Airline considers fee for lavatory use - CNN.com Airline considers fee for lavatory use By A. Pawlowski, CNN Ryanair, a budget airline based in Ireland, is known for its rock-bottom fares and multitude of fees. STORY HIGHLIGHTS Ryanair may require travelers to pay for lavatory use on short flights Airline is working with Boeing to develop coin-operated door release Budget airline, based in Ireland, is also raising checked bag fees for summer Ryanair is known for its fees and is up-front about them on its Web site RELATED TOPICS Ryanair Ltd. (CNN) -- Fresh on the heels of one budget airline announcing that it will ask passengers to pay extra to bring carry-on bags on board, another is considering charging them for using the lavatory. Ryanair, which is based in Dublin, Ireland, and bills itself as "Europe's first and largest low fares airline," is mulling a plan that would require travelers to pay either 1 euro or 1 British pound (about $1.33 or $1.52) for using the bathroom on flights lasting one hour or less. The plan, titled "Ryanair Cost Saving Proposal," was published in the airline's inflight magazine.

The carrier said it is working with Boeing to develop a coin-operated door release so that when nature calls, passengers would need to deposit the change before being able to use the facilities. The idea is to encourage people to use restrooms in airport terminals before boarding, Ryanair said. If the airline were to proceed, the changes would be at least 12 to 18 months away. As part of the plan, the airline is also considering removing two of the three lavatories on some of its planes so it could squeeze in up to six extra seats. The move would help reduce fares by at least 5 percent, Ryanair said. It's not the first time the airline has broached the subject of a toilet fee. CEO Michael O'Leary told the BBC in February 2009 that he was considering the charge. How would it fly with passengers? One hint of how Americans might feel about it may come from an informal poll posted on TripAdvisor.com last summer in which one-fifth of the respondents said they would fly on an airline that charged a fee to access the bathroom; 78 percent said they would not. About 5,300 people answered the online survey question.

But the idea may be less shocking to travelers in Europe, where it's not unusual to pay a small fee to use a public restroom. Meanwhile, Ryanair announced Tuesday that it's raising its checked luggage fee from 15 euros to 20 euros per bag for the peak vacation months of July and August. "Ryanair is determined to incentivise passengers to travel light this summer," spokesman Stephen McNamara said in a statement. The airline urged its passengers to avoid the fees by bringing carry-on bags only. Ryanair is already well-known for its fees and is up-front about them on its Web site, which details charges for everything from online check-in to traveling with infants. Customers haven't balked; in fact, Ryanair's passenger traffic grew 13 percent last month compared to the same time last year, the airline reported. Low-cost carriers have embraced the concept of a la carte pricing, or keeping base fares at rock bottom levels while charging passengers for any extra services. On Tuesday, Florida-based Spirit Airlines announced that it will charge its customers $20 to $45 for items they place in the overhead bins. Share this on: Paying to Pee: Ryanair's New Flight Bathroom Fee. Have Airlines Gone Too Far?

- ABC News ABC News Paying to Pee: Have the Airlines Gone Too Far? By SCOTT MAYEROWITZ Email Irish discount airline Ryanair's plans to charge to use the toilet might be a great cost-savings move, but it has been met by skepticism and outrage from critics who call it inhumane. "It's one of the most absurd ideas I've ever heard," said Steven D. Soifer, an associate professor at the University of Maryland's School of Social Work. The extra fee for the bathroom, plus the Ryanair's desire to remove two of the three restrooms to add more seats, causes problems -- especially for people with medical conditions, Soifer said. His studies include Paruresis, also known as shy bladder syndrome, where people are not able to urinate when in the presence of others. Soifer said, for instance, that a passenger might really struggle inside the sole airplane bathroom if they knew there was a long line of people waiting in the aisle. The airline plans to charge either 1 euro or 1 British pound (about $1.30 to $1.55) to use the toilet for flights scheduled for one hour or less.

By eliminating two of the three bathrooms on the plane, Ryanair plans to add six extra seats. Stay Up to Date on the Latest Travel Trends from ABC News on Twitter That could cause major problems for somebody with incontinence who is constantly running up and down the aisle to use the bathroom, Soifer said. "Who is going to be passing out euros or giving change? To me it's insanity," Soifer said. "Using the bathroom is a basic bodily necessity." The airline has different hopes. "By charging for the toilets we are hoping to change passenger behavior so that they use the bathroom before or after the flight," Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara told London's Daily Mail. Soifer half-joked that if Ryanair does actually go through with this plan he will hop on a flight, be the first to use the toilet and then stay in the bathroom the remainder of the flight in protest. And he's not alone in seeing potential medical issues with the new pay toilet plan. Professor Jon Rhodes, president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, told London's Daily Express that "people with bowel disease need to go to the toilet urgently and often, with very little warning." But don't expect the pay-potties anytime soon.

George Hobica, president of airfarewatchdog.com , said passengers will be so upset about this that they will simply hold the door open for the next person in line. Ryanair won't gain any revenue out of that one pay toilet. "The one person who pays the pound to pee will call down the aisle, `OK, who's next!?' while holding the door open," Hobica predicts. Hobica said Ryanair is doing this mostly for publicity – "their CEO loves to get his picture on TV," he said -- and also to allow the airline to add a few extra seats. "It will only take a few flights where the one remaining lav malfunctions, leaving passengers with no other options than peeing in their seats, before Ryanair changes its mind on this," Hobica said. "I really don't see it flying in the long term. I'm all for airlines making a profit, but this is going to backfire if it indeed gets off the ground." Rick Seaney, CEO of airfare-search site FareCompare.com and an ABCNews.com columnist, said that one could make the argument that it is a logical extension for Europeans who in many cases pay for public restrooms at train stations.

"But train stations don't travel at 30,000 feet in a cramped metal tube with filtered air," Seaney said. "Let's face it, lavatories on planes are not frills; we are talking basic human needs here and for Ryanair to talk about removing some lavatories while making passengers pay for the remaining toilet, at least for Americans, doesn't even pass the giggle test." Ray Neidl, an independent airline analyst, generally supports airlines adding on extra fees. The latest example of a new fee came last week when Spirit Airlines announced it was starting to charge a fee for carry-on bags , a fee higher than that to check luggage. But for Neidl, Ryanair's bathroom fee is "probably stepping over the line." "I've been always been an advocate for charging for different services on flights, but that one is going a little too far, that and withholding water," Neidl said. "Everything else is on the table." Passengers can always revolt, although he said if any airline could get away with this, it would be Ryanair. Ryanair is notorious for its fees.

While most airlines now have checked-bag fees and charges for changing your flights, Ryanair was a pioneer in those fees and adding additional ones, such as charging all customers extra to check in for their flight. And that's not even in the airport, that's online. Travelers put up with these fees because the no-thrills airline typically offers ridiculously low airfares on short hops between European cities. "With Ryanair, you can never tell. I don't think it is going to work anywhere else but with Ryanair, it could work," he said. "Bottom line: I still predict it doesn't happen." 0 Shares House bill would prevent airlines from charging fees for bathrooms | TheHill House bill would prevent airlines from charging fees for bathrooms By Keith Laing - 12/09/15 05:13 PM EST 0 © Thinkstock A House Democrat has filed a bill to prevent airlines from charging passengers for the use of bathrooms on planes. The measure, from Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.), would prohibit airlines from adding bathroom fees to the à la carte charges that have become popular in the aviation industry in recent years.

ADVERTISEMENT Lipinski's bill, known as the Comfortable and Fair Flights Act of 2015, would also allow passengers to change flights for free if bathrooms on their scheduled flights are out of order, and require airlines to issue refunds for bag fees if luggage is delayed by two or more than hours. The Illionis Democrat said the protections are necessary because airlines have greatly increased the number of fees they charge for services that used to be free, such as food and baggage. "More and more, when airline passengers get on a flight they expect to suffer from uncomfortable conditions; as a frequent flyer I understand this,” Lipinski said in a statement. “One thing they should never have to worry about is access to a bathroom," he continued. "Unfortunately, commercial flights are not required to depart with a functioning bathroom, sometimes forcing passengers to endure a trip without this basic necessity. Moreover, as ancillary fees continue to grow, the specter of an in-flight bathroom fee continues to loom in the background since first being broached in 2010." Irish low-cost airline Ryanair considering charging passengers to access bathrooms on their flights in 2010, according to media reports at the time.

The company also reportedly considered reducing the number of toilets that were installed on its planes. The plans were later dropped amid opposition from passenger advocacy groups, but Lipinski said Wednesday travelers should have a right to restrooms when they fly. He added that the baggage fee protections in his measure were also necessary to "ensure that airline passengers have some basic rights and protections when traveling on commercial airlines. "Many of us are all too familiar with paying baggage fees and have come to accept them as part of the flying experience," he said. "While lost and delayed baggage rates are declining, passengers who suffer from this inconvenience do so without the right to a refund, even after hours or days of delay. Simply put, if you pay for a service, you should get that service promptly or get your money back.” 1 day 1 Lynch says she regrets tarmac... "I do regret sitting down and having a conversation with him." 822 Shares 2 Kissinger calls Trump a '... Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in an interview Sunday that... 788 Shares 3 Dem boss demands bipartisan... "As Chair of the Democratic National Committee — one of the main victims... 544 Shares 4 Five things to watch when the...

The 538 members of the Electoral College will meet in their state capitols... 380 Shares Podesta refuses to say election... "I think it was distorted by the Russian intervention." 294 Shares 6 White House staff pranks Obama... White House staff decided to use holiday decorations to pull a prank on... 282 Shares Blame game bubbles over Russian... Lawmakers and members of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's campaigns... 237 Shares White supremacist site urges '... A white supremacist website posted personal details of Jewish people in... 144 Shares New reality: Politicians talk,... Companies are increasingly finding their stock price under assault from... 120 Shares Yes, Trump can lose the Electoral... OPINION | Our country has a real problem. 96 Shares 11 ‘SNL’ hits Trump over ‘... “Saturday Night Live” took a shot at President-elect Donald Trump in the... 89 Shares 12 Trump's pick for budget chief... Rep. Mick Mulvaney has embraced massive changes to Medicare and Social... 78 Shares 13 Five things Obama wants to do... The political world is squarely focused on President-elect Donald Trump’s... 77 Shares 14 Trump tweets: My supporters would...

Trump said his supporters would be "scorned" if they questioned the... 63 Shares 15 Trump responds to Michelle Obama... “I actually think she made that statement not meaning it the way it came... 57 Shares 16 Kerry praises Trump's 'thoughtful... Secretary of State John Kerry says in a new interview that President-elect... 55 Shares 17 Trump once donated to a West Bank... The family of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, has also donated money to... 54 Shares 18 Trump: China should keep seized US... "Let them keep it!" Trump tweets after aide credits him for China... 54 Shares 19 Mossad chief met with Trump team:... Yossi Cohen, the head of Mossad, secretly traveled to the United States... 49 Shares ‘Saturday Night Live’ mocks Trump... Alex Baldwin last night reprised his “Saturday Night Live” impersonation... 49 Shares 21 Vanity Fair breaks subscription... Vanity Fair magazine broke a record for subscriptions on the same day that... 47 Shares Who will check Facebook's 'fact... OPINION | Censoring "fake news" can quickly turn into censoring political... 43 Shares Monica Crowley joining Trump...

President-elect Donald Trump announced Thursday that Monica Crowley will... 41 Shares Poll: Majority of Republicans... A majority of Republicans incorrectly believes President-elect Donald... 40 Shares 25 Dem elector: Trump should 'step... Democratic Rhode Island elector Clay Pell on Sunday called for President-... 39 Shares 26 Gates on Tillerson's ties to Putin... Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates in an interview broadcast on Sunday... 37 Shares 27 Brazile disputes Obama's timeline... "They came after us absolutely every day until the end of the election." 36 Shares Five reasons why Tillerson is... The obstacles facing Trump's secretary of State nominee are quickly... 36 Shares 29 Trump names Elon Musk, Uber CEO to... Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk will join an advisory team for President-... 35 Shares Bill would prevent airlines from imposing bathroom fee | Fox News Bill would prevent airlines from imposing bathroom fee By Rich Thomaselli The proposal by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) would prohibit airlines from adding bathroom fees to its myriad charges for ancillary fees. (iStock) Can you imagine fumbling for change when you gotta go?

The idea of having to pay a fee to use the restroom on an airplane seems outlandish and ludicrous – which, of course, is precisely the reason some people fear it could happen, especially in this day and age of airlines raking in monstrous cash from ancillary fees. In fact, one United States congressman is concerned it could happen he has filed a bill in the House over it. The proposal by Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) is part of a larger measure known as the Comfortable and Fair Flights Act of 2015. Not only would the bill prohibit airlines from adding bathroom fees to its myriad charges for ancillary fees ranging from seat selection to baggage to snacks, but would also allow passengers to change flights for free if bathrooms on their scheduled flights are out of order, and require airlines to issue refunds for bag fees if luggage is delayed by two or more hours. As crazy as all that might seem, it’s not exactly far-fetched. Five years ago, European low-budget carrier Ryanair first proposed such an idea. "By charging for the toilets we are hoping to change passenger behavior so that they use the bathroom before or after the flight," Ryanair spokesman Stephen McNamara told London's Daily Mail at the time.

That idea was quickly abandoned over several concerns, not the least of which was passenger outrage and a very simple way around it – one person pays to use the loo, and then pays it forward as each subsequent lavatory user simply holds the door open for the next person so they don’t have to pay. "More and more, when airline passengers get on a flight they expect to suffer from uncomfortable conditions; as a frequent flyer I understand this,” Lipinski said in a statement. “One thing they should never have to worry about is access to a bathroom. Unfortunately, commercial flights are not required to depart with a functioning bathroom, sometimes forcing passengers to endure a trip without this basic necessity. Moreover, as ancillary fees continue to grow, the specter of an in-flight bathroom fee continues to loom in the background since first being broached in 2010.” Lipinski said his bill was to ensure basic rights for passengers traveling on U.S. commercial airlines, including lost or delayed baggage. "Many of us are all too familiar with paying baggage fees and have come to accept them as part of the flying experience," he said.

"While lost and delayed baggage rates are declining, passengers who suffer from this inconvenience do so without the right to a refund, even after hours or days of delay. Simply put, if you pay for a service, you should get that service promptly or get your money back.” More from TravelPulse Why Budget Airlines Could Soon Charge You to Use the Bathroom | FiveThirtyEight Why Budget Airlines Could Soon Charge You to Use the Bathroom Jun 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM Why Budget Airlines Could Soon Charge You to Use the Bathroom Email An urban legend in the airline industry claims that the former CEO of American Airlines, Bob Crandall, once saved his company $100,000 a year by calling for the removal of a single olive from every in-flight salad. 1 As the story goes, some of these savings came from lower fuel burn thanks to fewer olives, and thus a lighter load on each flight in the American network. This story is particularly relevant today, as fuel prices are near historic highs and airline executives are searching for every possible way to cut costs. Take Southwest Airlines. Have you ever noticed that the airline doesn’t offer typical in-flight entertainment systems?

Outside the costs of buying, installing and maintaining those small TV screens in airplane seats, entertainment systems also weigh about 7 pounds each and cause airplanes to burn more fuel. As Rob Fyfe, the former CEO of Air New Zealand said in 2013 , “There is an enormous economic incentive to reduce the weight of the systems.” More Culture All of this got us wondering: Just how much fuel could an airline save by shaving excess weight from a flight? We decided to use an aircraft performance model developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to find out. 2 Because new airliner sticker prices range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, 3 operators try to control fuel costs by flying their existing airplanes as efficiently as possible. And weight is an important factor. All else being equal, a lighter airplane will always be more fuel-efficient than a heavier one. This is easy to understand for large weights; if you load up the cargo hold with bricks, the engines will need to work harder. But the concept is equally valid for smaller weights. Bringing a laptop on your next flight may help you pass the time, but it will also make the airplane slightly heavier and the engines work ever so slightly harder.

Our analysis takes into account the distance of a flight, the weight carried onboard the aircraft, and the aircraft type itself. It then simulates every phase of the flight, from departure gate to arrival gate, in order to determine the fuel consumed at each moment along the flight path. To get an idea of how adding small amounts of weight can affect fuel burn on a typical flight, we analyzed a flight from Boston to Denver operated by a Boeing 737-700. Southwest Airlines operates this service three times per day. According to our model, the total cost of fuel for operating this flight with 122 passengers (85 percent of the maximum seating-capacity) 4 is about $7,900. 5 Each marginal pound 6 onboard the aircraft for this flight will result in a marginal fuel cost of a little less than 5 cents. 7 So if every passenger remembered to go to the bathroom before boarding, shedding an average of 0.2 liters of urine, the airline would save $2.66 in fuel on this flight alone. Such tactics are not off limits. Ryanair famously contemplated charging customers to use the bathroom (in an effort to reduce the number of on-board bathrooms and pack on more seats).

Company spokesman Stephen McNamara said in 2010 , “By charging for the toilets we are hoping to change passenger behavior so that they use the bathroom before or after the flight.” The cost savings here are a tiny fraction of the total cost of fuel for the flight because airplanes themselves are heavy machines. 8 Even if the flight operated with no passengers or bags, the aircraft would still consume $6,600 worth of fuel to get from Boston to Denver. This reveals an interesting fact: If an airline wanted to save money by reducing weight on this flight, the largest possible savings would be $1,300. And that would require kicking everyone and everything off the airplane. In short, once an airline has decided to service a route, it can only control a small part of the total fuel consumption through weight reduction. 9 But that doesn’t mean airlines should write off weight reductions as a way to save money and reduce fuel consumption. When we are only talking about one flight, the savings don’t seem very compelling. But to determine the relevance of weight savings, we need to understand the enormous scale and razor-thin profit margins of airline transportation networks.

When you are sitting in a specific airplane, it’s easy to forget that there’s a hornet’s nest worth of other flights airborne at the same moment. On average, there’s a Southwest jet taking off every 24 seconds, day after day, without pause. To get a sense of scale, we created a video showing a typical day in the Southwest network. It’s this immense scale that can enable big savings from small weight changes. To find just how large the savings can be, we extended our simulation to each of the approximately 1.6 million flights operated by Southwest Airlines in 2013. 10 The exact amount of money saved on each flight depends on the aircraft type and distance flown. In our analysis, we calculate fuel savings for each flight independently to match the actual flight schedule. 11 Here are the potential cost savings at Southwest Airlines from making small weight changes on every flight: It costs Southwest about $1.2 million per year in added fuel when every passenger carries a cellphone, with larger costs of $7 million if every passenger brings a tablet computer, and $21.6 million if everyone totes a laptop.

Using Southwest’s network as a proxy for similar-sized airlines carrying embedded in-flight entertainment systems, we found that fuel costs to carry these systems are approximately $39.7 million per year. When compared with installing embedded systems in the seats, simply handing everyone an iPad when they stepped onboard could save about $32.7 million per year in fuel costs. In-flight entertainment isn’t the only area where airlines believe they can leverage technology for weight savings that translate to their bottom line. American Airlines has been leading the effort to replace pilot’s flight bags (typically full of dozens of pounds of paper documents) with “electronic flight bags”: essentially an electronic library of maps, charts, manuals and checklists loaded on an approved tablet computer. American believes it can save $1.2 million per year in fuel costs by switching to iPads in the cockpit, which is consistent with our analysis. If airlines were extremely aggressive about weight savings, they could provide incentives for passengers to go to the restroom before getting on a flight; doing so could save Southwest about $2.1 million per year. Less aggressive ways to save on fluid weight can come in the form of $2.4 million per year in savings by ditching the small water bottles provided to passengers during a flight.

Budget airlines, like Spirit, have realized this expenditure and now only provide water for a fee . Finally, what about Bob Crandall’s olive theory? We calculate about $40,000 of annual fuel savings by subtracting one olive’s worth of weight for every passenger in today’s Southwest network. 12 We’ve established that cutting weight can save airlines millions of dollars in fuel costs every year, but how much does this impact an airline’s bottom line? In 2013, Southwest’s fleet of almost 700 jets consumed about 1.8 billion gallons of fuel . Of every dollar earned in ticket prices, 33 percent was used to buy gas. Put another way, a reduction of fuel expenses by about 3 percent could increase profit margins by 1 percent. According to MIT’s Airline Data Project , Southwest’s profits were $754 million in 2013 . Over the past decade, the average yearly profit was $393 million. If Southwest wanted to install in-flight entertainment, it would reduce its average profits by 10 percent. Removing in-flight magazines could increase these average profits by over 1 percent (assuming no loss of advertising revenue).

Other airlines stand to gain even more — Southwest is atypical in the industry for its consistent profitability over the past several decades. For an industry that counts profit-margin percentage points on one hand, small improvements matter. From the airline perspective, this suggests a dual benefit from add-on fees ( even for carry-on bags ). The fees create incentives for people to lighten their travel gear, reducing fuel consumption. At the same time, they increase total revenues. So the fees are a win-win for the industry because they can improve both costs and revenues. As long as fuel remains a significant portion of operating costs, airlines will continue to try to save money by shaving every ounce of weight they can from each flight departure. Some of this will come by providing incentives for passengers to lighten their personal travel gear and some will come from reducing the stockpile of service items carried on each flight. However, for an industry where pennies saved on each flight can lead to thousands or millions of dollars in yearly savings, the incentive for controlling weight — and even eliminating olives — is easy to understand. Footnotes By the nature of urban legends, the detailed breakdown of the cost savings is unclear.

The “olive savings” range from $40,000 to $500,000 per year depending on the source. The cost of the olives themselves is sometimes included, along with fuel savings from reduced aircraft weight and time savings by catering crews. In the context of this article, we focus on the potential fuel savings from weight reduction. The Transport Aircraft System OPTimization (TASOPT) tool, created by MIT professor Mark Drela, uses coupled low-level physics models for aerodynamics, structures and propulsion in order to calculate detailed performance characteristics for an aircraft. Read the model summary and model details . The model outputs fuel burn (among many other parameters) for each flight. We convert this to fuel cost by assuming a fuel density of 6.78 pounds per gallon and a fuel cost of $3.16 pounds per gallon. Aircraft and engine manufacturers spend billions of dollars annually to improve the fuel economy of their newest products, with amazing results. Between 1960 and 2014, the fuel efficiency of a commercial aircraft improved by 55 percent .

Some sources claim fuel efficiency gains as high as 82 percent One of the challenges in evaluating air transportation fuel efficiency is accounting for differences in seating layout between airlines. Increasing the number of seats in an airplane increases the per-seat efficiency at the cost of a knee-busting ride for passengers. To further complicate the calculation of overall fuel efficiency, many flights also carry non-passenger payload like cargo and mail. In this article, we focus on the seat layout chosen by Southwest Airlines and ignore non-passenger payload. The fuel burn estimate assumes 85 percent load factor on the flight (122 of the 143 seats filled) with each passenger and his or her luggage weighing a total of 100kg (220 lbs). The aircraft is assumed to climb directly to the initial optimal cruise altitude, step climb as needed throughout the cruise phase of the flight, and descend continuously to touchdown. Wind is assumed to be calm with standard atmospheric temperature and pressure. Additional fuel allowances for taxi, terminal vectoring, alternate airport diversion and reserves are also included.

When we refer to a “marginal pound,” we are talking about small amounts of additional weight beyond the basics that come with an airline ticket (like the weight of passengers and their travel necessities, usually in checked bags). Adding one pound increases the aircraft’s weight without altering the ticket revenue or traffic levels on that route. Adding the weight of another passenger, though, requires more intricate calculations. The marginal cost varies with mission distance: 1 cent per pound for a 500-mile trip, and about 7.3 cents per pound for a transcontinental, 2,500-mile trip. The “empty weight” for our model of the 737-700 is approximately 85,000 pounds. That’s the weight of the airplane itself, plus the weight of the seats and other parts installed in the cabin. Regardless of how many passengers, bags and small items are on board, the flight will always consume fuel just to carry its own empty weight. Interestingly, the flight will also consume fuel to carry fuel for later parts of the flight. This logarithmic relationship is described generally in the Breguet Range Equation .

Just a quick note on passenger weight reduction: As with many consumer products, airline tickets are priced based on specific market characteristics and customer willingness to pay, not direct operating cost alone. Under a “cost-plus” model, airlines would forecast the total operating cost for a flight (fuel, crew, aircraft ownership, business overhead and so on), divide by the expected number of ticket sales, and add a profit margin to determine a single fare level for every seat on a flight. While appealing in its simplicity, this type of fixed-price ticket ignores nearly every lesson of airline management. Most notably, it fails to maximize revenue and ignores the complexities of airline networks . So, in the world of airline ticket pricing, it doesn’t matter what the exact cost of carrying a passenger might be — the value of an incremental passenger depends on the specific origin and destination, and a passenger’s willingness to pay. It’s not a good idea to charge heavier passengers more than lighter passengers. If such a policy were put into place, the fuel price difference would be about $7 between a light passenger (those in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 5th percentile) and a heavy one (CDC 95th percentile) on the BOS-DEN trip.

Some have proposed passing this weight-driven fuel penalty to individuals (such as by adding $3.50 to the cost of a heavier person’s ticket and subtracting $3.50 from the cost of a lighter person’s ticket on this particular route). This is a poor policy decision for several reasons: It encroaches on issues of human decency; it is an insufficient economic burden to cause a change in passenger behavior; and it ignores the basic concept that passengers pay for tickets based on willingness to pay and specific market conditions, not the exact cost of carriage. As published in the Official Airline Guide (OAG) 2013, obtained through the MIT Libraries. Within the simulation we changed the weight of each flight. It’s important to note that we didn’t simply add one pound on top of a 100,000 pound takeoff weight — most computer simulations don’t have the fidelity to give a useful answer in this situation. Instead we adjusted the weight on each flight to several values above and below the target amount, and then calculated the rate of change of fuel cost with weight.

For small changes in onboard payload, the relationship between fuel and weight is linear, and the slope of this line is what we’re after: the marginal fuel cost per pound. By the nature of urban legends, we don’t know how much of Crandall’s projected savings came from weight reduction compared to material cost. Additionally, fuel cost and network characteristics are markedly different between Bob Crandall’s American Airlines and today’s Southwest Airlines. Nonetheless, these results indicate savings potential from a remarkably small weight reduction roughly in line with the original urban legend. Luke Jensen is a research assistant and Ph.D. candidate at MIT, where he studies airline operations and efficiency. He is also a pilot and certified flight instructor. @LukeLJensen Brian Yutko is an aerospace engineer currently working as a postdoctoral associate at MIT. His research focuses on reducing the environmental impact of aviation and next-generation aircraft designs. @BrianYutko BBC NEWS | Business | Ryanair mulls charge for toilets Ryanair mulls charge for toilets Michael O'Leary: 'People might have to spend a pound to spend a penny' Irish budget airline Ryanair has said it is considering charging passengers for using the toilet while flying.

Chief executive Michael O'Leary told the BBC that the Dublin-based carrier was looking at maybe installing a "coin slot on the toilet door". Consumer group Which? said the airline was putting "profit before passengers". Ryanair's PR chief Steven McNamara later played down the idea, saying: "I don't think it's going to happen in the foreseeable future". "Will it happen long-term, I'm not really sure," he said. "It's one of those things that when Michael starts looking at something, you know, it's always up for discussion." Last week Ryanair confirmed it planned to close all of its airport check-in desks by the end of the year in a bid to reduce the cost of its flights. 'Fast buck' Ryanair aims to offer low basic ticket prices, and then charge extra for items such as checking in at the airport or for additional luggage. "One thing we have looked at in the past, and are looking at again, is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door, so that people might actually have to spend a pound to spend a penny in future," he told the BBC.

He added: "I don't think there is anybody in history that has got on board a Ryanair aircraft with less than a pound." But Rochelle Turner, head of research at Which? Holiday, said: "It seems Ryanair is prepared to plumb any depth to make a fast buck and, once again, is putting profit before the comfort of its customers. "Charging people to go to the toilet might result in fewer people buying overpriced drinks on board, though - that would serve Ryanair right." Bookmark with: Pay to Pee? Budget Airline May Charge Passengers to Use Toilet | Fox News Pay to Pee? Budget Airline May Charge Passengers to Use Toilet Published February 27, 2009 Facebook 0 Twitter 0 Email Print DUBLIN – Is a bathroom an optional extra when you're at 30,000 feet? Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary seems to think so — and says his no-frills airline might charge customers to use its aircrafts' toilets. O'Leary whipped up a frenzy of indignation and potty humor Friday as he suggested that future Ryanair passengers might be obliged to insert a British pound coin (U.S.

$1.40) before they gain access to in-flight relief. As always when introducing new charges, O'Leary suggested a separate toilet fee would lower ticket costs and make flying, somehow, easier for all. Nobody, even his own aides, seemed to be sure if he was serious or pursuing his well-documented penchant for making brazen declarations to win free advertising. "One thing we have looked at in the past, and are looking at again, is the possibility of maybe putting a coin slot on the toilet door, so that people might have to actually spend a pound to `spend a penny' in future," O'Leary said, using a local euphemism for relieving one's self. When asked, during an interview on BBC Television, what would happen if a customer really had to go, but didn't have the correct change, O'Leary dismissed the scenario as implausible. This even though Ireland and most of Europe uses euros, not the British currency, and even on-board attendants often find themselves without the correct change. "I don't think there's anybody in history (who has) gone on board a Ryanair aircraft with less than a pound," he said.

Politicians and analysts agreed that the man who pioneered charging airline customers to check bags, to use a check-in desk, and even to use a credit or debit card to make an on-line booking just might be serious about mile-high toilet extortion, too. Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners in London, cautioned consumers that O'Leary might be attempting two for the price of one: Free publicity backed by cut-throat reality. "This begs a simple question retort of: Is there absolutely nothing that this airline won't do? Not really, so if you are thinking about flying cattle-class Ryanair in future, beware," he said. O'Leary's own chief spokesman, Stephen McNamara, said his boss often spoke tongue in cheek — but then defended the idea of charging for a toilet as part of a logical trend. "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," McNamara said, adding, "Passengers using train and bus stations are already accustomed to paying to use the toilet, so why not on airplanes?

Not everyone uses the toilet on board one of our flights, but those that do could help to reduce airfares for all passengers." Rochelle Turner, head of research at British consumer rights magazine Which? Holiday, said Ryanair had a well-documented practice of "putting profit before the comfort of its customers" — but this one could backfire. "Charging people to go to the toilet might result in fewer people buying overpriced drinks on board. That would serve Ryanair right," she said. Tommy Broughan, transport spokesman for Ireland's Labour Party, said the toilet-charge idea had to be taken seriously. He noted that Ryanair last month began threatening customers with fines if they tried to carry on board a second bag regardless of size — even one filled with a just-purchased item from the airport's duty-free shops. "When Ryanair introduced this euro30 extra duty-free charge, many passengers joked that next they would be charged for using the toilet — not realizing that this indeed seems to be the newest extra charge on Ryanair's agenda," Broughan said.

On the recession-hit streets of Dublin, Ryanair-bound people waiting for the airport shuttle bus seemed resigned to the idea of paying for an O'Leary-provided potty. "Your only choice with Ryanair, really, is not to fly Ryanair. Your dignity goes out the window. If you have a complaint, they're not programmed to care," said Samantha Jones, a 30-year-old Welsh woman who has been using the airline to commute between her weekday Irish job and weekend boyfriend back home near Liverpool. Jones discounted the practicality of a restroom rebellion. "If you are given a choice between wetting your knickers or not wetting your knickers, you will pay whatever fee they make you pay, and Mr. O'Leary knows this well," she said. "Frankly, I'm surprised he's talking about letting us have a wee for a pound, not more!" Advertisement Crazy Airline Fees That Aren't Actually Fees - ABC News ABC News Most Outrageous, Non-Existent Airline Fees By Genevieve Shaw Brown Email Recently, someone told me airlines are charging parents and kids to sit together. Really? How on earth could I have missed that? I didn't.

You see, airlines are not charging parents and kids to sit together, despite what some headlines would have you believe. It got me thinking about the other fees some travelers believe they could be charged on their next flight. Have you heard the one about airlines charging people to use the bathroom? That's not to say that the airlines haven't gotten a little fee-crazy as of late – they have. Spirit Airlines charging up to $100 for a carry-on bag? Sorry, that one is true (and it goes into effect on Nov. 6, 2012, just in time for the Thanksgiving travel season). Click through the next few pages for a few fees you may have thought you had to pay but don't. Sitting With Your Kids This one's all the rage recently. Let's get this straight: Airlines are not charging for parents to sit with their kids in flight. So what's everyone talking about? What the airlines are doing is designating more seats on aircraft as premium seats, meaning people need to pay extra to reserve them. These could be seats at the front of the plane, seats in the exit row, aisle or window seats or seats with more legroom.

When an airline increases the number of seats that command an extra price, it of course means there will be fewer seats for everyone who doesn't want to pay up to choose from. So, theoretically, a family could find they only have a bunch of spread out middle seats to choose from when they book a flight, which isn't going to work if they've got a young child. So what to do? First, booking as far in advance as possible helps. Booking on the airline's own site may also help, as they are more likely to have an up-to-date seat map. If all else fails, the flight attendant or gate agent at the airport will more than likely be able to accommodate you. To date, I've yet to hear about a minor being seated alone on a flight. Paying For the Bathroom Ryanair is an ultra low-cost carrier whose CEO is known for making outrageous statements. Some travel industry skeptics think he says these things with no intention of ever doing them in order to draw attention to the fact that his airline offers very low fares. One of the most notable "announcements" was that the airline was considering charging customers to use the bathroom in-flight . £1 or €1 for passengers to use the toilet, in fact.

An airline spokesperson went so far as to say the airline hoped to change passenger behavior so they would use the bathroom before they got on the flight. As of last year, plans to charge for the loo have been dropped. For now. Standing Room Only See above on Ryanair's penchant for off-the-wall fee ideas that don't actually come to fruition. In this case, back in 2010 the airline said it would remove 10 rows of seats to make room for 15 rows of people who would stand during the flight. They even had a name for it: vertical seating . Passengers who opted for these cheapest of cheap seats – reportedly going to cost about $6 per person – would have something to lean against in-flight. Vertical seating didn't happen, but Ryanair getting out the message that it's the ultimate in no-frills, cheap flying sure did. Fat Tax Two or three times per year, an air traveler, sometimes a celebrity, will lash out at an airline for being told they do not fit comfortably into one seat and will have to purchase another.

While some airlines, like Southwest , do have a policy that requires "passengers of size" who "encroach upon any part of the neighboring seat" to purchase extra seats as needed, they do not have what's come to be known as a "fat tax." Earlier this year, former chief economist at Qantas Group floated the idea that heavy people should pay more to fly , much the same way passengers are charged more for overweight baggage. The theory is that the heavier you are, the more jet fuel the plane needs to burn to carry you from point A to point B. But for now, your bags will remain the only thing that gets weighed at the airport. 0 Shares Discount Airline Close to Charging Pee Fee Discount Airline Close to Charging Pee Fee Skip to the loo may soon cost $1.50 By Mary Papenfuss , Newser User Posted Apr 8, 2010 1:43 AM CDT Updated Apr 8, 2010 5:30 AM CDT View 1 more image (Newser) – In the latest move to squeeze every possible penny from travelers, a discount airline is close to charging flyers a fee to use the bathroom.

Europe's Ryanair is preparing to dun travelers $1.50 for each trip to the loo. The airline is working with Boeing to develop a coin-operated bathroom door release. Officials are also considering removing 2 of 3 bathrooms on some of the planes to squeeze in extra seats, reports CNN . The new push follows an announcement by Spirit airline that it will begin charging up to $45 for carry-on baggage in overhead bins.

Question: What Irish airline proposed charging passengers to use the bathroom?
Answer: Ryanair