qatar than business on BA. It's a tired product on tired planes and tired crew.
I was speaking more in the context of other carriers competing with Ryanair on routes.
I just now have a personal rule to never fly with a North American carrier.
* Moscow 2013 to Heathrow -- 4 more hours in the lounge, got €600 compensation.
* Heathrow 2014 to Bangkok, 5 more hours in the lounge -- got €600 compensation.
* Toronto 2017 -- delayed Delta flight to New York to catch a Virgin flight to Manchester so was downgraded and rerouted on KLM. No compensation as it was a U.S. airline. Lesson learned. (No lounge access either so cost me several beers)
I wasn't flying during the Volcano incident.
I do remember being delayed overnight with ryanair due to weather, but that was c. 2003. They wouldn't reroute me on the next morning flight to Anconna (rather than my original Forli flight -- only 50 miles away), so I had to buy a new ticket. It's attitudes like that which is the reason EU261 came in.
They get charged for using the gate, once they are on the tarmac "waiting for a window" they don't suffer additional costs.
It's not that they decide to "park the plane on the tarmac" it's that the interaction of various airport operational procedures make this the chepest option in certain scenarios, which is what they'll choose every time. Passengers bedamned.
In fairness though, I think though they've decided not to pursue this particular type of "cost saving" more recently.
Nonsense, the crew has limited flying hours, and sitting there will burn them up. I can assure you they don't want to have to cancel or delay a flight because the crew can't fly anymore.
Recently my flight to EDI didn't leave until it was due to arrive, an hour waiting at the gate itself with no staff to update on anything (the price you pay for barebones staff on no-frills
Another tip: If they put a yellow tag on your bag to make you check it in the hold, either quickly rip it off between the gate and the plane, or hold your bag so they don't see it. Cabin crew don't know who's bag has been tagged.
But do you actually mean Ryanair or do you mean Air Europa, whom Ryanair seems to be a reseller for (transatlantic flights)?
I recently had a friend visit me in Spain from the UK and he is a very nervous flyer. The way they treat him was absolutely commendable. I doubt he'd of even got on the plane with some other airlines.
The lowest I'm willing to go is Norwegian, and I'll absolutely choose a provider like SAS or Swiss or Lufthansa, if the prices are even remotely close.
Swiss has by far the best chocolate on their flights, BTW :-)
Middle is worst of both worlds, except at least you don't get a constant stream of moving people right next to you
For contrast, I once had to sit in the middle seat between two people larger than I was, and behind a person who reclined their seat. And when I'm sitting at the window, my head can bump into the curved body of the plane, which is quite obnoxious.
Aisle seat all the way for me!
Jam your knees in there. There are certain periods of long haul flights where you need to recline but the inconvenience to your fellow passenger should never be necessary on shorter ones.
Speaking as a tall guy as well, one of the things I do actually like about Ryanair is their seats don't recline.
I do mind when they just smash it back as hard as possible the instant the seatbelt sign switches off. I also very much mind when they do it while I have stuff on the table in front of me, especially since the seats seem perfectly designed to smash cups and water bottles. Or even worse -- laptop screens.
It's fine that people want to recline their seats, but they should be just a tiny bit mindful of the person behind them.
I'm not sure where this idea came from that tall people can stop people from reclining their seat. If I've paid for a reclining seat, I'm going to recline it if I choose to.
And believe it or not, some people actually have long legs, and physically cannot fit if you recline your seat. Should they optimally have gotten a seat with more leg room? Sure! But that isn't always possible.
The point is that you should have a bit of common courtesy towards other people, and it goes both ways.
Just blithely jamming your seat as far back as it'll go, just because you can and because you feel entitled to do so whenever you want, is a real shitheel ego move.
You might as well just take someone's inflight meal from them or cover up the screen of the inflight entertainment.
Tough luck.
Fix it for you.
Physics. If my legs are there, your seat can't be.
For me on a budget airline, this tends to be worth it. Even more so if the person in front of me decides to recline their seat.
What annoys me is people who close the blinds on the non-sun side of the plane. 7 hour flight from Frankfurt to Lagos for example, Flight takes off about 10:00 (GMT+1), lands at 1800 (GMT+2). What possible reason is there to want to sleep on such a flight - very few will be transferring from outside Europe, and those that do are likely from the US, where they'll have slept on the previous leg.
On wide bodies, it could be a 2-3-2 layout, I go for the aisle on the middle in the hope that the middle of the 3 will be empty, or it will be a couple who won't disturb me. On a 2-4-2 again aisle in middle.
On shorthaul flights though it's always window -- no need to get out of your seat for a 2 or 3 hour flight, so board, sit, and not be disturbed.