Everybody who had some basic economic education has been shown the one sided excercise showing that if you stop every activity in your company, you loose less money.
Actually we've been shown the opposite, that you may lose less money when continuing as opposed to stopping, as it may allow you to recover some fixed costs, which are incurred even if all activity is halted.
I was a bit surprised, but I realise that my grammar was not that good.
Yes sure, Earthman, your answer was in fact what I meant.
It is the simple excercise of A-B and C customers and fixed cost spreading.
So what I meant was: Ryanair introduced this extra cost for luggage with the result that less people check in luggage. But they have to keep that staff, check in counter etcetera. Fixed costs spread over less customers.
And now they come to the conclusion that it would be cheaper to cancel all luggage check in .
But they still will have luggage handling through web check in.
In the past they regained some money by selling overweight luggage. This will disappear now.
Time will show how far Ryanair can stretch this policy of seperate payments for "every breath you take".
I have been told that the ministry of economic affairs, that has always been responsable for controlling the weight scales of shops , will do unannounced controls at Belgian airports, following several reports of faulty scales. The fines on such malpractices are vicious, and can even be punished by temporarely closure of activities.