Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Hey, you already pay to use the bathroom on flights: In defense of Ryanair's proposed "pay to pee" scheme
Before your head explodes with indignation at Ryanair's recent proposal to charge passengers about $1.65 to use the bathroom on flights, let me inform you of something you may not have considered: You already pay to use the bathroom on every flight you take.
That's right, American Airlines charges to use the bathroom, and so does Southwest, British Airways, Uzbekistan Airways, Rwandair Express, Trans Air Congo, and every other airline in the world. The cost of using the bathroom-- and yes, there is a cost to using the bathroom-- is included in your ticket.
But Ryanair's proposed a la carte-style pricing on bathroom use, what Gadling's Tom Johansmeyer refers to as "pay to pee," transfers the bathroom cost from your ticket to the bathroom itself. And I, for one (literally, I think I'm the only one), applaud the airline's move.
After all, why doesn't it make sense that only those who use the bathroom should pay for it? Why should people who rarely use the bathroom on planes subsidize those who have the bladder capacity of frightened salamanders?
Before you accuse me of being a heartless capitalist (a charge I do not entirely deny), let me point out another bonus of the pricing scheme: Charging for bathroom use at the lavatory itself, rather than including it in the price of the ticket, will cause people to conserve resources.
How so? Well, when people are presented with the fact that going to the bathroom has an actual cost, they might decide to "hold it" for a while instead of downing five bottles of water before a flight and peeing every ten minutes. (Think about it: If your bathroom at home were somehow coin-operated, would you use it more or less frequently?) This means less water will be used for flushing and washing hands, and less paper will be used for drying hands and... that other thing paper is used for.
Sure, Ryanair's proposal might make you feel like you're being nickel-and-dimed to death yet again by an airline. First luggage surcharges, now you've got to pay to pee. But just as it's more fair for people who check two bags to pay for it rather than be subsidized by other passengers who pack more economically, it's also more fair for only those people who use the bathroom to pay for it.
As for me, I'll hold it.
Filed under: Airlines, Transportation, Consumer Activism
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Scott Carmichael Jun 8th 2009 10:05AM
My issue with their proposal:
They are not lowering ticket prices - adding these new pay to use fee's is only for them to make MORE money. Sure, they are in the business of making money, but it sets a dangerous precedent.
Look at United Airlines (or any other legacy carrier) - a ticket price used to include a meal, luggage, a pillow and a blanket. Those were all services that came with the ticket price. Now, ticket prices are virtually the same as they used to be, but most of those services are either gone, or are "pay to use".
I'm fine with adding NEW services and charging for them (like inflight WiFi), but to make people pay the same as they always have AND charge for stuff that used to be free is a slippery slope.
When the "pay to pee" scheme was unveiled, it was seen as one big joke, but now people are actually beginning to take it seriously. What is next? A la carte only benefits the airline, and passengers are the ones that lose.
Airlines had 2 options to stay alive - add more services, or remove stuff and make people pay for it, and they chose the one that helps THEM the most.
Aaron H Jun 8th 2009 10:47AM
Scott, you say: "I'm fine with adding NEW services and charging for them (like inflight WiFi), but to make people pay the same as they always have AND charge for stuff that used to be free is a slippery slope."
I mostly agree. But the fact that people are paying the same prices as they always have does not mean they aren't paying less than they otherwise would without the a la carte fee. If Ryanair DOES enact "pay-to-pee," this will certainly make its ticket prices lower than they otherwise would be, in the same way that charging $50 for checking a second bag makes ticket prices cheaper than if the second checked bag were "free." Note that this does NOT necessarily make ticket prices cheaper than some previous time-- only cheaper compared to what they would otherwise be.
In the end I think it's nice to see an airline experiment with some different pricing schemes. If people hate Ryanair's idea as much as I think they do, it won't last long. They'll vote with their dollars, err, Euros.
Scott Carmichael Jun 8th 2009 11:06AM
*IF* they really do lower their prices, then they'd probably be the first. Airlines have a bad habit of lowering their own costs, but conveniently forgetting to pass the savings on to their customers. Just look what they did with the fuel surcharges...
Thing is, airlines like Ryanair are clever - and in many ways they are an industry leader, so in 5 years I'm guessing a pay toilet will be common on many airlines.
Just like the thought of paying for food on your flight seemed like an insane idea a decade ago, people will get used to it.
Aaron H Jun 8th 2009 3:59PM
"Just like the thought of paying for food on your flight seemed like an insane idea a decade ago, people will get used to it."
But you DID pay for the food on your flight a decade ago!
Scott, I operate under the assumption that any company, including any airline, will charge the highest price the market allows at all times. If this is true, and I've never seen any evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't rely on the charity of airlines to keep prices low. Plane tickets are affordable-- even with airlines charging the maximum possible price-- because of competition and innovation.
And before you bemoan the "greedy" airlines, take a look at their balance sheets. Yikes.
Jamie Rhein Jul 24th 2009 1:51AM
Okay, Aaron. But what about this? What about the person who wants to hold it, thinks he or she can hold it and then absolutely can not any longer? Either that person takes much longer to pee to the dismay of the other people who also held their bladders too long--or that person doesn't quite make it. Now that's pleasant. Of course Ryanair could have a change of clothes bag for purchase which could generate revenue. Sky Mall could have an item to order as well for people who have weak bladders for flying. Did you ever read David Sedaris's essay that had a gizmo in it called Stadium Pal? That might work. Mike could write a Sky Mall Monday post about it.
Sapp May 30th 2010 2:36PM
Huh. That seems to be incredibly uncomfortable. The only way I would hold it on an airplane is if I was I flying first class and the seat is too comfortable for me to be bothered to go pee, which is a feeling I'll never know. Unless I skip lunch for everyday for a year. If I'm gonna be jammed in that seat I'll pee as much as I want to.