Ryanair

[Heathrowflyer]

In their official quotes Ryanair say they have moved out/teduced capacity in non profit making or loss making bases. Remember it's not about capacity it's about how hard they have to work to fill a plane and pricing of seats to do this...the game is all about yield versus pricing. Their margins will be very tight.

 

[AirBingley]

I can't help thinking that losing Thomas Cook made Manchester hunt aggressively for flights - after all the revenue from passengers in the terminal is important and they have an extension to justify so maybe they made FR an offer they couldn't refuse (maybe even minimal or no cost) to get bums on seats and when push came to shove LBA simply couldn't or wouldn't match it as there is an extension cost justify - I am of course guessing here but those 2 units are likely to have gone to the lowest bidder!

 

[White Heather]

Glasgow is a bigger city than Leeds and look what they did to them. I too can see the base being pulled and extra W legs instead.

Actually, it isn't! Glasgow is the UK'S 4th city, Leeds being 3rd by population, but I agree that if Ryanair will axe the base at GLA they would at LBA.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

And if it was perceived to be because LBA wasnt economically viable by other airlines what is the chance of them taking over the routes?

 

[paully]

I`m still of the opinion that the base has been reduced to free up two aircraft because of the Max situation. Yesterday they warned staff of even more severe redundancies directly as a result of it. As, when and if the Max gets back into service and is accepted by the majority of the travelling public I have little doubt that Ryanair will restock their base at Leeds.
I think that they have, for the time being, left one aircraft here to state their presence and deter competition for when they do come back..

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Ryanair would not reduce such massive capacity at LBA if LBA was a money earner. Ryanair works on yields and returns. I've said it before...they are a PLC and wouldn't be able to claim in shareholder statements they were reducing capacity at certain bases due to them not being profitable if it wasn't true. They'd get into trouble from both the shareholders and be hammered on their corporate governance.

 

[White Heather]

Ryanair would not reduce such massive capacity at LBA if LBA was a money earner. Ryanair works on yields and returns. I've said it before...they are a PLC and wouldn't be able to claim in shareholder statements they were reducing capacity at certain bases due to them not being profitable if it wasn't true. They'd get into trouble from both the shareholders and be hammered on their corporate governance.

You seem determined that Ryanair made little money at LBA Heathrowflyer. My understanding is the complete opposite. I believe we were supposed to have one 737 800 and one 737 MAX at LBA this coming summer and as the MAX isn't available, we are stuck with just the one. However I have made a mental note to ask the question as to what is happening with Ryanair at the next meeting, or before if I get the chance at one of the public consultation events.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

I have shares in Ryanair and if anyone believes their financial reporting is wrong and their statement to the City about pulling out of loss making bases is not correct then please do report it to the Stock Exchange as it is a serious matter in terms of the accuracy of their company trading.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

It's nothing to do with LBA....Jet2 have made a decent living from here for many many years.

But Jet2 are in a different market they dont offer truly budget fares, unlike easyjet for example-although even they can be expensive compared to Ryanair.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

You seem determined that Ryanair made little money at LBA Heathrowflyer. My understanding is the complete opposite. I believe we were supposed to have one 737 800 and one 737 MAX at LBA this coming summer and as the MAX isn't available, we are stuck with just the one. However I have made a mental note to ask the question as to what is happening with Ryanair at the next meeting, or before if I get the chance at one of the public consultation events.

Was it reduced to 2 aircraft because of 737 max shortage pending delivery of more 737 max's? or would we remain a 2 aircraft base?

 

[LBA4EVER]

Actually, it isn't! Glasgow is the UK'S 4th city, Leeds being 3rd by population, but I agree that if Ryanair will axe the base at GLA they would at LBA.

I think in terms of size and population ( cc and inner suburbs) Glasgow might just be a tiny bit bigger,but only very slightly but we have Bradford,wakefield etc etc around us so far bigger population here

 

[LBA4EVER]

My Ryanair flight to ALC On Monday was 95percent full id guess,only 1 or 2 seats left. Also v.warm down here in Alicante province atm,22c today!

 

[ls27]

Population of Glasgow (2019) 611,748 Population 2018 (latest available) 809,952

 

[Severn]

I`m still of the opinion that the base has been reduced to free up two aircraft because of the Max situation.

That may be the case, but why reduce the base at LBA if it was a top performing base and yet not pull aircraft from Liverpool, Bournemouth or one of their many other bases? As @Heathrowflyer said, there will have been a carefully thought out process when deciding to reduce the base size at LBA.
The number of flights operated from Ryanair bases in the UK increased from 2017 to 2018 by an average of 21% (LBA increased by 18%) - all bases saw growth
The number of flights operated from Ryanair bases in the UK increased from 2018 to 2019 by an average of only 7% (however LBA was -4% due to the reductions in November and December) - EMA, LBA, LPL and PIK all saw a decrease in flights along with GLA and BFS which lost their bases. The other bases all saw a growth from 18 to 19.

Ryanair has cut their growth this winter (19/20) over previous winters at all bases. The below list shows the difference in number of flights from UK bases this winter in comparison to last winter (18/19):

BOH +42% (number of flights in comparison to previous winter)
MAN +5%
BRS +3%
BHX +2%
LTN +1%
EMA -6%
EDI -9%
PIK -15%
LBA - 20%

 

[Statto]

All airports though are at different points in their deals with Ryanair and as outsiders looking in, we don‘t know where they are or what types of negotiations are going on behind the scenes. We do know they have a long history of pulling routes and reducing capacity as a way getting the deal they want. These negotiations can include their own staff too. Ryanair announced in August that the base in girona was closing. It’s now staying open. According to a news article, it’s because enough workers accepted a 25% pay cut.

The company did not close its base in Girona after employees there signed new contracts making them seasonal workers, confirming information given by the USOC union last month, Hugues said.

Under the new contract the employees are contracted to work nine months of the year instead of 12, which means their annual salaries would be reduced by around 25 percent according to the union

About 100 employees at Ryanair's base in Girona accepted the new conditions, while those who refused were fired, Hugues said.

All we know at LBA is that they have retained 50+ flights which is equivalent to 3.5 based aircraft. There have been lots of theories given about why they have reduced 20 odd flights per week, but not many about why they have retained 50+. Somewhere in that explanation is the answer to what’s really go on.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Statto, so are you saying that Ryanair effectively told us (the shareholders and The City) incorrect information and it was just a negotiation ploy at airports rather than what they told us about smart business remodelling to cut back on unprofitable bases? I'd be pretty annoyed with them if that was the case as their assurances stabilised their share price.

 

[Finger66]

If it was not possible to make money at LBA then LS wouldn't have the presence they have. FR clearly have a fleet problem by having all their eggs in the Boeing basket and preferring new machines at that. Works a treat most of the time but a major hiccup at Boeing is having an effect. Consolidation has to be key in these situations

 

[Statto]

. Statto, so are you saying that Ryanair effectively told us (the shareholders and The City) incorrect information and it was just a negotiation ploy at airports rather than what they told us about smart business remodelling to cut back on unprofitable bases? I'd be pretty annoyed with them if that was the case as their assurances stabilised their share price.

Not really, I think your looking for a black and white answer in a story of where there are lots of subtleties and shades of grey. Clearly Ryanair have closed some bases and reduced capacity in response to the max issue. But does that mean that at the same time they can’t use the threat of base closures as a way of getting a better deal. They’ve been doing it for years so why would it be different now. Girona was one of the bases closing - now it’s staying open. All I’m saying in regard to LBA `is to be open minded.

 

[Heathrowflyer]

Dart PLC has a completely different business model to FR. LBA is also Jet 2's HQ base. They are highly profitable and work the leisure market alongside their integrated package holiday company in the UK superbly. FR margins are tight and they have extensive European wide bases. Sadly, they have been hit by Brexit and the reduction in Eastern European traffic. To compare the success of Jet 2 at LBA with Ryanair is like comparing apples with pears. Ryanair has around 85 bases, Jet 2 12.

Thanks Statto...the answer isnt black or white, it's what they are stating to UK PLC. I'd rather go on the facts than try to spin something that they haven't said or claimed...unless you know more than what they are telling their shareholders from insider LBA knowledge?

 

[airforced]

Ryanair previously closed Girona and then opened it again not too long after. Is anyone seriously trying to say that Ryan don't use this sort of tactic as a way of getting a better deal or screwing their employees into accepting whatever terms they wish to impose? I haven't any facts to back up this theory but their MO (modus operandi not Michael O'Leary) points too often to this being correct for it to be wrong.