Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5677128/

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: OA260
Posted 2013-01-31 03:12:37 and read 9574 times.

A ruling today has said that Ryanair must pay for expenses of passengers effected by the ash cloud disruptions.

Ryanair loses ash cloud appeal

Ryanair must reimburse passengers for meals, transport and lodging after flight delays caused by a 2010 volcano eruption, the European Union's highest court said today.

Ryanair and other airlines are obliged to "provide care" to passengers whose flight was canceled, the EU Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled today. While the airlines must pay for reasonable expenses, the court said they don't have to pay statutory compensation to passengers because of the extraordinary circumstances.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2013/0131/breaking20.html

It seems now that there could be a huge amount of people now claiming from Ryanair for expenses they racked up during the period air space was closed.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-31 03:26:37 and read 9512 times.

I'm in two minds about this - other travel methods don't have this sort of burden, and as airspace was closed then the decision was taken out of Ryanairs hands in reality, so I'm not entirely convinced that Ryanair should have to bear the cost of recompensing passengers for what could amount to an unknown period of disruption that could not have been mitigated by the airline.

A better resolution would have been to force those insurance companies that refused to pay out to actually honour their insurance claims...

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: ScottishDavie
Posted 2013-01-31 05:35:43 and read 9137 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 1):
I'm in two minds about this - other travel methods don't have this sort of burden,.....

I'm not the greatest FR fan but I tend to agree with moo. There is something inherently illogical about a passenger who has paid a few pounds to fly with FR being entitled to substantial compensation from them if the flight can't operate because of circumstances entirely outwith their control. The insurance point is well made.

BTW could a moderator please amend the heading to this thread so that the second word is spelled correctly?

[Edited 2013-01-31 05:38:30]

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-01-31 05:59:04 and read 9048 times.

It's ridiculous.

People have to take responsibilty for their own actions and choices.

If you choose to leave your habitat / home then you must be prepared for all eventualities whilst away. I'm sure most of us just play the percentages and hope a volcano doesn't erupt etc or we'd never go anywhere.

An airline doesn't force you to travel somewhere....you are 'choosing' to travel through your own free will and paying them for a provided service !! Not the other way around.

The only people an airline should be responsible for once they've disembarked the aircraft ( if some catastrophe or event outside the airlines control occurs) is its flight and cabin crew.

Does an airline become a persons 'legal guardian' ?

BA flew me to Nairobi where I got my leg bitten off whilst on Safari. How dare they transport me to such a dangerous environment. Call the lawyers !!

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: shufflemoomin
Posted 2013-01-31 06:08:53 and read 9002 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 1):
other travel methods don't have this sort of burden,

With the exception of cruise ships, most other travel methods don't have you more than a few hundred miles from home. With ground based transport, there are other options to get your to your destination but that's usually not the case with flying. For long distances, people usually fly so airlines have to take different care of people. I'm pretty sure cruise companies are under the same sort of obligation.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-31 06:16:03 and read 8950 times.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 4):

Yes that is true, but in this case if you were stopped from flying from Paris to London by the grounding, Ryanair would be on the hook for either putting you up in a hotel or finding you an alternative route home at their cost, while if the cross channel ferries stop for some reason the ferry companies are not required to put you up in a hotel nor buy you passage on an aircraft or the Channel Tunnel.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: silentbob
Posted 2013-01-31 06:22:16 and read 8921 times.

European courts continue to amaze me. The governments shut down the air space, then require the airlines to compensate people for being inconvenienced. The airlines were prohibited from taking people to their destinations, yet they still have to pay. Mind-boggling

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2013-01-31 06:24:03 and read 8903 times.

Quoting ScottishDavie (Reply 2):
something inherently illogical about a passenger who has paid a few pounds to fly with FR

As we don't know what individual passengers may have paid the cost of the ticket is an irrelevance. If you book a taxi to take you a distance of two miles or twenty miles and you are injured in a collision the amount of injury you sustain is just as much, despite the fare normally due to the taxi driver being higher or lower. The original intent behind the law may have been to ensure that airlines honour their contracts and convey passengers with the minimum of delay and compensate for undue delay. The amount of the fare is immaterial to the essential nature of the contract. If a contract is broken then people should be entitled to compensation.

That said. I do question why the airline should be held responsible when they were not the ones who made the decision to close airspace. Clearly this was a case of force majeure - a circumstance that the airlines could not reasonably predict anymore than the passengers could have. Was there any precedent? Not as far as I am aware. So in may humble opinion, the limitation of the airlines (not just FR) would reasonably have been to either arrange alternative flights when possible or to offer a refund of the fare paid. However, that isn't what the law says in the opinion of the learned judges. FR will have to cough up to those who kept documentary evidence of expenses directly related to cancellations and delays. In the meantime the airlines may collectively pressure for legislative changes to avoid similar situations in future.

Insurance is another issue. Many policies have exclusions that state things similar to "we will not cover anything that you can claim from somebody else," and/ or "if you travel against the advice or warnings in the media." How many people actually read their policies before making a claim, let alone buying cover?

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: web500sjc
Posted 2013-01-31 06:25:39 and read 8902 times.

Quoting OA260 (Thread starter):
While the airlines must pay for reasonable expenses, the court said they don't have to pay statutory compensation to passengers because of the extraordinary circumstances.

it does say Reasonable compensation- since the passenger only paid for 1 EUR in fare maybe they should only get 1 EUR back, that seams reasonable...

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-01-31 07:25:03 and read 8677 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
An airline doesn't force you to travel somewhere....you are 'choosing' to travel through your own free will and paying them for a provided service !!

A service that FR didn't provide: they didn't fly the passengers back home as stipulated in the contract.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
BA flew me to Nairobi where I got my leg bitten off whilst on Safari. How dare they transport me to such a dangerous environment. Call the lawyers !!

I really really fail to see how this is relevant.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-01-31 07:44:10 and read 8609 times.

Quoting ScottishDavie (Reply 2):
There is something inherently illogical about a passenger who has paid a few pounds to fly with FR being entitled to substantial compensation from them if the flight can't operate because of circumstances entirely outwith their control.

As Quokkas said, the price paid for a service is of no importance. The airline said they would deliver something but didn't. How much they wanted for it is irrelevant once both parties have agreed and it is paid.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
People have to take responsibilty for their own actions and choices.

I agree people should take responsibility for their actions. I do not understand why airlines shouldn't? I have no idea how an individual has more responsibility for an airline not operating than the airline.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
BA flew me to Nairobi where I got my leg bitten off whilst on Safari. How dare they transport me to such a dangerous environment. Call the lawyers !!

No similarity to the issue at hand. In this example BA delivered you to Nairobi as agreed. Ryanair failed to deliver what they had agreed to provide.

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 8):
it does say Reasonable compensation- since the passenger only paid for 1 EUR in fare maybe they should only get 1 EUR back, that seams reasonable...

As explained above reasonable compensation is for costs caused by not providing promised service. Agreed price paid for the service becomes irrelevant once agreed and paid.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2013-01-31 07:45:41 and read 8609 times.

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 8):
since the passenger only paid for 1 EUR in fare

The passenger? Which one? FR carries more than one passenger per year, indeed per flight and I understand from the prices quoted on their website (and from their annual accounts it is obvious) passengers normally pay a lot more than 1€. How else could the company survive for so long?

But reasonable in the context of the decision is not linked to the fare paid. It is reasonable in terms of the length of the delay, the number of meals consumed and any accommodation required based on the location and normal costs. So for a delay of less than eight hours accommodation may not be required but a couple of meals and some drinks (non-alcoholic) might be regarded as reasonable. A taxi fare to the most expensive restaurant in town when there are plenty of alternatives available at the airport would not. Similarly, if accommodation is required, a standard room at a basic hotel may be reasonable. The penthouse/ presidential suite at a leading hotel of the world might not unless it can be shown no other choice was available.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: moo
Posted 2013-01-31 07:50:37 and read 8587 times.

But why is this specific to airlines? I was stuck in London overnight recently when trains were cancelled due to the snow - the train company isn't required to provide me with a hotel or meals, I had to do all that myself.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: ScottishDavie
Posted 2013-01-31 07:58:01 and read 8552 times.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 7):
As we don't know what individual passengers may have paid the cost of the ticket is an irrelevance. If you book a taxi to take you a distance of two miles or twenty miles and you are injured in a collision the amount of injury you sustain is just as much, despite the fare normally due to the taxi driver being higher or lower.

I have no idea what taxi fares and/or personal injuries have to do with anything. If I hire a taxi to take me from A to B and half way through the journey torrential rain falls, the roads flood and the taxi driver can neither take me to my destination nor return me to my starting point do I have the right to claim accommodation, meals and all the rest from the taxi company? Of course not and I wouldn't even try.

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 8):
it does say Reasonable compensation- since the passenger only paid for 1 EUR in fare maybe they should only get 1 EUR back, that seams reasonable...

  


Quoting UALWN (Reply 9):
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
BA flew me to Nairobi where I got my leg bitten off whilst on Safari. How dare they transport me to such a dangerous environment. Call the lawyers !!

I really really fail to see how this is relevant.

It may not be relevant but it's amusingly ironic, at least to me

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: art
Posted 2013-01-31 08:07:39 and read 8510 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 6):
European courts continue to amaze me. The governments shut down the air space, then require the airlines to compensate people for being inconvenienced. The airlines were prohibited from taking people to their destinations, yet they still have to pay. Mind-boggling

It's the law that amazes me somewhat. As you say the airlines are effectively being forced to insure their customers against their carriage contract being frustrated by government-appointed bodies making it impossible for airlines to honour their contract. I think the law should be changed.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: rfields5421
Posted 2013-01-31 08:08:51 and read 8500 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 12):
But why is this specific to airlines?

Tradition.

Airlines were imposed similar responsibilities to shipping lines when they were first created. About having passengers stranded a far from home destinations. This grew into the current system as airline travel expanded world-wide.

That said - I have to contrast what happened in Europe during this event to what happened in Canada after the US airspace was closed on 9/11/01.

Though Canada faced a major problem - their approx 33,000 unplanned visitors was much smaller than those stranded across Europe.

As to why the suit and judgement against RyanAir -

I believe, but cannot cite a reference, that RyanAir took a hard-line stance that stranded passengers were not the airline's problem when the volcano shutdown occured. This forum had several threads about the efforts of other airlines to assist their stranded passengers - and other threads about RyanAir saying 'Not my problem'

I could be wrong, but my impression at the time was that RyanAir was being the worst a**hole airline in Europe as far as helping passengers get home.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2013-01-31 08:09:27 and read 8498 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 12):
But why is this specific to airlines?

A good question. But with buses and railways it is often normal (for domestic travel at least) to just walk up and buy a ticket at the station or on-board the conveyance. This is not typical of airlines that usually sell tickets far in advance of the date of travel. That isn't to say that you can't just turn up and get on a flight if seats happen to be available or that you can't book a rail or coach ticket for long-distance in advance, but when the legislation was first drafted it was far less common. If a person has not booked and paid for transport in advance, no contractual obligation exists and therefore no compensation is due.

Again, that is an issue that needs looking at with the legislation being updated so that the same principals apply in similar circumstances, regardless of the form of transport. Where competition exists on a number of routes (rail, coach and air to the same destinations from the same origin) it is unfair that one service provider enjoys an advantage over another. Whatever legislative changes that may occur in future, it is likely that the guiding principal would remain whether a contractual obligation exists and that would exclude ad hoc (walk-up, pay on board) travel arrangements like those of the tube, local bus company, etc.



Corrected spelling not picked up by spellchecker

[Edited 2013-01-31 08:34:50]

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: readytotaxi
Posted 2013-01-31 08:15:13 and read 8467 times.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21273666

It would appear that all this ended up at the ECJ because the Irish court was unsure how to proceed.

" Her case had been referred to the ECJ by the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, which had sought clarification of EU law."

And see this.

But the judges' ruling - now binding across the EU - said such events "constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' which do not release air carriers from their obligation to provide care".

EU airlines beware.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2013-01-31 08:25:41 and read 8425 times.

Quoting ScottishDavie (Reply 13):
I have no idea what taxi fares and/or personal injuries have to do with anything.

The point is that the fare paid is not relevant and that was your original objection. The damage sustained to a customer is not related to the fare paid. Quite simple really. Just because someone may have paid less (and it has not be shown in any evidence that they did - it is merely assumed that they did) does not mean that they are less entitled to whatever compensation is available under law.

Why it applies only to airlines and not other forms of transport is quite separate to the level of fares and was not an issue raised in your post but I have addressed that question in subsequent contributions. For me the real issue is why the airlines should be held liable for government actions. While the airlines might reasonably compensate the passengers for not being able to honour their obligations as a result of government directives, I do believe that the airlines should then be able to claim that back from the governments involved in one shape or form.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: packsonflight
Posted 2013-01-31 08:32:49 and read 8390 times.

Under standard Force Majeure clause they would not be responsible I would think.

"Force majeure is generally intended to include risks beyond the reasonable control of a party, incurred not as a product or result of the negligence or malfeasance of a party, which have a materially adverse effect on the ability of such party to perform its obligations,[4] as where non-performance is caused by the usual and natural consequences of external forces (for example, predicted rain stops an outdoor event), or where the intervening circumstances are specifically contemplated".
(Wikipedia)

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-01-31 08:41:25 and read 8347 times.

Nobody forces me to drive but if I do I must insure my car. That's the same logic with airlines, they must prepare for that kind of situation.

Quoting moo (Reply 1):
and as airspace was closed then the decision was taken out of Ryanairs hands in reality

Well even if the airspace wasn't closed we don't want airlines to take risks because it's cheaper than the alternative.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15):
other threads about RyanAir saying 'Not my problem'

And saying people were morons etc., in typical Ryanair fashion.

Topic: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: YULWinterSkies
Posted 2013-01-31 18:25:52 and read 6579 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 6):
European courts continue to amaze me. The governments shut down the air space, then require the airlines to compensate people for being inconvenienced. The airlines were prohibited from taking people to their destinations, yet they still have to pay. Mind-boggling

You know this thing called insurance. Airlines can probably get covered for this, just like your own insurance can cover you for travel issues.

Quoting art (Reply 14):
It's the law that amazes me somewhat. As you say the airlines are effectively being forced to insure their customers against their carriage contract being frustrated by government-appointed bodies making it impossible for airlines to honour their contract. I think the law should be changed.


I don't know why you're saying so. It's not like they aren't free to raise the fares to compensate for the potential refunds they will have to make.
Without an obligation to compensate pax, airlines would otherwise take the inverse approach, which in my opinion is taken on a routine basis in the US: accuse the weather whenever it looks bad enough, cancel the money-losing flight, tell pax to go pi-- off when they ask whether they are eligible for compensation. When I see how little snow can cancel so many regional flights and how many people end up renting car to get home, I sometimes wonder... After all, airlines are among the most hated companies in the US, and there are multiple reasons behind this.

I know I'm going to get unpopular, oh whatever, no one is entitled to anything, except their own opinion.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 15):
I could be wrong, but my impression at the time was that RyanAir was being the worst a**hole airline in Europe as far as helping passengers get home.

Of course they were, they still are and will always be.

Quoting usxguy (Reply 22):
maybe its in Queen's English instead of American English?

Nope.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-01-31 22:18:33 and read 5732 times.

As much as I don't want to, I must say that I agree with MOL's above statement.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: spencer
Posted 2013-01-31 22:40:24 and read 5695 times.

iirc, being an affected pax at the time, I was able (freely, might I add) to change my date of departure and that was that. The only issue I've ever had was when we got snowed in a couple of years ago at STN one night and ALL flights were canx. A RYR rep came on the bull horn and reassured everyone that rebooking was the only option. This then resulted in every single hotel room in the area being booked and pretty much nothing could get in or out of the airport. I ended up on the bench for one night which I wish they (RYR) could've compensated me for, somehow but again, I don't know what they could've done anyway, to improve on the situation.
Spence

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-01-31 23:11:52 and read 5585 times.

Does Ryanair still charge the €2 fee to cover EU 261 claims? Seems like they were planning on being on the losing end of claims.

Ryanair to introduce EU261 compensation levy of €2

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-01-31 23:32:08 and read 5610 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 26):

Yes, they do. See below the attached.

Big version: Width: 794 Height: 512 File size: 1192kb
Levy charge


[Edited 2013-01-31 23:33:32]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-01 00:52:11 and read 5272 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
If you choose to leave your habitat / home then you must be prepared for all eventualities whilst away. I'm sure most of us just play the percentages and hope a volcano doesn't erupt etc or we'd never go anywhere.

A contract is a contract. I pay, and FR or U2 or BA will fly me from A to B on the specified date. Buying a ticket comes at a inherent risk to both the passenger and the airline. If I buy a non-refundable ticket and then a loved one dies on the day I wanted to fly - I've got a problem, not the airline.

Eyafiallajoküll erupts up there in Iceland? The airline got a problem, not me. There are always risks in doing business, and businessmen know how to look at them, calculate them and take proper measures.

The interest rates on loans are risk premiums. If you think a debtor is in trouble, you want to raise the interests. If you think your money is safe, you lower the interests. A debtor in trouble does not have to pay back the loans, because... that risk is already covered by the interest rates. Business hazard simple and easy. And that's why I find the EU politics towards Greece deeply troubling: The governments are asked to help out the banks that did not properly insure their *own* risks.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
Does an airline become a persons 'legal guardian' ?

Oh yes they do. As an alpine tour guide I have a contractual duty to protect the lives of my "customers". I have to take every reasonable measure to do that. The people doing alpine hikes with me are specifically asking for my experience and expertise, they specifically are giving up their own responsability, but in turn they get to do something they would (or should) not do on their own. And they have to follow my orders. 

It's not as easy as you think. The same happens with airline travel.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: jet72uk
Posted 2013-02-01 01:00:08 and read 5238 times.

This is brilliant news.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-01 01:19:34 and read 5151 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):BA flew me to Nairobi where I got my leg bitten off whilst on Safari. How dare they transport me to such a dangerous environment. Call the lawyers !!
No similarity to the issue at hand. In this example BA delivered you to Nairobi as agreed. Ryanair failed to deliver what they had agreed to provide.

It is the same thing. By allowing the airline to transport you it resulted in you getting your leg bit off or in this case getting stuck somehere.

Both incidents occured whilst you were not on board the aircraft and at your destination.

I expect the government to keep the highway system safe and moving. I don't expect them to pay for my accomodation if I get stuck at Aunty Doreens in Skegness due to bad weather and can't afford to look after myself during my extended stay.

If it is not the fault of the airline it is not the fault of the airline. End of.

If it is the airlines fault then different story.

[Edited 2013-02-01 01:20:08]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-02-01 01:40:37 and read 5040 times.

As a business owner, I find this crazy.

Recently I was stranded at MUC due to heavy snow. All the hotels were booked, we had to sleep on the terminal. We got no food coupons or anything (which _might_ be a good thing for the Airline to do, just to better position their brand).

But really, what could they do? They can't get us on other planes, can't put us on trains or any other means of transport. It was completely out of their hands.

So why not simply be reasonable about it, have a story to tell about a night spent on the terminal, and be done with it??

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Dogbreath
Posted 2013-02-01 01:58:20 and read 4951 times.

Quoting jet72uk (Reply 29):
This is brilliant news.

Why may I ask do say this is good news?

This probably won't affect Ryanair too much. I believe they've got roughly €4 billion in cash in the bank at any one time, and may just add another fee to compensate.

But what about all those other airlines struggling to stay afloat. This ruling must be a disaster to them. Another major weather event or a blanket airspace closure due to volcanic ash, this ruling could kill them off. Surely the last thing we need in European airspace is more airline departures, as Ryanair grows even larger. Yeah that's just great news!! Not!

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: AndyEastMids
Posted 2013-02-01 02:02:48 and read 4939 times.

Really good news Ryanair lost... This ruling by the EU court wasn't really about what the law says and what obligations it creates - which you can either agree with or disagree with... It was about Ryanair deciding it could ignore the law.

Many airlines took a compliant, helpful and sympathetic approach with respect to the volcano - for example, I was in San Francisco and my flight was cancelled between leaving the hotel (already checked in) and reaching the airport... Within a few minutes, I was rebooked on a future flight and back in a hotel, courtesy of an airline that isn't even an EU airline.

Ryanair can bitch and moan, campaign to have the law changed, do pretty much anything it wants to, except ignore the law. That's what this case was about and that's why they lost.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: kdhurst380
Posted 2013-02-01 02:28:16 and read 4806 times.

This all boils down to the fact that Ryanair is a low cost carrier, keeping it's costs minimal so that those savings can be passed on to passengers.

I can only guess that this law was passed to stop airlines dodging a duty of care where the situation was inside their control or their fault, however, this was a government decision that airlines didn't contract to or sign up to, yet they're still burdened with all the costs; that isn't fair in the slightest.

Of course the EU were never going to take on these costs, why would they when they're up to their eyeballs in debt and have a law to hide behind. I'm not surprised David Cameron wants an in or out vote, when an organisation can act in such a manner; but that's for another day.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: UALWN
Posted 2013-02-01 02:40:28 and read 4759 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 30):
If it is not the fault of the airline it is not the fault of the airline. End of.

Not really. There's EU rule 261 that stipulates compensation even in the event of "force majeure." The funny thing is that FR already charges 2 pounds per segment to cover their expenses under rule EU261:

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryana...-eu261-compensation-levy-of-2-euro

They explicitly mention the 2010 volcano mess in that press release.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 02:42:24 and read 4742 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 30):
It is the same thing. By allowing the airline to transport you it resulted in you getting your leg bit off or in this case getting stuck somehere.

No, they are completely different. In your BA example BA delivered as contracted. In the Ryanair case they failed to deliver as contrcted.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 30):
Both incidents occured whilst you were not on board the aircraft and at your destination.

This is where your logic takes you wrong.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 30):
If it is not the fault of the airline it is not the fault of the airline. End of.

Nor is it the fault of the individual, it is not the fault of the individual, it is not the fault of the individual. But it is the airline who didn't deliver as contracted. The individuals complied with their parts of the contract.

Quoting Dogbreath (Reply 32):
This probably won't affect Ryanair too much. I believe they've got roughly €4 billion in cash in the bank at any one time, and may just add another fee to compensate.

They already add a fee for these situations.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-02-01 02:51:00 and read 4694 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 35):
There's EU rule 261 that stipulates compensation even in the event of "force majeure."

Wikipedia says:

"The airline is also required to pay cash compensation as described below, unless one of the following conditions applies:
...
- the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided by any reasonable measure".

The same information is found on Ryanair's http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/eu261-en.pdf and more or less any other EU carrier's page.

Is this information incorrect?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2013-02-01 02:52:46 and read 4695 times.

.

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
But it is the airline who didn't deliver as contracted.

Yes - because of the decision-making of others. (Which is not to suggest that airlines would have flown if it were up to them.) As such, it seems illogical to me for airlines to be responsible, financial and not, following the decision-making of others. Perhaps the airlines should have paid and sought compensation from the governments.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-02-01 02:55:19 and read 4687 times.

In North America, people are told to not travel to the airport well before the impact of adverse weather conditions. We don't see many pictures of people sleeping rough on the floor at JFK/ BOS or YYZ etc. like over here in Europe. It's almost the same story repeating every winter. Is it because of more precise and accurate weather forecast in US / Canada?

[Edited 2013-02-01 02:57:45]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: s5daw
Posted 2013-02-01 03:00:28 and read 4640 times.

Quoting ely747 (Reply 39):
In North America, people are told to not travel to the airport well before the impact of adverse weather conditions.

Uhmm... http://english.eastday.com/e/101229/u1a5638079.html

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-02-01 03:16:04 and read 4562 times.

Quoting s5daw (Reply 40):


Okey okey don't take it that seriously   I never said such scenarios do not occur at all. Of course they do, but with less frequency and less chaos. I dare say, the US north east coast gets far more snow fall and freeze then what we usually see in Western Europe. If it was down to me, I would hire the Canadians to manage winter preparedness at major European airports and I am pretty sure the business would have been taken care of by now.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 03:24:15 and read 4547 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 6):
European courts continue to amaze me. The governments shut down the air space, then require the airlines to compensate people for being inconvenienced. The airlines were prohibited from taking people to their destinations, yet they still have to pay. Mind-boggling

You misunderstand - the court ruling stated explicitly that no compensation is to be paid.
However, hotel and food costs are to be reimbursed.
This was the legal situation even before the ash cloud happened, so it's something every airline in the EU will have to be aware of. It's just that Ryanair chose not to comply with the regulations, got sued about it - and lost (not for the first time, either). Which had been widely expected by legal experts, too.

As it happens, I was stuck in Tokyo at the time, after a 3-week holiday in Japan. Literally the other side of the world, and one of the most expensive cities anywhere. We were supposed to fly out on the 18th of April and didn't get back until the 24th.
There's a surprising number of things you need to take care of when you're stuck abroad for way longer than planned. Such as visas potentially expiring, informing your employer (and making arrangements with them on the extended leave, which isn't really your fault, either), finding new accommodation, trying to establish contact with the airline while ensuring you're also available in case they want to call you (not as easy as it sounds, as Japan uses a mobile phone frequency band that in 2010 wasn't supported by most phones sold elsewhere), making trips to and from the airport in case there's room on a flight that's going to get you back home, making sure bills at home are paid on time, etc. Never mind that everybody's not in the best of moods in that sort of situation.

So yeah, it certainly was at least a bit of a relief to not have to worry about the additional cost of accommodation and food at that time. And yeah, it was EU law at the time already that airlines would have to reimburse you, so I certainly would expect my carrier to adhere to that - rather than having to sue them.
The very efficient and unbureaucratic way in which Virgin (in our case) handled this made actually me a lot more likely to choose Virgin again in the future.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 03:37:59 and read 4523 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 10):
I agree people should take responsibility for their actions. I do not understand why airlines shouldn't? I have no idea how an individual has more responsibility for an airline not operating than the airline.

  

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 17):
But the judges' ruling - now binding across the EU - said such events "constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' which do not release air carriers from their obligation to provide care".

EU airlines beware.

They don't have to. All airlines are aware of this legislation and acted accordingly. It's just Ryanair that had to be sued over it because they weren't compliant; and now they're acting all surprised that they lost and add some stuff about how if this holds, ticket prices will have to increase. Possibly true for Ryanair - but only because they didn't price in the potential effects of legislation that they were very aware of and that all other EU airlines (to my knowledge) adhered to (and probably had priced into their tickets as well).

Case in point being Virgin Atlantic - I can testify that they were very aware of the legislation. They actually entered an arrangement with BA (!) to get us back home as quickly as possible, and then had a dedicated webpage set up to make it as easy as possible to claim accommodation and meal expenses incurred by passenger that were stuck due to the ash cloud.

So just to reiterate - no concern for the EU airline industry needed. This court rule just reiterates what was the status quo long before the ash cloud happened, and all EU airlines knew this and acted accordingly. All but one, anyway.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-01 03:48:48 and read 4491 times.

When does common sense feature in this scenario ?

What if there was a major volcanic eruption that played havoc with and grounded airline travel for months ?

Quoting cmf (Reply 36):
Nor is it the fault of the individual, it is not the fault of the individual, it is not the fault of the individual. But it is the airline who didn't deliver as contracted. The individuals complied with their parts of the contract.

Yes I do agree with you but it's not the fault of the airline is it. Surely their only obligation is to fulfil their obligations when it is safe to do so ??

The paramount concern of any airline is afterall safety is it not ?

Maybe we should blame Iceland ? It was their volcano !

 

Isn't it just a case of tough sh*t ?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 04:04:55 and read 4434 times.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 33):
Many airlines took a compliant, helpful and sympathetic approach with respect to the volcano - for example, I was in San Francisco and my flight was cancelled between leaving the hotel (already checked in) and reaching the airport... Within a few minutes, I was rebooked on a future flight and back in a hotel, courtesy of an airline that isn't even an EU airline.

Ryanair can bitch and moan, campaign to have the law changed, do pretty much anything it wants to, except ignore the law. That's what this case was about and that's why they lost.

  

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 34):
I can only guess that this law was passed to stop airlines dodging a duty of care where the situation was inside their control or their fault, however, this was a government decision that airlines didn't contract to or sign up to

This was not the decision of any government, least of all an EU government (which doesn't exist as such). As evident by the fact that even Serbia, Norway, Switzerland and other non-EU member states closed their airspace as well. The decision to close airspace was purely down to local air safety and air control authorities, not to Angela Merkel, . There was never a full lockdown, either - parts of Irish airspace were still open while German aispace and big parts of the UK's airspace were closed down.

Quoting kdhurst380 (Reply 34):
Of course the EU were never going to take on these costs, why would they when they're up to their eyeballs in debt and have a law to hide behind. I'm not surprised David Cameron wants an in or out vote, when an organisation can act in such a manner; but that's for another day.

This may go against a simple "Everything bad is the EU's fault" line of thought, but: The airspace closure has absolutely nothing to do with the UK's position in the EU, or even the EU at all. There was never any EU directive telling everybody to shut down. As I said above - plenty of non-EU countries closed their airspace (or parts thereof) as well. The British Civil Aviation Authority could have chosen to leave UK airspace open based on their own best judgement. But - they didn't. In fact, they closed parts of Scottish and Northern Irish airspace when all other EU countries were pretty much back to normal again. They just may have had a factual reason for that.

The only part where the EU comes into play in this whole affair is the legislation stipulating that airlines reimburse their passengers for meals and accommodation while they're stuck. As things stand, this legislation was agreed to by all EU member countries, including the UK, so all airlines in EU countries have to adhere to it.
If somebody wants to have that particular piece of legislation changed, they're free to bring in a motion to that effect. None of the major airlines - including VS and BA - have so far shown any inclination to do so, though.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-01 04:13:00 and read 4427 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
If you choose to leave your habitat / home then you must be prepared for all eventualities whilst away. I'm sure most of us just play the percentages and hope a volcano doesn't erupt etc or we'd never go anywhere.

A contract is a contract. I pay, and FR or U2 or BA will fly me from A to B on the specified date. Buying a ticket comes at a inherent risk to both the passenger and the airline. If I buy a non-refundable ticket and then a loved one dies on the day I wanted to fly - I've got a problem, not the airline.

Eyafiallajoküll erupts up there in Iceland? The airline got a problem, not me. There are always risks in doing business, and businessmen know how to look at them, calculate them and take proper measures.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 3):
Does an airline become a persons 'legal guardian' ?

Oh yes they do. As an alpine tour guide I have a contractual duty to protect the lives of my "customers". I have to take every reasonable measure to do that. The people doing alpine hikes with me are specifically asking for my experience and expertise, they specifically are giving up their own responsability, but in turn they get to do something they would (or should) not do on their own. And they have to follow my orders. 

It's not as easy as you think. The same happens with airline travel.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 04:21:17 and read 4405 times.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 35):
Not really. There's EU rule 261 that stipulates compensation even in the event of "force majeure." The funny thing is that FR already charges 2 pounds per segment to cover their expenses under rule EU261:

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryana...-eu261-compensation-levy-of-2-euro

They explicitly mention the 2010 volcano mess in that press release.

So they have to be sued to actually pay out, but still charge an extra levy of £2/€2 per flight to cover their expenses incurred by that legislation? I can only assume they actually mean covering legal expenses by that  
Quoting s5daw (Reply 37):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 35):
There's EU rule 261 that stipulates compensation even in the event of "force majeure."

Wikipedia says:

"The airline is also required to pay cash compensation as described below, unless one of the following conditions applies:
...
- the cancellation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that could not have been avoided by any reasonable measure".

The same information is found on Ryanair's http://www.ryanair.com/doc/faqs/eu261-en.pdf and more or less any other EU carrier's page.

Is this information incorrect?

Yup. Note the difference between "compensation" and "reimbursement", though.
Compensation basically refers to a sort of damage payment, e.g. for getting to you destination later than planned, not at all, etc. This compensation is only due under certain circumstances - depending on the total delay, distance travelled, reason for delay/cancellation, etc., and the maximum compensation amount specified by EU regulation 261 is €600.
However, reimbursement of meals, accommodation, etc. when a flight is delayed or cancelled is due under almost all circumstances for any flight delayed for longer than 3 or 4 hours, as reconfirmed by the court ruling.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 44):
Yes I do agree with you but it's not the fault of the airline is it. Surely their only obligation is to fulfil their obligations when it is safe to do so ??

The paramount concern of any airline is afterall safety is it not ?

Yup - and it's also the airline's risk to be conducting their business, which obviously relies on being able to take off and land. It's a long-established legislation, airlines are aware of it, act accordingly and have this priced into their tickets - and probably taken out insurance against it as well. Never mind that an ash cloud isn't an everyday occurrence, either. Although I suspect that Ryanair doesn't really mind the effect of EU 261 in relation to such rare events, but rather its effect if a plane goes tech and the flight is consequently delayed by more than 3 or 4 hours/cancelled altogether.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 05:17:16 and read 4320 times.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 38):
Yes - because of the decision-making of others. (Which is not to suggest that airlines would have flown if it were up to them.) As such, it seems illogical to me for airlines to be responsible, financial and not, following the decision-making of others. Perhaps the airlines should have paid and sought compensation from the governments.

I agree that at first thought it seems illogical. But when you start looking a bit closer you realize that it all makes sense.

Sure we can blame it on the governments and make them responsible for the costs. But do we want that? Why should people not flying be part of paying the costs?

More importantly, in these extreme circumstances do we really want the final decision be made under the direct influence of cost? Isn't it better to have it one step removed, put safety first?

As it stands airlines know the rules and thus account for it when setting the price. As Ryainair is so clearly doing on their receipts. Pretty sure Ryanair has positive result on this.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 44):
Yes I do agree with you but it's not the fault of the airline is it. Surely their only obligation is to fulfil their obligations when it is safe to do so ??

Nor is it the fault of the traveler. Nor is it the fault of the government.

The airline's obligations are in the contract and part of that contract is based on the legal requirements set by governments for the privilege to operate in their jurisdiction. The airline is free to not operate there. They are also free to set their price and are/should be smart enough to consider their obligations when doing so.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 44):
Maybe we should blame Iceland ? It was their volcano !

Or we can blame God, as we do when we call it an act of God. Good luck getting money to cover your costs that way.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-02-01 05:38:18 and read 4282 times.

Quoting ScottishDavie (Reply 2):
I'm not the greatest FR fan but I tend to agree with moo. There is something inherently illogical about a passenger who has paid a few pounds to fly with FR being entitled to substantial compensation from them if the flight can't operate because of circumstances entirely outwith their control. The insurance point is well made.

That's ridiculous. It's the law and anyone who enters the business knows it so they need to plan for these "circumstances outside of their control". FR and anyone else can claim that the law is unfair and loby to change it but until the law changes which it won't, they have to abide by it and insure against it. That's why insurance exists.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 44):
Yes I do agree with you but it's not the fault of the airline is it. Surely their only obligation is to fulfil their obligations when it is safe to do so ??

And it's no the fault of the passenger either, but the passenger has already paid the airline. If I get sick and can't fly I doubt very much that FR will give me my money back because after all, getting sick is outside of my control. It's on me to plan for that. If an airline can't fullfil their contract with the passenger, they're in breach regardless of the reason, as far as I'm concerned, so they need to insure themselves against it.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: MillwallSean
Posted 2013-02-01 06:09:53 and read 4240 times.

I don't get why people are defending Ryanair here.
They charge 2 Euros per ticket for situations just like this and when a textbook example happen they refuse to pay out?
Dont charge those 2 euros then...
Nah if you charge for it, then do what the law stipulates like all other airlines managed to.
I hope the EU throws the book at them (what is it, up to 50% of annual global turnover they can fine companies) let their damages be higher than anything we have seen before. They are constantly acting like they are above the law and that's not ok. Complete disrespect for legislation deserves contempt and if they once had to pay they would from that second follow every law to the letter, they are after all experts on financial calculations.
(I usually support Ryanair but in this case they are way way out of line - would be like cheating on maintenance and blaming the passengers)

Also the court explicitly said that because this was force majeure no compensation needed to be paid out. The usual hundreds of Euros so all Ryanair needed to do was look after its passengers that showed up at the airport with tickets.

And for those speaking about EU, first Ryanair is Irish so they shouldn't be flying from the UK at all if the UK is out of the EU.
Secondly the UK in or out wont matter a thing when it comes to this, the common European airspace UK is one of the driving forces behind and we will fight tooth and nails to be allowed to remain inside it even if we opt out of the EU...
Will we be allowed (will airlines such as Easyjet have to move HQ and registrations to Europe) that will be entirely up to the EU but in this case the precedent of Switzerland and Norway is that they will be part of it but have to adapt to whatever the EU decides..

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-01 06:46:03 and read 4168 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 50):
And it's no the fault of the passenger either, but the passenger has already paid the airline

Yes and surely as long as they get you home when it is safe to do so they are doing all they can ?

It's an improportianate response to expect your airline to pay for your accomodation and food indefinitely because of matters outside of their control ?

If 'Icelandgate' had involved a particularly nasty eruption of some duration it could have bankrupt many airlines could it not ?

Governments should takecare of their overseas citizens during times of international crisis not private commercial transportation companies. I think anyway.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-02-01 06:59:16 and read 4152 times.

Quoting shufflemoomin (Reply 4):
With the exception of cruise ships, most other travel methods don't have you more than a few hundred miles from home. With ground based transport, there are other options to get your to your destination but that's usually not the case with flying.

With many Ryanair flights that's not true. I was in northern Germany at the time of the ash cloud and strongly considered taking a bus back to the UK, which is possible from many other points too. In the end, the first flight I could get was arriving on the same day as the bus would, so I sat tight and went with the flight. I knew perfectly well that the ash cloud was massively beyond the control of the airline, and took it for what it was - a natural phenomenon that nobody reasonably could be expected to know would happen. As others have stated, travel insurance is for things like this, and had I have incurred significant expense that is where I would claim. Ludicrous to expect the airline to pick up everyone's costs after a volcano erupts and spews ash across half of Europe.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 07:04:39 and read 4139 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 52):
It's an improportianate response to expect your airline to pay for your accomodation and food indefinitely because of matters outside of their control ?

How is it appropriate to expect an individual to have enough resources to pay for food and accommodation while waiting for an airline to provide the agreed service because of an event outside both the airlines and individuals control. And then continue to provide food and accommodation while waiting for the airline to come about and deliver agreed service once the original event is open?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 52):
If 'Icelandgate' had involved a particularly nasty eruption of some duration it could have bankrupt many airlines could it not ?

Even more likely, it would bankrupt many of the individuals who could not get home to their jobs.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-01 07:22:18 and read 4081 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
How is it appropriate to expect an individual to have enough resources to pay for food and accommodation while waiting for an airline to provide the agreed service because of an event outside both the airlines and individuals control. And then continue to provide food and accommodation while waiting for the airline to come about and deliver agreed service once the original event is open?
Quoting cmf (Reply 54):
Even more likely, it would bankrupt many of the individuals who could not get home to their jobs.

Maybe air travel is 'too easy' and 'too cheap' and perhaps people should think more carefully before carrying themselves and their families to places far away from home ?

[Edited 2013-02-01 07:22:39]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 07:26:53 and read 4069 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 55):
Maybe air travel is 'too easy' and 'too cheap' and perhaps people should think more carefully before carrying themselves and their families to places far away from home ?

How do you think that would affect the airlines? I'll bet they all happily take the costs for food and accommodation before this suggestion.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Dahlgardo
Posted 2013-02-01 07:41:24 and read 4037 times.

They must abide the rules like anyone else and stop whining.
Ryanair is quite swift to charge passengers that don't follow their rules (like not printing out boarding pass).
Shows a lot about their ethics. Shame on Ryanair.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2013-02-01 08:37:31 and read 3956 times.

Quoting silentbob (Reply 6):
The governments shut down the air space, then require the airlines to compensate people for being inconvenienced. The airlines were prohibited from taking people to their destinations, yet they still have to pay.
Quoting art (Reply 14):
As you say the airlines are effectively being forced to insure their customers against their carriage contract being frustrated by government-appointed bodies making it impossible for airlines to honour their contract.

I am nearly certain, the government appointed bodies did not make it "impossible to honor their contract" out of sheer pleasure but due to extraordinary and serious circumstannces and I would very much prefer it remains that it is these government bodies which set the safety standarts, not some penny pinchers at Ryanair

[Edited 2013-02-01 08:38:02]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 08:43:51 and read 3948 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 52):
Governments should takecare of their overseas citizens during times of international crisis not private commercial transportation companies. I think anyway.

So you want the taxpayer to foot the bill? I'm sure if there was an EU rule about that, you'd be up in arms about how your tax money goes into subsidising airlines and other people's travels.
Applying the same logic that you applied in Ryanair's (the airlines') defense - it's neither the taxpayers' "fault" that the volcano erupted, nor the governments'. So why should they foot the bill?
Nah - cost has to stay with the party that offers the service and that has to make provisions for the risk involved with offering that service. Airlines know about this, can take out insurance against this, and also calculate ticket prices accordingly.
To reiterate - the legislation has been in place for years, and is being applied on a daily basis by many airlines (although in more local circumstances like failed engines, local storms, etc., rather than a closure of large parts of airspace). Airlines have been abiding by it for years and have a good idea of the costs involved.
There is only one prominent example of an airline that chose not to comply with the rules during the ash cloud, when every other airline did.

As has been reiterated many times in this thread - people are entitled to disagree with the legislation as it is, and put in a movement to abolish it (good luck with that). But in the meantime, there is no choice but to abide by the law. There is no "pick and mix" of which laws you feel like complying with.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 53):
As others have stated, travel insurance is for things like this, and had I have incurred significant expense that is where I would claim. Ludicrous to expect the airline to pick up everyone's costs after a volcano erupts and spews ash across half of Europe.

Your travel insurance would probably have pointed out to you that this sort of thing is not covered by them, because legally, the airline is responsible for picking up that sort of cost.

Quoting cmf (Reply 54):

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 52):
"If 'Icelandgate' had involved a particularly nasty eruption of some duration it could have bankrupt many airlines could it not ?"

Even more likely, it would bankrupt many of the individuals who could not get home to their jobs.

  

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Quoting 1400mph (Reply 55):
"Maybe air travel is 'too easy' and 'too cheap' and perhaps people should think more carefully before carrying themselves and their families to places far away from home ?"

How do you think that would affect the airlines? I'll bet they all happily take the costs for food and accommodation before this suggestion.

  

Quoting Dahlgardo (Reply 57):
They must abide the rules like anyone else and stop whining.
Ryanair is quite swift to charge passengers that don't follow their rules (like not printing out boarding pass).
Shows a lot about their ethics. Shame on Ryanair.

 yes 

[Edited 2013-02-01 08:47:31]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2013-02-01 08:57:42 and read 3916 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 59):
So why should they foot the bill?

Because regulators, as at least partial government bodies, decided to close the airspace that led to the inability of airlines to fulfil their obligation under their contracts with passengers. (Recall that some airlines, like BA, did demo flights that led to particular comments.) Given this involuntary inability, why should they be forced to pay? To me, it is illogical.

[Edited 2013-02-01 09:00:40]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Dahlgardo
Posted 2013-02-01 09:04:36 and read 3895 times.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 60):
Because regulators decided to close the airspace that led to the inability of airlines to fulfil their obligation under their contracts with passengers. (Recall that some airlines, like BA, did demo flights that led to particular comments.) Given this involuntary inability, why should they be forced to pay? It is illogical.

Yeah, it's always someone elses fault.
An aircraft goes tech (Boeings fault), Fog (Gods fault)...etc.
Rules are rules and they apply to all, also Ryanair, and they should factor these potential cost into the ticket price (like everyone else).

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Pe@rson
Posted 2013-02-01 09:09:36 and read 3885 times.

Quoting Dahlgardo (Reply 61):
they should factor these potential cost into the ticket price (like everyone else).

They do, as has already been shown with a screenshot, but the issue of unfairness goes deeper than that and applies to all airlines that suffered. Airlines were forced not to operate - it was beyond their control - so why should they be held responsible to the tune of hundreds of millions? Of course, if it were their fault it would be a different story.

[Edited 2013-02-01 09:11:26]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-02-01 09:24:03 and read 3855 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 47):
So they have to be sued to actually pay out, but still charge an extra levy of £2/€2 per flight to cover their expenses incurred by that legislation?

In the press release linked, the levy was introduced after the volcano incident. It wouldn't be accurate to claim that Ryanair would have to be sued to pay out in the case of future events with that levy now in place.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-02-01 09:33:05 and read 3835 times.

Quoting Dahlgardo (Reply 61):
Yeah, it's always someone elses fault.
An aircraft goes tech (Boeings fault), Fog (Gods fault)...etc.

Give me a break.....are you seriously suggesting that the ash cloud was anything like an aircraft going tech? There was NOTHING any airline could do about it, and fog normally clears in hours.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Dahlgardo
Posted 2013-02-01 09:37:30 and read 3830 times.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 59):
They do, as has already been shown with a screenshot, but the issue of unfairness goes deeper than that and applies to all airlines that suffered. Airlines were forced not to operate - it was beyond their control - so why should they be held responsible to the tune of hundreds of millions? Of course, if it were their fault it would be a different story.

Airlines are forced not to operate in fog, a blizzard, during a terror threat or what-ever, it's a part of the risk of providing this kind of service. Sometimes new situations will surprise airlines, but it does not release them from their obligation described in the law. The legistators have decided to protect the costumer more than the airline, and I think that's a fair principle. If Ryanair or any other airlines wants to whine about that, they can, but they're still obligated to obey the law.

[Edited 2013-02-01 09:39:29]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: avion660
Posted 2013-02-01 10:51:05 and read 3731 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 56):
As has been reiterated many times in this thread - people are entitled to disagree with the legislation as it is, and put in a movement to abolish it (good luck with that). But in the meantime, there is no choice but to abide by the law. There is no "pick and mix" of which laws you feel like complying with.

Quite right.

Can I just reiterate that Ryanair have nothing to whine about. As pointed out DOZENS of posts ago, they have been charging an EU261 levy for ages. Surely they have been using this steady income stream wisely as some sort of insurance, (either purchasing a policy or investing it) to cover themselves in circumstances when they have to pay to look after passengers? Why should they be forced to look after their passengers? Because it's the law. If you still don't know what EU261/2004 is .. have a read:
www.air-passenger-rights.co.uk/ec-regulation-261-2004/

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-02-01 11:03:37 and read 3705 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 26):

Oh yes they do. As an alpine tour guide I have a contractual duty to protect the lives of my "customers". I have to take every reasonable measure to do that.

This has nothing to do with protecting lives. It's about a private company having to pay compensation for an event they did not initiate and a grounding that was legislatively forced upon them.

Quoting AndyEastMids (Reply 31):
It was about Ryanair deciding it could ignore the law



Challenging boneheaded laws in court is how boneheaded laws get changed....in a reasonable world.

If you want compensation for force majeure events, buy force majeure insurance...just like if I want auto, home, personal protection or compensation for an unforeseeable but possible event Lots of airlines offer cancellation insurance at an extra expense, but for a savings, take a chance and don't buy insurance...your choice.

It's easy to blame Ryanair because, among other things, MOL is a dick...(amusing, but a dick). People fly Ryanair for one reason...price. They don't want to pay for pesky things like insurance, food, window shades, whatever. They are not buying a full service ticket, so they shouldn't expect full service perks.

Another case where the nanny state has to hold the hand of those who can't handle personal responsibility.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 11:16:04 and read 3673 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 60):
In the press release linked, the levy was introduced after the volcano incident. It wouldn't be accurate to claim that Ryanair would have to be sued to pay out in the case of future events with that levy now in place.

That still amounts to Ryanair wanting to get the best of both worlds by deciding on their own from what point in time they apply a law. (On a side note: Do you seriously believe that if Ryanair had won the case they would have reimbursed those people that already paid the levy in the last two-odd years?)

EU 261 was not passed because of the ash cloud, it came into effect over 5 years before that, i.e. the ash cloud disruption was certainly covered by it.
Never mind that it's not really up to FR to decide if or from when on a rule applies to them, but their actions over it do seem a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand, they accept that the rule is in place and use this as an excuse to introduce a levy. On the other hand, they refuse to fulfil their obligations under that rule (contrary to everybody else).
Whether or not Ryanair's "EU 261" levy was in place at the time of the ash cloud is completely immaterial to this, because EU 261 certainly was in effect at the time, and its application is not contingent on whether or not an airline charged any such levy. (In fact, Ryanair to this day is the only airline to do so.)

They can whine and complain all they want, but it is solely Ryanair's fault if they assumed that EU 261 would apply to everybody else but not them, and/or if they failed to take out insurance for such cases, and/or failed to calculate the potential impact of such cases into their ticket prices.

Quoting Dahlgardo (Reply 62):
Sometimes new situations will surprise airlines, but it does not release them from their obligation described in the law. The legistators have decided to protect the costumer more than the airline, and I think that's a fair principle. If Ryanair or any other airlines wants to whine about that, they can, but they're still obligated to obey the law.

  

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-02-01 11:36:28 and read 3619 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 65):
(On a side note: Do you seriously believe that if Ryanair had won the case they would have reimbursed those people that already paid the levy in the last two-odd years?)

I don't even see why that would be a question. The levy is a revenue stream Ryanair has established that its passengers will pay. What happens in the future for claims against that levy is in the future.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 12:01:25 and read 3586 times.

Hmm - the more I think about it, the more I wonder if all of this is in fact going exactly to plan.
Knowing Ryanair's antics, I very much assume that they did calculate ticket prices accordingly (to take the potential effects of EU 261 into account) but couldn't resist
a) the temptation of simply not complying with the regulation to see if they could get away with it; if they had got away with it - presto, free money!
b) the money from the extra levy (knowing they would have somebody else to blame for it, again)
c) the free publicity attached to a probable court case
d) the additional free publicity and "we're the underdogs fighting against the big bad government" to be got from claiming that the (expected) court decision would mean fare hikes (ignoring such minute facts like the levy they already charge to - supposedly - cover the very rule the court reinforced; also ignoring the fact that they seem to be alone in the EU airline industry to see things this way)

What leads me to believe this is the fact that, in their 2011 financial report, Ryanair make explicit reference to their obligations under EU 261:

Quote:
The closure of European airspace in April and May 2010, due to the Icelandic volcanic ash disruption, resulted in the cancellation of 9,400 Ryanair flights. The impact on the Group’s operating results totaled 29.7m (pre tax) for the year ended March 31, 2011, comprising 15.6m of operating expenses and 1.7m of finance expenses attributable to the period of flight disruption, together with estimated passenger compensation costs of 12.4m pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 (‘EU261’). The Company’s estimate of total passenger compensation costs has been determined based on actual claims received and processed to date together with probable future compensation payments and other related costs.

So they understood full well what the regulation referred to and how to be compliant with it.
In the same document, they make abundantly clear they don't agree with it.
Based on this, it's not much of a surprise that Ryanair would end up getting sued over it, lose, and make a big song and dance over it again (court cases tend to get more publicity than some paragraphs in your annual report).

For contrast, a statement from a British Airways spokesperson on the court ruling:

Quote:
“We are aware of our obligations under the EU regulations and we will continue to comply with them.”

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: anfromme
Posted 2013-02-01 12:19:52 and read 3545 times.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 66):
Quoting anfromme (Reply 65):
"(On a side note: Do you seriously believe that if Ryanair had won the case they would have reimbursed those people that already paid the levy in the last two-odd years?)"

I don't even see why that would be a question. The levy is a revenue stream Ryanair has established that its passengers will pay. What happens in the future for claims against that levy is in the future.

I was just trying to apply Ryanair's own logic and the logic from your previous statement:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 60):
In the press release linked, the levy was introduced after the volcano incident. It wouldn't be accurate to claim that Ryanair would have to be sued to pay out in the case of future events with that levy now in place.

By that logic, it's ok for Ryanair not to pay in case of disruptions that happened while they didn't charge the levy; if that was the case, it should follow that Ryanair reimburse people who paid the levy if Ryanair had won the case, i.e. they would not have been obliged to pay in the past, present and future, thus not actually incurring the expenses that they introduced the levy for.

Sorry if this is confusing - it was more meant for a quick laugh, rather than a serious statement/thought experiment.  

In any case, it should be clear from everything else that I wrote that I think that Ryanair charging or not charging the levy at any given time is completely irrelevant to whether they must comply with a rule that was in effect and demonstrably well-understood by Ryanair and its competitors at the time of the ash cloud in 2010.
If FR hadn't understood EU 261, they would not have tried to come up with a new label for the ash cloud. EU 261 is applicable even under "extraordinary circumstances", so they effectively tried to invent the category "extra-super-mind-bogglingly-special extraordinary circumstances" which in their own world would exempt Ryanair from having to pay up.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2013-02-01 13:11:16 and read 3461 times.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 68):
I was just trying to apply Ryanair's own logic

There you go again, I thought we learned ya better than that.    

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 13:30:27 and read 3421 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64):
This has nothing to do with protecting lives. It's about a private company having to pay compensation for an event they did not initiate and a grounding that was legislatively forced upon them.

You suggest the grounding wasn't related to protecting lives and property? Maybe you can explain what the grounding was about then? It vertainly wsn't about generating additional taxes or making sure they got elected again.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64):
It's easy to blame Ryanair because, among other things, MOL is a dick...(amusing, but a dick). People fly Ryanair for one reason...price.

No, it is easy to blame Ryainair because the rules had been in place for a long time but Ryainair that they can pick and choose what rules to follow. Rights to fly between any location inside EU, like and follow. Have to follow EU compensation rules, don't like and thus no need to follow.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-02-01 13:55:01 and read 3366 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 46):
Nor is it the fault of the traveler. Nor is it the fault of the government.
Quoting anfromme (Reply 56):
So you want the taxpayer to foot the bill?

The tax payor already paid the bill, they are simply letting their government off the hook.
Governments have been empowered to ensure the safety of the aviation industry, no airline could have operated after the decision was made by claiming that they had a contract to honour with their pax.
Governments maintain embassy's in foreign nations among other things to provide services to their population when they travel and encounter difficulties, the cost of such is included in your taxes. How many pax contacted their embassies when the news of the closure was announced, how many turned to their governments for assistance, and if any did, why do so if you have a carriage of contract with the airline?

This is simply looking for a way to not have the pax loose money, and since the airlines have money, let's have them pay.
They should try to re-coup some of the compensation money from the government, morally they have a case too.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 13:58:21 and read 3363 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 71):
This is simply looking for a way to not have the pax loose money, and since the airlines have money, let's have them pay.

No.

It was a way to make sure that airlines did not get tempted to operate flights in unsafe conditions just to avoid some expenses.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-02-01 14:24:09 and read 3327 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 1):
I'm in two minds about this - other travel methods don't have this sort of burden, and as airspace was closed then the decision was taken out of Ryanairs hands in reality, so I'm not entirely convinced that Ryanair should have to bear the cost of recompensing passengers for what could amount to an unknown period of disruption that could not have been mitigated by the airline.

Personally I agree that airlines cannot be held responsible for events such as this. The airlines wanted to fly but were not permitted to. Remember how BA launched flights from the US before EU airspace was officially opened as a poke at the lethargy of the EU decision makers. (If stopped enroute they could have diverted into Ireland which was 'clear' at the time)

I do agree with another poster above that FR brought this upon themselves as they pretty much refused to help any of their pax back then. Unfortunately for many airlines this could open some floodgates in the future.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 9):
I really really fail to see how this is relevant.

Another reason to love sarcesm.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20):
Nobody forces me to drive but if I do I must insure my car. That's the same logic with airlines, they must prepare for that kind of situation.

This could end up with a situation where FR will refuse to carry you unless you have proof of travel insurance,similar to hiring a car abroad.......... "the FR check -in staff will kindly point you to the FR Travel Insurance counter at the airport before issuing you with your boarding card"

On another note haven't FR been adding an 'extradinary event' fee to all booing since the ash cloud fiasco? At 70M pax a year for 2 years, £1 each becomes £140M.........not bad considering they haven't had a similar disruption since then.
Then add in the £0.50 per pax 'wheelchair levy' (540M profit looks a bit different with that £200M+ included!!)

[Edited 2013-02-01 14:26:59]

[Edited 2013-02-01 14:27:50]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 14:32:06 and read 3305 times.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 73):
This could end up with a situation where FR will refuse to carry you unless you have proof of travel insurance,similar to hiring a car abroad.......... "the FR check -in staff will kindly point you to the FR Travel Insurance counter at the airport before issuing you with your boarding card"

Not unless the EU regulations change.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2013-02-01 15:02:55 and read 3257 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 70):

You suggest the grounding wasn't related to protecting lives and property? Maybe you can explain what the grounding was about then? It vertainly wsn't about generating additional taxes or making sure they got elected again.

Having the airlines pay compensation over both an act of nature and a legislated grounding has nothing to do with safety.

Quoting cmf (Reply 70):
No, it is easy to blame Ryainair because the rules had been in place for a long time but Ryainair that they can pick and choose what rules to follow. Rights to fly between any location inside EU, like and follow. Have to follow EU compensation rules, don't like and thus no need to follow.

And Ryanair fought the rules which is their right to do. The rules were arbitrary and levy on airlines fees and costs other forms of transport don't have to worry about. The court decided to have private companies pay for acts of god and groundings which are totally beyond the control of the airlines.

If they want passengers to have compensation, then the governments which did the grounding should pay or the passengers should be forced to buy insurance.

The airlines responsibility should end with them getting the passengers to their destination, whenever that becomes possible...just like the passengers paid for.

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
It was a way to make sure that airlines did not get tempted to operate flights in unsafe conditions just to avoid some expenses.

The grounding takes care of the safety...having the airlines pay for passenger accommodation does not.

[Edited 2013-02-01 15:05:24]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: EagleBoy
Posted 2013-02-01 15:11:22 and read 3238 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 74):

Not unless the EU regulations change.

I don't think so.
The airline can have being insured to travel as a condition of carriage. The customer choses to fly with FR and ticks the "I agree with the terms and conditions".........hence the pax is then in violation of the T&Cs'


.......I have to qualify this with the admission that I am absolutely NOT a fan of FR. But I am looking at how they can/will spin this their way. They make huge amounts from the wheelchair levy, they have made huge amounts from the 'Ash cloud cover' and they will find a way to make this court ruling make them more money.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: L410Turbolet
Posted 2013-02-01 15:27:00 and read 3225 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64):
They are not buying a full service ticket, so they shouldn't expect full service perks.

Ryanair has absolutely no hesitation to charge price on par or even higher than full service airlines if demand warrants therefore I see no reason why they should not be held up to the same standards. Just because they managed to create a myth about how "cheap" they are does not mean the law should not apply to them.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-01 16:02:47 and read 3192 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 64):
This has nothing to do with protecting lives. It's about a private company having to pay compensation for an event they did not initiate and a grounding that was legislatively forced upon them.

I referred to the "legal guardian" argument used by 1400mph. This applies also to me when I offer these tours.

As a company, you have to fulfill contracts. The passenger wants to fly from A to B at date X and time Y. He's paid for it, and after he's paid, it's the company's turn to fulfill the contract.

It's up to the company to buy insurance against volcano eruptions and other unforeseeable events, or to build financial reserves for such cases.

Entrepreneurship 101.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: par13del
Posted 2013-02-01 17:30:36 and read 3133 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
It was a way to make sure that airlines did not get tempted to operate flights in unsafe conditions just to avoid some expenses.

If this was / is the case the court then made an incorrect ruling and violated the intent of the law. No one is claiming that the airlines should have been operating their flights in spite of the grounding. Safety was already taken care of by the government, all flights were grounded, this is about pay, nothing more.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-01 22:03:18 and read 3035 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 75):
Having the airlines pay compensation over both an act of nature and a legislated grounding has nothing to do with safety

  
You claim the ash grounding wasn't because of safety? I ask again, what was if for then?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 75):
And Ryanair fought the rules which is their right to do.

They have every right to fight for rules not taking effect and for having them changed. They do not have the right to arbitrarily select which of the rules in place they have to follow.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 75):
The rules were arbitrary and levy on airlines fees and costs other forms of transport don't have to worry about.

Can you back up that claim?

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 75):
If they want passengers to have compensation, then the governments which did the grounding should pay or the passengers should be forced to buy insurance.

The mandatory insurance was in place. Airlines had been told (law) to include it in the ticket price.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 75):
The grounding takes care of the safety...having the airlines pay for passenger accommodation does not.

So now you agree the grounding was because of safety. Food and accommodation is to handle the consequences.

The airlines knew the rules. It wasn't added as an afterthought to the grounding. The airlines should have cancelled flights even without the grounding.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 76):
I don't think so.
The airline can have being insured to travel as a condition of carriage. The customer choses to fly with FR and ticks the "I agree with the terms and conditions".........hence the pax is then in violation of the T&Cs'

The airline can't remove their legally required obligations by writing them away in T&C. They can take out an insurance by themselves and include the cost of it in the ticket price. But they are still on the line to make sure the oblations are covered.

Quoting par13del (Reply 79):
If this was / is the case the court then made an incorrect ruling and violated the intent of the law. No one is claiming that the airlines should have been operating their flights in spite of the grounding. Safety was already taken care of by the government, all flights were grounded, this is about pay, nothing more.

What you're missing is that there are two parts of compensation. The act of God removes the requirement to compensate for late delivery of the service, more than 2 hours or 4 hours depending on length of flight. What the court made perfectly clear to Ryanair is that the food and accommodation does not go away in the case of act of God.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-02 07:40:28 and read 2811 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 51):
How is it appropriate to expect an individual to have enough resources to pay for food and accommodation while waiting for an airline to provide the agreed service because of an event outside both the airlines and individuals control. And then continue to provide food and accommodation while waiting for the airline to come about and deliver agreed service once the original event is open?

Sitting on a plane for 10 hours equates to being 6000 miles away from home.

That's a hell of journey by land or sea. I'm just saying that I think some people don't 'appreciate' the distances involved.

You'd have to feed yourself if you were at home and unless you stay at the Ritz etc accomodation doesn't have to cost a fortune.

How far do you take this ? Compensation for lost earnings, a lost job etc etc

We don't live in a world unfortunately where nothing unexpected happens. Far from it. You must always factort 'chance' into life. I do.

It's not the airlines fault. It's not the passengers fault. It's just one of those unfortunate cases of 'wrong place, wrong time'

Whenever I fly I am fully aware and prepared that 'something' may go wrong.

Considering what's gone on in the last 10 or so years....anyone that doesn't is frankly a bit silly.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-02 08:20:07 and read 2786 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 81):
You must always factort 'chance' into life. I do.

Do you rent an apartment? Can the owner kick you out on 2 days notice? That would be the "chance" you're talking of. I would love to rent you an apartment if I had one.

Contracts are all about removing incertainty.

You have a strange way of defending companies against their customers. They aren't in need of that sort of defense. Companies know that their customers can't screw them (after all, they are run by professionals, so-called businessmen). I care more about how much companies screw the customers.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-02 09:25:10 and read 2729 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 82):
Do you rent an apartment? Can the owner kick you out on 2 days notice? That would be the "chance" you're talking of. I would love to rent you an apartment if I had one.

If my apartment building gets flattened by an earthquake, hit by a metoerite or lava bomb from an erupting volcano it's not the fault of the building owner and I will be homeless. Shame but tough. Lived in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If my apartment burns down due to maintenance negligence by the owner I can sue said owner.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 82):
You have a strange way of defending companies against their customers. They aren't in need of that sort of defense. Companies know that their customers can't screw them (after all, they are run by professionals, so-called businessmen). I care more about how much companies screw the customers.

I'm not defending anyone. In my eyes it's a cut and dried case i.e act of god etc

Sorry but if you're not prepared or more importantly able to look after yourself........don't travel.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Aesma
Posted 2013-02-02 11:18:27 and read 2651 times.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 76):
The airline can have being insured to travel as a condition of carriage. The customer choses to fly with FR and ticks the "I agree with the terms and conditions".........hence the pax is then in violation of the T&Cs'

I doubt it would be legal, but furthermore I doubt it would make business sense. If you can easily and quickly book a flight on the web you can easily be annoyed by such conditions, annoyed enough to look elsewhere. If they just put it as a small "tax" then it works, and incidentally that's exactly what they did.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-02 12:28:03 and read 2605 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 83):
If my apartment building gets flattened by an earthquake, hit by a metoerite or lava bomb from an erupting volcano it's not the fault of the building owner and I will be homeless. Shame but tough. Lived in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Fault does not matter.

You've paid the rent for the apartment, and you don't owe any rental payments for the time the apartment isn't habitable. That's the thing you propose with poor, poor FR: The passenger has paid the flight, but Ryan Air doesn't want to transport the passenger! Well... because... Eyjafjallajökull's flatulence is not our fault!

This defense was seemingly used by FR in the courthouse, and it was answered by riotous laughter.

I'll summarize how we do it in Switzerland. It seems that you're insisting on a civil law lecture.
1. FR expresses its will to transport you from A to B at a specified time. You express your will to pay for that service. This is called a contract.
2. All contracts have to be fulfilled.
3. If one party fails to honor the contract, the other party is entitled to:

a) fulfillment of the contract. If FR doesn't want to transport you, you can buy comparable ticket at other airline and send the bill to Mr. O'Leary. But in order to do that, you have to send a reminder to FR in a timely manner. But with the EU airspace being closed this is a moot point anyway.

FR has to transport you, and it can use any reasonable way to do that. In case of a EU-wide aviation shutdown, I would gladly accept a train ticket. I wouldn't get around faster.

b) damages. If FR has acted willfully or in negligence, you can claim damages. For example if I wanted to take part in a wedding somewhere in a country, far, far away and FR did receive a note from the aviation authorities - "closure of EU-wide airspace probable", but still went on to sell tickets like nothing happened, I can claim damages because I wasn't able to accompany that wedding.

Other damages incur when I have to rent a hotel room until the airport reopens. Or if I miss an important meeting because of an airline delay. The point with torts of negligence is always... trust, and the ability to foresee something. On either hand, FR can reasonably trust that its passengers do not have important meetings to attend. On the other hand, the passenger can reasonably trust that any European airline will get the passenger from A to B within half a day. Some hours of delays can an will always happen, and the average passenger knows this.

c) refund.

d) payout of contractual penalties. In FR's and U2's terms of carriage, I haven't found yet a contractual penalty that would favor the passenger.

FR has to prove that it did not act negligent while breaching the contract. In civil law, there is no "in dubio pro reo", or "when in doubt, for the accused". There is no presumption of innocence.

4. If a contractual obligation was rendered impossible (as in this case, an unforeseeable closure of the airspace), FR has to refund the customer. However, transporting the passenger from A to B can be done by rail or by taxi - or if there is reasonable belief in re-opening of the airspace in the next one or two days, he can be accomodated in a hotel for that time, and then transported by FR.

The point here is "impossible". FR can approach you and offer you a refund, and then you lose your ticket. Or it can tell you that the airspace might re-open tomorrow, and that it will accomodate you until then.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 83):
I'm not defending anyone. In my eyes it's a cut and dried case i.e act of god etc

The point is... trust and predictabilty.

When I buy a ticket on FR on February 10th and the flight is on March 20th, I can reasonably trust that FR will fly on that day, but I am completely unable to predict if Kevin (or how that volcano is called up there) will erupt on that day. So it isn't MY fault either.

But what counts against FR is that they have entered a contract with me.



David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: sweair
Posted 2013-02-02 12:40:28 and read 2597 times.

EU is turning into Soviet more and more, personal responsibility is out the door. I really dislike EU! I couldn´t care less for FR though.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-02 13:12:22 and read 2559 times.

Quoting sweair (Reply 86):
EU is turning into Soviet more and more, personal responsibility is out the door. I really dislike EU! I couldn´t care less for FR though.

In the Union of the European Soviet Republics, travellers often do not have the cash ready to charter a Bonanza. THEN it would be the responsability fo the Mr. Passenger & charterer to care about this nasty geological stuff from Iceland.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: cmf
Posted 2013-02-02 20:51:04 and read 2394 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 81):
It's not the airlines fault. It's not the passengers fault. It's just one of those unfortunate cases of 'wrong place, wrong time'

Then why do you want the passenger to be 100% responsible and the airline 0%?

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 81):
How far do you take this ? Compensation for lost earnings, a lost job etc etc

If the delay extend beyond what can reasonably be expected, absolutely.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 81):
Whenever I fly I am fully aware and prepared that 'something' may go wrong.

Considering what's gone on in the last 10 or so years....anyone that doesn't is frankly a bit silly.

What happened over the last 10 years is why this law is in place. It is there because of the airlines behavior when things went wrong. Look at how airlines can have you waiting for days because they prefer give passengers booked on later flights priority. If nothing else the requirement to cover food and accommodation should be there to make sure they give bumped passengers attention.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 83):
Sorry but if you're not prepared or more importantly able to look after yourself........don't travel.

If you can't comply with the laws where you operate, don't operate there.

Quoting sweair (Reply 86):
EU is turning into Soviet more and more, personal responsibility is out the door. I really dislike EU! I couldn´t care less for FR though.

Isn't it ironic how those who argue that there isn't enough personal responsibility tend to state that corporations should have no responsibility and then blame governments instead of taking personal responsibility?

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-02 22:14:50 and read 2360 times.

Quoting cmf (Reply 88):
Isn't it ironic how those who argue that there isn't enough personal responsibility tend to state that corporations should have no responsibility and then blame governments instead of taking personal responsibility?

You are basing your argument on an 'across the board' basis.

I am just talking about this particular scenario. i.e an unexpected act of god.

Of course corporations should be responsible but they cannot be seen as some sort of immortal god like presence able to see into the future to save the world in times of crisis !!!!

Sorry but if something REALLY awful were to happen while you are away from home you are going to be stuck there whether you like it or not and whether your airline is obliged to get you home or not.

Then what eh ?

You're on your own and no amount of whinging will change that.

Personal responsibilty !!

[Edited 2013-02-02 22:16:41]

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-03 03:30:30 and read 2243 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 89):
I am just talking about this particular scenario. i.e an unexpected act of god.

Of course corporations should be responsible but they cannot be seen as some sort of immortal god like presence able to see into the future to save the world in times of crisis !!!!

Again: Contracts have to be fulfilled. And I wish you good luck in changing this 2000+ years old custom.

By entering a contract, you and FR (yes, you both!) exercise a huge lot of personal responsibility. Both do not lose any of it. It is just the relationship between you and FR that changes:

- without a contract, you get no help in getting from A to B. And FR can fill the seat with another passenger. Both are responsible for their own doings.
- with a contract, you can walk up to the check-in desk and get that seat. FR is responsible for transporting you from A to B. But then you are very damn responsible for getting to the airport in a timely manner, else you'll forfeit the ticket (except you have a flexible ticket). And FR is very damn responsible to have an empty seat for you in that 738.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 89):
Sorry but if something REALLY awful were to happen while you are away from home you are going to be stuck there whether you like it or not and whether your airline is obliged to get you home or not.

Yup. Depends on where I am at that time!

If an earthquake destroys the railway transportation network in, say, southern Italy, and I have a flight from FCO to BSL while I am still down in NAP, having returned from the lovely island of Stromboli, yes, I'm stuck there. I can't use the flight from FCO home.

As a passenger it is my obligation to be at FCO at the agreed time. From then on the airline has to accomodate me if they do not have their planes flying.


If you want to live responsibly and do not want any assistance from any corporation or the government, you have to do freelance work. But that's where you have to enter a myriad of contracts: You work for neighbor A fixing his roof - a contract. You are a tutor to neighbor B's daughter - a contract! You want to put your money into a savings plan with the bank - bang, another contract!

By entering contracts, you get to behave responsibly towards others.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: 1400mph
Posted 2013-02-03 04:00:14 and read 2211 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 90):

I do agree with what you are saying.

I just don't see how you can hold an airline responsible for an erupting volcano.

If they fulfil their contractual obligations as soon as they are 'permitted' to (in this case when it was safe) what more can you possibly ask ?

It is perfectly reasonable to expect someone to understand that due to flying being safety critical in the event of some major natural disaster there could be repercussions.

This should be a factor the individual considers when purchasing an airline ticket.

And anyway, why do you think there is a big slump in demand during times of conflict, terrorism or after events like Iceland ?

People take personal responsibilty and make choices. It is exactly the same thing.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: Dahlgardo
Posted 2013-02-03 04:49:43 and read 2160 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 91):
I do agree with what you are saying.

I just don't see how you can hold an airline responsible for an erupting volcano.

Their resposibilities are stated in the law, no matter if FR likes it or not, they are resposible for their passengers.
You can argue back and forth if it's fair to put this burden on the shoulders of the airlines, but fact of the matter is, that it has been put there by the legistators, and I don't think it will change. There's a strong tradition within the EU to protect the customer rather than the corporation.

If FR wants to operate flights within the EU they better suck it up and move on.
Every airline has to adhere to this.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-03 05:00:00 and read 2138 times.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 91):
I just don't see how you can hold an airline responsible for an erupting volcano.

Business risk.

The same thing when I sell somebody some tons of heating oil, to be delivered on November 1st, 2013, and then a crisis happens somewhere and the oil market is empty.

I can either stock my reserves in order to be 90 or 95 percent sure to be able to deliver that oil in November 2013 (and it's ME that has to decide how much risk I want to bear), or I can buy insurance in order to be able to buy oil in the end of October at those enormous prices.


David

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-02-03 05:04:02 and read 2128 times.

Quoting flyingturtle (Reply 93):
I can either stock my reserves in order to be 90 or 95 percent sure to be able to deliver that oil in November 2013 (and it's ME that has to decide how much risk I want to bear

Hmm, not sure how that option bears any relevance to an airline and a volcanic eruption. No amount of spare capacity would have helped.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: LJ
Posted 2013-02-03 05:51:12 and read 2099 times.

Quoting EagleBoy (Reply 73):

On another note haven't FR been adding an 'extradinary event' fee to all booing since the ash cloud fiasco? At 70M pax a year for 2 years, £1 each becomes £140M.........not bad considering they haven't had a similar disruption since then.
Then add in the £0.50 per pax 'wheelchair levy' (540M profit looks a bit different with that £200M+ included!!)

That's indeed the way to increase revenue. However, though the ash cloud event was someting which had a big impact, it was a one time event, whereas the exact impact of the regulation each year is unclear. Moreover, due to recent rulings, everyone with a 3hr delay (not due to force majeure) in the previous 2 years can claim compensation up to EUR 600. Needless to say EU airlines aren't happy.

Topic: RE: Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out
Username: flyingturtle
Posted 2013-02-03 08:48:48 and read 2011 times.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 94):
Hmm, not sure how that option bears any relevance to an airline and a volcanic eruption. No amount of spare capacity would have helped.

And how about cooperations with railways and bus operators? It would already help if the procedures would be in place for such an event. Bigger hotels could automatically send the number of free beds to the airline every day.

I'd be surprised if the airlines wouldn't have contingency plans lying around. In June 2005, the Swiss railways suffered a total power blackout, and within half an hour, there were buses ready to take airline passengers to ZRH and GVA.


David


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/