Why when booking a flight with Easyjet - I do all the work myself, on my computer including printing out the booking confirmation and booking-in pass > that i am charged around £10 for admin fee ??????????? Anyone out there can tell me what the heck Easyjet do to justify that £10 charge.
Just the way they have set up their business model. You could be paying for computer software maintenance, hardware maintenance, routers, etc. We flew EasyJet on 3 flights in Europe last month and I was very happy with all 3 flights. For future travel in Europe on flights of 2 hours or less (which we flew and I believe are the majority of their flights) they will be my airline of choice.
That is no different to most European budget airlines (and some mainstream too, by the way). They have to cover their costs if they are to continue providing the cheap fares people want. And there is no compulsion whatsoever to use them, of course, so if you resent paying the admin fee then you can fly with an airline which does not charge it.
>>>Anyone out there can tell me what the heck Easyjet do to justify that £10 charge. I can tell you. Of course, they charge £10 "to process" the £10.
The fee as it stands came about in response to proposed government changes: guardian.co.uk/money/2012/ja... Calling these fees 'administration fees' means they won't be affected by the government changes. But hey..the fares are still (usually much) better than most mainstream fares for the same routes, and there's no compulsion.....
They don't screw you as royally as Ryanair! Be grateful that you got off lightly!!! ;)
Somewhere in the process you tick a box stating you have read Ryanair's rules of the game. I just wonder why they charge a 20 kg suitcase twice the price as a 80 kilo passenger. It must be spacious at the lower deck :) PJ
Hello Johno and welcome to VT. You will find this is a well-rehearsed argument (well, discussion really) on VT and pops up from time to time. There are some members that like the cheaper fares and are prepared to put up with all the many inconveniences and hidden expenses of the like of Easyjet and Ryanair and others who believe that it is worth paying a few £/$/€ more for a regular flight with no hidden expenses, travel to an airport within reasonable distance of the destination and the backup of a service that is not pared to the bone to keep costs down. As the old saying goes, "You pays your money and you takes your choice."
Sorry,Fergy, I must say this because you know I always fly budget airlines when it's possible and because budget airlines have allowed millions of people to fly when they would otherwise not have been able to do so: There are absolutely *no* 'hidden' expenses with Ryanair or Easyjet or any other budget airline. You see everything you will pay before you pay it and everything is made very clear on the site (reading the info is a good idea). That's it: you pay no more (as long as you don't ignore the baggage limits, and if you do that's your fault). The airports Ryanair etc use are not all a long way from the destination. Most are the same as those used by mainstream airlines, all are within reasonable travelling distance of the destination, all have good transport links....and none are presented as anything other than they are if you actually read the relevant information. It is true that on occasion a mainstream carrier may have fares which are not a great deal higher than a budget carrier. But this is most definitely not the case when flying at busy times (e.g. school hols) or from/to less obvious destinations (e.g from outside London). So, for me, paying 100+GBP more just for free food/drink (because I've not seen any other difference worth noting) is plain daft. As you say, it's a personal choice. For me, given that all other things which matter (reliability, cancellation/delay coverage, reliability) are equal, saving 100+GBP is more than worthwhile.
Yes, IP, that is why I said '"The airports Ryanair etc use are not *all* a long way from the destination.' Because they simply are not and it is wrong to give the impression that the majority of airports used by budget airlines are way away from the destination. I do not anyway consider a journey of an hour or so from airport to base excessive or unusual; it is what I have to do to reach airports from my home, and I have no problems with doing it at the other end. At least the European airports used by budget airlines have decent public transport links (and often airline-linked buses as well).
And, of course, it is very easy indeed to a) look at a map to see where an airport is and b) check the onward transport options from that airport. Before one books....
The basic issue is this...people want low fares. Fine. But if that is the case then they must also expect that budget carriers will make the necessary adjustments ('admin fees', using airports further from centres which have lower charges etc etc) in order to provide those low fares. Airlines are not cheap things to run. To want budget fares and then expect mainstream services is simply ridiculous, imo. No-one is forced to fly with any carrier.
It depends entirely on one's perception of 'reasonable', IP. If you don't want to take the train to Oslo (and you can), there's a direct bus from/to Torp linked with Ryanair/Whizzair flights. 1h 45m. From Vasteras there are also Ryanair linked buses to/from Stockholm (1h 20m) as well as trains. It works like this (I know you prefer not to fly so you may not know about the linked buses): you check out the airfares from various carriers, you check out the cost of onward transport, you do the research and then you decide which works best for you. So, for me, a longish ride from/to Torp or Vasteras would be worthwhile if it saved me a lot on the airfare (which it very easily could).
To call Torp or Rygge in Norway Oslo or Västeås in Sweden Stockholm is pulling it very far If you mention one extreme, I can mention the other. Gothenburg City airport which Ryanair uses is much closer to the centre of Gothenburg than Landvetter airport which is used by SAS, BA and other mainstream carriers. Bergamo, again used by Ryanair, provides quicker connections to central Milan than Malpensa airport. And if you land at Pisa, you can walk -if you are reasonably fit and fly, as recommended, with hand baggage only - to the city.
I flew Ryanair recently and, yes, I moaned to my son about the admin fee of 12 pounds which was more than the fare of 10 pounds return. I could have avoided the admin fee if I had flown the flag - British Airways - for just over 150 pounds. The lowcost airlines clearly state all the fees/charges on their websites - if you don't like them, don't fly. You always have the option of paying up to ten times as much with a 'regular' airline.
Budget airlines may, on occasion, use airports which are some distance from the main destination (and onward transport is always available if so). But in the vast majority of instances they do not. They use either the same airport as mainstream or another nearby. My nearest airport is served by Ryanair and Lufthansa, for example (and other mainstream carriers): that's normal. I'm entirely bemused as to why people find this any sort of issue at all. It's not as if budget carriers operate routes which are served by no other airlines. There is a choice. My choice (along with millions of others) is to use them when it suits. If someone else chooses not to do so that's also absolutely fine.
Like Paul, I would happily fly with any carrier if the fare is right. But the fare for mainstream carriers has *never* been right for me (because of when I travel). Even with hold baggage, budget airlines are cheaper. I'm afraid my patriotism does not extend to paying vast amounts just for some free food and drink.