The ABC website yesterday ran a story about Ryanair charging for use of the toilets in the air. It seems they got it from the Daily Mail which added the news that Ryanair would take out two of the three toilets to add more seats.
The New York Daily News also picked up the story as did the SMH today. No other London paper mentioned it.
The story first surfaced a year ago when Michael O’Leary floated it. He was joking.
The story is nonsense. I can understand the Daily Mail and the Daily News running it but the ABC and SMH should have known better. Journalists once had a nose for a hoax. Now I suspect that is replaced by the “too good to check” rule.
I reckon this is what happened: The April in-flight magazine of Ryanair decided an April Fool’s hoax would be fun and certain elements of the MSM fell for it.
Who was it that said we need MSM because news is checked and verified before publication, unlike blogs?
If I am wrong, I will withdraw. Do you think ABC and SMH will do the same if I am correct?
[I have modified the title of this post slightly as it was attracting a spam storm. Sinc]
[restored title. Sinc]
I think you might want to withdraw.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article5814577.ece
Back in Feb 09 Ryan air issued this statement saying it was at least considered
“A statement issued by the Ryanair marketing team shortly after midday said: “Michael makes a lot of this stuff up as he goes along and while this has been discussed internally there are no immediate plans to introduce it.”
Having travelled Ryan air on one too many occasions it would not surprise me in the slightest. Never again
BookFace
9 Apr 10 at 3:18 pm
Yep, the story last year was a joke by O’Leary. He revels in this kind of publicity. It also confirms in people’s minds that his fares are cheap. There used to be a supermarket chain in Australia that worked hard to make its stores look like dumps for the same reason.
But I still reckon it began this year as an April fool’s joke.
None of the London papers except Daily Mail which is not exactly a journal of record have reported it.
Ken Nielsen
9 Apr 10 at 5:03 pm
But who cares? What’s wrong with charging for the use of the toilet on the plane? User pays.
Samuel J
9 Apr 10 at 8:53 pm
To qualify – if a company wants to charge separately for different services that’s fine. I think that seats should be charged by the kilogram.
Samuel J
9 Apr 10 at 8:55 pm
Agree Samuel, passengers should pay by the kilo for themselves and bags. Don’t see why I should subsidise the avgas for some huge blob carrying 10 times more stuff than any sane human needs.
Fave O’Leary story, often told, might even be true – Dublin traffic is hell (least it was, before the GFC), city has bus lanes which taxis can also use. O”Leary bought a taxi license and slapped a taxi sign on his Merc so he could get around with ease. Ah, yer grand O’Leary.
The Dirty Digger
9 Apr 10 at 9:10 pm
Hey Sinc – have we really got to the stage where the most common word for micturition must be censored on this blog?
I’ve always though Crikey dopey for its censorship – as in Ess*x – and I never though Catallaxy would do the same.
That ain’t in the least libertarian.
If anyone has their (or their ISPs) filter set so finely that words like this can’t get through, they don’t deserve to be reading our wisdom.
Ken Nielsen
10 Apr 10 at 10:01 am
Ken – it’s not censorship, it’s time. This post has attracted several thousand spams and cleaning the spam filter takes time. The last couple of times, I’ve just deleted the whole thing and hoped that nobody legitimate got caught in the filter.
Sinclair Davidson
10 Apr 10 at 10:26 pm
Ah, OK.
Jeez it’s a dirty world….
Ken Nielsen
11 Apr 10 at 9:55 am
Spam filter is still going banana’s. I’m going to try closing comments to see what happens.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Apr 10 at 3:03 pm
Okay, I’ve restored the title, but shut off the pingbacks and so far that does seem to have worked.
Sinclair Davidson
11 Apr 10 at 4:41 pm
Ah, delete the whole bl**dy thread. It wasn’t that interesting anyway…
ken n
11 Apr 10 at 4:45 pm
No. that’s too blunt a solution.
and we don’t self-censor (not to that extent).
Sinclair Davidson
11 Apr 10 at 4:48 pm