Are 'Eco-loonies' Damaging Ryanair's Sales After All?
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 06. 6.07
Airlines are getting a tough time from environmentalists these days, and Ryanair, the Irish low-cost airline, is particularly unpopular. Stunts like giving away free tickets, and their plans for ultra-cheap trans-atlantic flights, led to one UK Government minister recently branding the company as “the irresponsible face of capitalism.” Ryanair have so far appeared pretty un-phased by such criticisms, with CEO Michael O’Leary famously claiming that there was no suggestion that “the [eco] loonies are dissuading people from travel." Now it seems O’Leary’s colleagues may disagree. Howard Miller, Ryanair’s Deputy CEO, recently told the Guardian that concerns about the environment may be effecting demand for flights "at the edges":
"I am concerned that there is a continuing media campaign and the concern is that people might say 'maybe I will not fly on holiday and maybe I will make a different choice."
The Guardian report goes on to point out that many other factors may be influencing the recent softening of the European market, including higher prices and over supply. The fall is certainly not huge, with Ryanair’s load factor falling from 85% in April 2006 to 83% in the same month of 2007. However, with increased pressure from campaigners, and with European governments beginning to talk about ways to legislate pollution from aviation, Ryanair would do well to do what they can to green their act, and to tone down their CEO’s anti-environmental rhetoric, as the Guardian article goes on to suggest:
“Some airline executives argue privately that Ryanair has not helped its cause by launching outspoken attacks against green groups.”
Where adequate service exists, trains certainly look likely to trump planes in terms of carbon emissions for some time to come. Having said that, some airline executives are putting more efforts into saving emissions than attacking environmentalists. Virgin’s Richard Branson, for example, has been active in developing alternative technologies, and in promoting fuel saving practices such as towing planes to the runway before take off. Others have been experimenting with landing Jumbos in idle to save fuel.
As always, we encourage anyone looking for alternatives to flying to check out the Man at Seat 61. ::The Guardian::
The fall is certainly not huge, with Ryanair’s load factor falling from 85% in April 2006 to 83% in the same month of 2007.
Anti-plane extremists should be proud. They're now using more energy per passenger.
How come people who are supposedly concerned with emissions don't try to help transportation companies increase their load factor? Oh right, because it's not about the environment, it's about anti-capitalism for most of these radicals.
In every society, every country, every industry, there are those individuals willing to do what is right for the greater good, even if it means some level of self-sacrifice, and there are those individuals willing to do what is wrong for their personal good, even if it means debasing the greater good. Usually, people stand somewhere in between the extremes of this spectrum and sometimes it is difficult to notice to which side they tilt. No so with Mr. O'Leary. It is clear which extreme he is currently at. Air travel is here to stay. I hope its global growth will not exceed levels of fuel efficiency increases so that the air industries' levels of emissions decrease over time, even if slowly. In the meantime, all I can hope is that people who do decide to travel by plane, for whatever reason, try to pick airlines doing their most to be green rather than those trying to trash greens. Maybe the best thing we greens can do to enlighten the O'Leary's of the airline industry is to give our green thumbs up to those airlines doing their uptmost to lessen their impact on the environment. Virgin maybe? Hopefully that will divert enough demand away from the baddies that they start changing their tune.
Way to cherry-pick your argument, Anonymous. Don't people ever have the courage or decency to post publicly if they're going to be such haters?
Ahh, the job of the activist extremists is to help the airlines increase their load factor. Perhaps if airlines didn't offer choice of 10 flights a day, as though it were a local bus system, they wouldn't have such problems. Also, way to re-frame the situation as though eco loonies are worsening the situation. If the "free market" dictates everything, then once it's not market viable, perhaps the industry will shape up.
And what's with the spiteful post that offers nothing at all to say? Did your frequent flyer miles flight get cancelled for being underbooked? No, of course I'm not being antagonistic.
Maybe if just a few more people wised up to the consequences of unchecked air travel and stopped acting as though it were a God-given right. The Invisible Hand that Adam Smith came up with probably has smudges of soot on it by this point into the Industrial Era.
Soon it will be an actionable defamation to paint environmentalists as communists. If anyone ever calls me a communist, I'm gonna sue them pro se and take everything they own.
Such chamber-of-commerce tactics are getting REALLY OLD. it's the dinosaurs of industry, the US auto companies and fuel companies and the legacy carriers, which most closely embody grey, brain-dead Stalinism. When I see a Yukon Denial or a Ford Exploder, I see a ZIL.
and you think that Ryanair won't respond to that by reducing the total number of flights?
and you think that Ryanair won't respond to that by reducing the total number of flights?
Not likely, no. Flight reductions are either dynamic (cancelled flights for whatever reason) or long-term. In the latter case, it's not simply about demand response, because airlines have to fight for space and routes, which are regulated.
"Not likely, no. Flight reductions are either dynamic (cancelled flights for whatever reason) or long-term. In the latter case, it's not simply about demand response, because airlines have to fight for space and routes, which are regulated."
Hey - maybe aircraft emissions should be regulated too ! These guys seem comfortable with the existence of regulation, and don't question the government's power to regulate routes. The electorate (and science) have decided its necessary, so the airlines should have no problem with accepting the regulation of emissions as well.
Nice soapbox speech, Jon. Care to join me on my upcoming long-distance bus trip to demonize me some more?
Quiz: Which uses more energy per passenger-mile -- commercial airplanes or light vehicles (cars and trucks)?
Pounds of CO2 emissions per mile, selected modes
Greyhound..... 0.1504
Ryanair..... 0.3408
Toyota Prius..... 0.3736
Amtrak..... 0.3947
U.S. Commercial air..... 0.5123
U.S. Light vehicles..... 0.5986
U.S. Bus transit..... 0.6969
Correction: per passenger-mile
You're not factoring the automboile ride to and from the airport, the taxiing, nor the extra infrastructure required to maintain an airplane over a bus.
Source, Sir Anonymous?
I am suspect of the fact that ryanair and greyhound appear to be gems compared to air and bus, respectively.
I suspect you work for one of those two companies, and especially how you angered your own question . Although I will say that planes are more efficient than cars.
Some people like to post figures without letting others know where they come from. I'm just wondering where these figures come from? For instance, where did you get the Ryanair figures? It's not as if that figure is in the webpage of any national transportation department. Could it be that you got that figure from a Ryanair webpage? Could it be that you also got all those other figures from the same webpage that you got the Ryanair figures? Could it be that the webpage that you got those figures from is a website funded by Ryanair? Could it be that you are funded by Ryanair? No. Of course not. You are pure. So pure that you don't give a nick. No nick, no way to track comments from that individual from day to day. My nick is houston. Everyone can trace everything I have said at this website over the past couple of years to see what I have and have not said, what I have and have not preached. To see if I am consistent, coherent. To see if I try to improve my thinking, my knowledge base. To see who I am, what I truly think. But you are pure. As such, we don't need to worry about what you think from day to day. We don't need to keep an eye on what you preach at this site. To see how your beliefs and arguments develop over time. To see if you only make comments related to the airline industry, that you only bother to write stuff that protects low-cots carriers, that you only try to discredit and defame anyone preaching airline regulation. I'm just thinking, isn't it convenient to have no nick if you have something to hide? No. You are pure. The only people around here that deserve to be discredited are those concerned about air traffic emissions. And for that any argumentative TACTIC is legitimate, whether it be insults or disinformation. Oh, but of course, you don't misinform because you are pure. So pure that you neither need a nick to allow us to follow you statements and so pure that you don't need to provide us with a link for figures that look less than pure. Oh, and of course, if these figures do come from a Ryanair website or some funded by a Ryanair clone, those figures will be pure too because the low-cost airlines main reason of existence, their main desire in life, is to be green, even if that means some self-sacrifice through growth reductions or growth stagnation.
Well, time to get to the point. You want to play argumentative TACTICS rather than LOGIC? Is that what you want to play? Come on. Do you really think you are the only one that can play such a game? OK. Question one: Who are you? Who do you work for? Are you the same Anonymous that seems to make hard-core pro-airline SPURT-like comments in most airline related posts of this website? Are you the same Anonymous that I and others have had numerous exchanges with regarding this topic? Where do your figures come from? Why did you conveniently decide not to let us know where the figures come from? Why are you hiding who you are? And why are you hiding where your info comes from?
That's ok, Anonymous. Time out here : is it ironic to refer to someone who posted anonymously as "Anonymous," thereby giving them the distinction of a title when they either haven't sought one or felt the need for individual responsibility in public discourse? Sorry to get into the whole semantics bit, but I certainly prefer to talk to those who identify themselves.
I'm taking my own mid-distance bus trip this weekend. Except the second leg of my trip is by rail, so I guess you win the passenger efficiency game. Kudos to you and the self-regulating free market!
I'll be working on my soapbox rhetoric for a long time, so it's only bound to get more delightful.
Annonymous, do you have a link to those stats? Not that I'm discounting them at this stage, but (for instance) what's the difference between Greyhound and U.S. Bus Transit?
I assume the bus can't do 10,000 miles in a day though...
"un-phased"
Come on, come on, have you no proof readers?
As always what ryanair said is only partly true. For a trip on ryanair to be better than driving it needs to be a long trip >1000km and you need to be the only persion in a large car.
The big problem I have with ryanair is that they generate pointless traffic just to make it look like they are better than anyone else. Instead of reducing the number of flights when they have less passangers they create demand with "free flights". All most all the poeple on a 6.30Am mid-week flight in winter to some minor airstrip Even ryanair will not be making money on these flights but run them to get every higher passanger numbers. This will make the shares rise.
The new higher airport tax in the UK is a very good move but should be a tax on all the seats even if they are empty. This should be higher for the older planes that burn more fuel. The taxes will not stop those who need to fly but will reduce the binge flying. If people fly 3% less each year insted of 3% more than the world would be a lot better.
how old do i need to fly on my own