Ryanair standing room only flight plans rejected

[Boeing767copilot]

Ryanair has announced that an unnamed regulator has rejected its plan to sell standing-only tickets, by refusing an application for test flights, the Guardian reports. Under the scheme, a Boeing 737-800 would have been fitted out with 15 rows of seats and 10 rows of standing berths

http://www.uk-airport-news.info/stanste ... 20312.html

[appel]

if they would install that there are some passengers going to have a lot of legroom

[Squelsh]

Damn I was looking forward to this... 'En dan nu een luchtzak van dertig meter'

[Didymus]

Standing pax would be strapped in to keep their body in place, but few people seem to grasp this.

[Squelsh]

Standing pax would be strapped in to keep their body in place, but few people seem to grasp this.

.
Well duh thanks for pointing out the obvious

[earthman]

So now Ryanair will try to stuff pax into cargo containers and transport them on 737 cargo conversions.

[Didymus]

Well duh thanks for pointing out the obvious

The point is that it is not obvious to the masses, hence the resistance.

[tolipanebas]

What I'd like to hear explained is what FR thinks to gain from having its pax stand up?

More pax in the same plane, you'll say?

Nope, the 738 is certified for a maximum of 189 pax only and FR already maxes out on this right now, so whether their pax are sitting or standing wouldn't make any difference at all as they couldn't take a single pax more.

[Stij]

Free publicity... Right at the moment people are booking their summer holidays...
Mmm...
Sounds like the schmuck did it again... The press buys it any time...
He's running out of ideas though... Come on Michael, brainstorm a little more!!!

Cheers,

Stij

[RoMax]

Nope, the 738 is certified for a maximum of 189 pax only and FR already maxes out on this right now, so whether their pax are sitting or standing wouldn't make any difference at all as they couldn't take a single pax more.

Last time RYR commented on the 737(MAX) they said Boeing has to find a solution for the standing places... So basicly they want Boeing to place extra emergency exits on the 737-8(00) (like on the -900ER) and has to certify them for more pax, just for RYR while RYR asks unacceptable discounts on their orders... Something tells me that Boeing will say: "You can get what we offer and if you don't want it, go shopping somewhere else". It's better to lose a big RYR order and get several smaller orders than to spend money on RYR and get a big order where you have to give much higher discounts as you do for other airlines...

That's exactly what Boeing did some years ago, RYR's demands were just unacceptable. RYR didn't order any aircraft since then... They tried to 'convince' Boeing by threatening to order Airbus (RYR knows they can't because to expensive, and Airbus doesn't accept RYR's demands either, Boeing knows that too), by working together with COMAC, by praising the A320neo, ...

MOL doesn't like it that Boeing doesn't want their order (just like Airbus doesn't want it) if they keep their 'stupid' demands...

[andorra-airport]

What I'd like to hear explained is what FR thinks to gain from having its pax stand up?

More pax in the same plane, you'll say?

Nope, the 738 is certified for a maximum of 189 pax only and FR already maxes out on this right now, so whether their pax are sitting or standing wouldn't make any difference at all as they couldn't take a single pax more.

Yes more pax: 230. Extra emergency doors have to be created, new certifications etc. Not going to happen.

[Passenger]

The only way to react on this Ryanair plan, is reacting off topic.

They have never intented to do this, as they know very well that it is unsafe to transport passengers who are not seated and who don't have their seatbelt fastened.

It was Ryanair's aim to get as many press coverage as possible - and that without having to pay one Euro investment in adverts. Compare it to Benetton campaigns with their chocking photo's: every paid publication was repeated ten times in articles with comments.

"One pilot in the cockpit", "surcharge for the use of toilets", "flying standing up". What's next? "Small children for free when stored in the overhead lockers"? Or perhaps "Ryanair asks pilots to switch off one engine at cruising altitude"?

I'm a bit surprised that aviation people regarded "standing flights" serious.

[tolipanebas]

Actually, Passenger, I'd have hoped they'd mean this one, as it would set them completely apart from other airlines: anything that sets FR even further apart from 'normal' airlines is definitely a good thing for those.

I do wonder however who'd seriously want to stand up for 2 hours in flight: when a student, I regularly had to stand up in the train home for more than one hour on a friday evening and I can assure you this was NO fun indeed.

[appel]

The passengers would still have a kind of seat
http://inewsusa.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... vHover.jpg
and for me there is still a difference between standing on a train, where you pay for a seat and a flight where you dont pay / pay less for a standing place on flights of 2h or less
ofcourse they still need to test everything before there are any passengers who would try it

[earthman]

What's next? "Small children for free when stored in the overhead lockers"?

Now that is an excellent idea. Add some extra sounds insulation to the lockers while you're at it. Finally no more crying babies on the plane!

[regi]

What's next? "Small children for free when stored in the overhead lockers"?

Now that is an excellent idea. Add some extra sounds insulation to the lockers while you're at it. Finally no more crying babies on the plane!

I hate the Little Screamers.
( but I am told that I have been one myself )