RyanAir To Liven Up Emergencies With Exciting New Escape Fees!

RyanAir’s toilet tax may not be the company’s worst idea after all, as reader Geoffrey reminds us with this mockup showing several potential fees the budget Irish carrier may well be considering.

If only U.S. Airways had the foresight to charge their own emergency escape fee they could’ve collected a smooth $3,750 from the passengers of Flight 1549 before letting anyone off the wings.

Message 9222744 [b3ta board] (Thanks to Geoffrey!)
PREVIOUSLY: RyanAir Thinking About Charging For Toilets

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Russell Miller says:

    RyanAir has proven they deserve this, but I don’t think the US Airways joke was appropriate – especially considering Sullenberger managed to land the plane with everyone alive and reimbursed everyone on the plane $5,000 for lost baggage – which is much more than they needed to.

    Maybe hey’ve done other stupid things, who knows. But let’s back off US Airways on the whole Hudson issue, OK? I don’t know of one thing they did wrong in that case. Not one.

    • jaybeas says:

      @Russell Miller: Wow…lighten up, buddy. Nothing in the above post is derogatory towards U.S. Airways. Nobody here is arguing that they did anything wrong in response to the Hudson incident.

      • Russell Miller says:

        @jaybeas:

        I just feel that comparing US Airways’ handling of the crash into the Hudson with RyanAir’s idea to charge for restrooms is inappropriate. It’s linking two things that are not really linkable.

        • cjones27 says:

          @Russell Miller: Emergency disembarkation from planes… yeah, I’d say they’re fairly linkable.

          • Russell Miller says:

            @cjones27:

            I see your point – but to me, the joke was ascribing motivations to US Airways that are not only not there, but that there is very little evidence to point to it ever existing. I’m not generally one to defend corporations (they’ve probably done some other stupid stuff at one time or another), but I think they should be left out of it on this one.

        • MustyBuckets says:

          @Russell Miller: First of all, RyanAir charging for rest rooms was a joke -[consumerist.com]

          Second of all it’s a joke, there isn’t anything inappropriate. If they said that they could have charged Continential Flight 3407, it would have been. Unless you have a reason why you feel it was inappropriate, you may as well just be working for US Scare. “I don’t know of one thing they did wrong in that case. Not one. ” – Generally planes don’t fall from the sky. The pilot was great, US Scare wasn’t.

          • Russell Miller says:

            @MustyBuckets:

            How would you recommend they deal with a bird strike then? There’s no way I would hold any aircraft company responible for flying into a flock of geese and losing power in both engines – I know how turbofans work and there’s just no good way of defending against that with *any* current engine.

            I didn’t realize that that was a joke, I thought it was a serious piece of news. If so, I stand corrected.

            I don’t work for US Air or any airline company. I am a systems engineer at an Internet company in West LA.

            • sleze69 says:

              @Russell Miller: Take a chill-pill, man.

              As for all the RyanAir hate – you get what you pay for. At this point in my life, it is worth paying the normal price to fly from place to place but about 10 years ago, I would have loved to fly around Europe for $50 a flight.

            • RedwoodFlyer says:

              @Russell Miller:

              So..you’re an expert on turbofans, but you don’t know the difference between an “aircraft company” and an airline? Also, there is a good way of defending against bird ingestion – if this had been a GE90, a GEnX or a Trent 1000, the whole incident would have been a non-media event.

              Furthermore, you need to CTFD.

        • worksanddays says:

          @Russell Miller:

          The post read “If only U.S. Airways had the foresight to charge their own emergency escape fee they could’ve collected a smooth $3,750 from the passengers of Flight 1549 before letting anyone off the wings.”

          Um, yeah, that is a joke. Did you think they were actually suggesting that U.S. Airways should have charged to let people off the plane?

          The only reason they mentioned it is that the parody airplane literature shows *emergency landing instructions*, and that particular flight is the most recent (successful) example of an airplane landing in an emergency. Hence the reference. Not sure how you read it as anyone criticizing them, just playing off the humorous airplane pamphlet. In a post ABOUT humor, you can be fairly certain that what you read may be a joke…

          • Trai_Dep says:

            @worksanddays: You bring up a good point. If Sully HADN’T been able to land safely, then USAir WOULDN’T be able to charge its passengers. Therefore no joke for Carey to make. Thus – gulp:
            > The humorless people want USAir to have gone down with no survivors.

            Why do they hate Sully so?

            • Trai_Dep says:

              @Trai_Dep: And, those living in Brooklyn or Manhattan, who were arguably more of the experience than everyone else, please raise a hand?
              Look at that: the entire Consumerist Editorial Staff AND Carey, the author.
              The Funny-Bone defense rests, your honor.

    • jblaze1 says:

      @Russell Miller:

      RM, good job at US Air PR!

    • rfjson says:

      @Russell Miller: dude. Get a sense of humor. Or go back to FB.

    • corbyz says:

      @Russell Miller: I actually started reading the comments to see if anyone made this point. It’s not a hugely offensive comment in the story, but when I read it I just kind of went, “Huh??” It’s not offensive, but it’s not like it was a great moment of hilarity either… it just seemed out of place to me, and made me wonder why bother to make that comment at all. I guess my point is it’s just kind of a stupid thing to say.

      Oh yeah, and the comments in reply to yours were really annoying. You point out something is kind of stupid to say and suddenly everyone will claim you have no sense of humor or claim you are someone who gets offended by every little thing.

  2. tange1 says:

    Ryan Air is awesome – I paid 1 pound (plus a few fees/taxes) to fly from London to Dublin with no checked bags (I was only staying for the weekend). You can’t beat that. It makes US airlines look like they offer lots of amenities.

    • Russell Miller says:

      @tange1:

      From my perspective though, access to a working restroom is a basic human right. I don’t think anyone should charge for it, and I honestly think that anyone who is running a business and doesn’t let anyone use the restroom there are not worthy of my business (RadioShack once lost business from me because of that policy – I had about $40 worth of stuff, they wouldn’t let me go when I really had to, so I just dropped it on the counter and walked out.)

      ESPECIALLY in a closed environment like an airplane, where they have a monopoly on restrooms.

      • MustyBuckets says:

        @Russell Miller: Not to rag on you again, but to clearify for those who my not have read my response to you above, charging for the toilet was a joke. [consumerist.com]

      • XTC46 says:

        @Russell Miller: I have to disagree. It is NOT your right to use anyone’s personal property, doesn’t matter what it is.

        I agree that most businesses should have restrooms available to customers, especially places that serve food or drinks, but I understand why they don’t. Too many people have 0 respect for other peoples things, and no employee wants to clean up after a disgusting customer in the bathroom. Making them do it means paying them more or having higher turn over, both cost the company more.

      • j-o-h-n says:

        @Russell Miller: Clearly no airline is going to charge to use the lav — the last thing they want is some cheapskate trying to trucker-bottle it…

      • RedwoodFlyer says:

        @Rssll Mllr:

        Frnds

        Rssll Mllr hs n frnds.

        Sys t ll…

        • MostlyHarmless says:

          @ComcastRedwoodFlyer: Easy on the boob noob please :)

          So hes a bit of a high strung troll who prolly doesnt know he is trolling. I wish there was a “/ignore” command on blogs.

    • lihtox says:

      @Russell Miller: I read the joke as a variation on “Now if Flight 1549 had been RyanAir, they would have made $3750 out of the deal.”

  3. ArcanaJ says:

    This is a joke, right? They’re pulling our collective legs as far as they can, right?

    RIGHT?

  4. EdanJellyfish says:

    Yes, this is a joke. Saw this same cartoon a few days ago.

  5. perruptor says:

    Sure, laugh now. Just wait til you see the Competent Pilot fee.

  6. karmaghost says:

    I love you guys, but you really need to make it clear this is a joke. I don’t care how obvious it is, tag it, put it in the headline, but do something. That exclamation point isn’t enough and sarcasm doesn’t translate well on the internets. Just check out a couple of the posts that are already here by savvy consumerist members; the general public doesn’t stand a chance.

    • idip says:

      @karmaghost: Agreed.

      But also, Consumerist needs to be careful with these posts. They risk losing their credibility and put themselves in a position to be compared to The Onion.

      I’m all for jokes.

      But I don’t go to CNN.com to look for faux-news, same goes for this site. People expect to be able to trust the information on this site.

      Just be cautious about what gets posted.

      This isn’t meant to be a flame, which I know I’ll probably get disemvoweled just because someone on staff will this this violates the “If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it at all” policy.

      • renegadebarista says:

        @idip:

        I think you hit the nail right on the head. When Ben and Meg, as Exec Editors, let these kind of stories go in it can damage the sites credibility, but these kind of post are what I’ve come to expect out of Carey. His writing style tends to be crass, and he tends to take his jokes one step to far as he did in this case with the jab at the crew of flight 1549. There are plenty of people at US Airways and Ryan Air that deserve to be treated like crap but the crew of 1549 isn’t one of them.

        • rfjson says:

          @renegadebarista: are you kidding me? Who said his jokes were at the expense of 1549?

          Seriously. Get a sense of humor.

          • renegadebarista says:

            @rfjson:

            “If only U.S. Airways had the foresight to charge their own emergency escape fee they could’ve collected a smooth $3,750 from the passengers of Flight 1549 before letting anyone off the wings.”

            How is that not a snarky comment towards US AIrways? Granted part of my problem with it may come from the fact that I have family members that where pilots for US Airways, but seriously what does Carey’s above text add to the story other then to rail against US Airways?

            • worksanddays says:

              @renegadebarista: It is actually not a snarky comment about U.S. Airways, it’s a snarky comment related to the comic — did you actually read the comic? It’s a parody of an airplane safety pamphlet which instructs passengers that they’ll have to pay individually for emergency services. Since the last (successful) emergency landing was U.S. Airways, the author used that as a FUNNY/deadpan comment about how much an airline could have made had they been using a pay-per-person emergency disembarking system.

              If it had any seriousness, it was a comment on airlines, in general, charging for too many individual aspects of flying — NOT a comment on anything specific to U.S. Airways. This entire post is meant to be humorous, so readers should take any part of the post with a grain of salt, and certainly should not take it as criticism. It was meant to be funny, and shouldn’t have to be explained to this extent!

    • JoshReflek says:

      @karmaghost:
      if you’re trolling, meh, 3/10
      if you’re actually serious?

      idk man….if they can’t figure out its not real, then maybe they should……..read the article and not be fucking morons?

    • rfjson says:

      @karmaghost: it was pretty clear to me. Maybe you just need to bring your reading competency up to par.

    • Trai_Dep says:

      @karmaghost, renegadebarista: I hope that when your parents permanently inserted that oak stick so firmly up your rear nether regions, they disinfected it first. Because otherwise, it might lead to infection.

    • worksanddays says:

      @karmaghost: @ idip

      I disagree — I thought it was 100% obvious that this was a joke — seriously, if you can’t tell this is a joke, you need to take a few deep breaths and maybe get some more sleep.

      And I don’t think it damages the site’s credibility at all. Almost all the posts here are “serious”, as in, they are about real consumer issues. Some of the serious posts, however, incorporate humor into the subject, and I think it’s fine to have a few posts that are solely humorous, like this one. I don’t think the site is “at risk” of turning into the Onion. Just because CNN doesn’t have funny stories doesn’t mean Consumerist can’t have funny stories. CNN also doesn’t use sarcasm in reporting the news, whereas many Consumerist posts use quite a bit of sarcasm. Face it, this site uses some “non-traditional” methods in reporting on topics that are (usually) quite serious. That doesn’t mean they risk losing credibility.

      And just because Consumerist readers can’t tell humor from reality doesn’t mean Consumerist writers should stop posting things like this! I thought it was hilarious!

      Lighten up, guys.

      • Mike_Hawk says:

        @worksanddays: “I thought it was 100% obvious that this was a joke — seriously, if you can’t tell this is a joke, you need to take a few deep breaths…”

        Yeah seriously, people unable to spot bullshit in such a blatantly absurd joke like this one, deserve to be mocked. Better we know who they are so we make sure we don’t stand too close to them.

  7. JulesNoctambule says:

    I’d posted a link to this in the initial Ryanair post. Nice to see B3ta work over on this side of the internet!

  8. savdavid says:

    Airlines = scum

  9. Trai_Dep says:

    After reading the above comments, I’m beginning to think Consumerist needs to add a point to their Consumerist Guidelines: Those without a sense of humor, please go away.

  10. RedwoodFlyer says:

    Anyone who thinks this is serious…the fact that the aircraft pictured is a 747-400 should have been a giveaway. Also, FR (Ryanair) doesn’t have seatback pockets…the emergency instructions are a sticker on the seat in front of you

  11. rfjson says:

    You know, I used to really despise people who didn’t have a sense of humor. But then I realized being a person without a sense of humor is just like being a person with another disabled sense.

    It’s no more appropriate to be angry at a humorless person for not getting a joke than it is to be angry at a sightless person for not seeing a beautiful sunset. We don’t get mad at the deaf for not hearing us shout, so why should we get mad at the humorless for not laughing at our jokes?

    To all of you out there without a sense of humor, I sincerely apologize. Hopefully, one day, medical science can find a cure for your disability.

  12. STrRedWolf says:

    Okay, it’s a joke. If it wasn’t, I’d say a call to the regulators overseeing them would be a good idea.

  13. unobservant says:

    Consumerist should take a page from b3ta and hold PhotoShop contests. Maybe then you’d see the much-coveted label of “WINNAR” on more posts.

  14. Cat_In_A_Hat says:

    What will airlines think of next.


    + Watch video