Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FR Fined 3m Euros  
User currently offlineNEMA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 710 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 12474 times:

Ryanair have been fined for their appalling failings towards their passengers following the volcanic ash crisis.

Here is the BBC News report...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8684683.stm


There isnt really a dark side to the moon, as a matter of fact its all dark!
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhen From Ireland, joined Oct 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 12274 times:

Any ideas how much it would have cost FR to compensate/accommodate passengers adequately as other airlines did? I bet if it were more than €3,000,000 they'd probably be happier just to pay the fine and let the passengers do as they like.

User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 12239 times:

Quoting Phen (Reply 1):
Any ideas how much it would have cost FR to compensate/accommodate passengers adequately as other airlines did?

Well FR was only fined in Italy... I hope this starts a widespread fine action from all other EU countries...
This is long overdue.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24652 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 months ago) and read 12075 times:

Quoting NEMA (Thread starter):
Ryanair have been fined for their appalling failings towards their passengers following the volcanic ash crisis.

I faily to understand why airlines should be deemed financially responsible for passenger expenses resulting from events totally beyond their control.


User currently onlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19186 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 months ago) and read 11998 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
I faily to understand why airlines should be deemed financially responsible for passenger expenses resulting from events totally beyond their control.

I agree.

Per the article: "Enac found that most other airlines had managed to meet their obligations despite the difficult circumstances." Clearly "most" means not all other airlines had met their obligations. Did these other airlines get fined?  



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineFlyingBird From Sweden, joined Mar 2005, 163 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 months ago) and read 11989 times:

YES! Very good! All EU countries should do the same! Follow the law or pay fines!

Low prices is not a excuse for not following EU law. Just like when you buy a cheap TV, you have the same warranty as when you buy an expensive one.


User currently offlineslz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 months ago) and read 11986 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 4):
I agree.

Still, it is the law and it MUST be obeyed at all times.


User currently offlineUSXguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1009 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 months ago) and read 11826 times:

but this isn't a controllable event. this isn't a crew calling in sick, a broken airplane, or tight scheduling. This is overzealous European Authorities shutting down air space, and then telling the airlines they have to pay for it.

How is this Ryanair's fault??? In the states, if we cancel due to weather/force majeur, etc - the airlines are NOT required to offer anything, however sometimes they do in certain circumstances. This is one reason why passengers need to have travel insurance.



xx
User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 months ago) and read 11768 times:

Quoting USXguy (Reply 7):
How is this Ryanair's fault??? In the states, if we cancel due to weather/force majeur, etc - the airlines are NOT required to offer anything, however sometimes they do in certain circumstances. This is one reason why passengers need to have travel insurance.

It is defintelly not Ryanair's fault but it is a law. Either you follow the rules or get fined. You can then build a case to remove such a rule.

For the time being, FR did not want to coperate and it is just normal they need to fork out money to help stranded passengers. Anyway, the EU is tinking about helping the airlines because it was something beyong their control.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3946 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11595 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
I faily to understand why airlines should be deemed financially responsible for passenger expenses resulting from events totally beyond their control.
Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 4):
I agree.

Please. Not again this discussion.

It is the law, like it or not. There are many laws I do not like. And there are probably many laws Ryanair does not like. Nevertheless, laws must be obeyed, noto only by me, but also by Ryanair.

I am totally sick of Ryanair acting as if they are above the law - be it employment law, competition law, contract law, you name it. It is about time the authorities move in on them.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11594 times:

I would like to see FR fight this. If the law is so messed up that it would make FR pay for customers expenses due to something completely and totally out of their control it really needs to be changed. If anyone should pay anything for this it should be the governments who shut the airspace down. If in the end FR has to pay this I hope it is passed onto the passengers in a very obvious in your face kind of way. I would love for them to add a fee to only Italian passengers like a "Volcano fine fee" or something as equally obvious.

Its just not right that an airline would have to pay for something so far out of their control....



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineTalaier From Spain, joined May 2008, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 11415 times:

Well, they have to pay full stop. If then the government of each country deems necessary extra aid because they truly were unforseen and overwhelming circumstances (which was the case) then they will recover part of it. But leaving passengers stranded for days without giving a dime about them is unacceptable. It's not about customer service but customer rights.

Hopefully next time they will draw the line correctly and fulfill their rights as an airline, be it no-frills or not.


User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 11231 times:

Quoting Talaier (Reply 11):
But leaving passengers stranded for days without giving a dime about them is unacceptable. It's not about customer service but customer rights.

Why? Why should an airline have to pay for anything? Just because they transported you they should be responsible for your care if an act of god prevents you from getting back? What if the cost of care is much much more than the ticket price? If anything FR could have offered to refund people half of their ticket price and canceled their reservation.

It just does not make any since for an airline to have to pay for peoples expenses when something beyond their control prevents a flight.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlinevfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3946 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10913 times:

The reason is pretty simple - over and over again in the past airlines have excused themselves with force majeure when they wanted to cancel lightly booked flights, their employees went on strike, they messed up scheduling, had technical faults etc. Hadn't they played that card over and over again and left passengers out in the cold, the legislator would not have introduced a no-fault rule. If you carry something to excess, you ultimately have to pay the bill.

You always get what you call for in life.


User currently offlinetim222 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10602 times:

Instead of ifs and whys... under EU article 601(i think) any EU airline operating within or to a destination in the EU is fully liable for all a passengers extras in the event of a cancellation, regardless of the circumstances, and FR failed in their obligations in the eyes of ENAC

User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2486 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10420 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 12):
It just does not make any since for an airline to have to pay for peoples expenses when something beyond their control prevents a flight.

I guess you haven't been stranded in all this mess... because if you were, you'd be grateful to find someone caring about you and that wouldn't have been FR.

Until the law is scrapped, FR WOULD HAVE TO PAY LIKE ALL OTHER AIRLINES or risk getting FINED $$$$$.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6095 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
I would love for them to add a fee to only Italian passengers like a "Volcano fine fee" or something as equally obvious.

Considering that the only reason people fly FR is because of the cheap fares, doing such is really shooting themselves on the foot.



MGGS
User currently offlinetim222 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2009, 87 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10182 times:

and against all discriminatory laws in the EU

User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 12
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10011 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 13):
The reason is pretty simple - over and over again in the past airlines have excused themselves with force majeure when they wanted to cancel lightly booked flights, their employees went on strike, they messed up scheduling, had technical faults etc. Hadn't they played that card over and over again and left passengers out in the cold, the legislator would not have introduced a no-fault rule. If you carry something to excess, you ultimately have to pay the bill.
Quoting AIR MALTA (Reply 15):
I guess you haven't been stranded in all this mess... because if you were, you'd be grateful to find someone caring about you and that wouldn't have been FR.

Your right I haven't been stranded in the mess but if I was I would not expect an airline or any other company to take care of me I would expect to take care of myself. How could people come to expect a company who had provided you travel from point A to B to take care of all of your expenses if you are stuck at B through no fault of the company? Why is it the responsibility of FR or any airline to make sure you are cared for when something like this happens? People need to take care of themselves not expect someone else to do it for you. Again I really hope that FR can sue the governments that are forcing them to pay these fines, if they think someone needs to pay it should be them. In this case I think that the only reasonable thing to ask FR to do is refund passengers for the unused part of their tickets if they want to cancel their reservation due to the government shutting air travel down. It is not FR or any airlines responsibility to pay their passengers what could amount to much more than the entire ticket price for something that is completely out of their control!!!! I know I keep going on with the same thing but I just don't understand how some of you on here cannot understand this! Please tell me how this is justified at all? At some point people need to take responsibility for themselves.



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5231 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9821 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
If anyone should pay anything for this it should be the governments who shut the airspace down.

So they should have just allowed business to continue as usual? That would have been an incredibly smart move.  
Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 10):
If in the end FR has to pay this I hope it is passed onto the passengers in a very obvious in your face kind of way. I would love for them to add a fee to only Italian passengers like a "Volcano fine fee" or something as equally obvious.

It is the law of the land. There are plenty of laws that make no sense, or are downright idiotic, here in the US, in the EU, and elsewhere. Whether or not FR or you like it, FR has to act within the law. You don't then put the burden on the customer as retribution because you think your airline should operate above the law.

Quoting tim222 (Reply 14):
Instead of ifs and whys... under EU article 601(i think) any EU airline operating within or to a destination in the EU is fully liable for all a passengers extras in the event of a cancellation, regardless of the circumstances, and FR failed in their obligations in the eyes of ENAC

  



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineLJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9787 times:

Quoting UAL747DEN (Reply 18):
Why is it the responsibility of FR or any airline to make sure you are cared for when something like this happens?

Have you read replies number 8,9,11,14 and 15? If so, why do you still pose this question? If not, I suggest reading the full text of the EU legeslation (see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...o?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML:NOT


User currently offlineCOA735 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9770 times:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 9):
Please. Not again this discussion.

It is the law, like it or not. There are many laws I do not like. And there are probably many laws Ryanair does not like. Nevertheless, laws must be obeyed, noto only by me, but also by Ryanair.

I am totally sick of Ryanair acting as if they are above the law - be it employment law, competition law, contract law, you name it. It is about time the authorities move in on them.

I'm pretty sure that whoever enforces these laws have some sort of discretion. This would be a perfect case where discretion is applied. It is not necessary, and in many cases realistic, for every single law to be enforced to the book. You'd be pretty pissed of if you got a speeding ticket for going 2mph over the speed limit. Someone once told me ,"Sometimes the right thing to do is the wrong thing to do" Very true words indeed.


User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5231 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9705 times:

Quoting COA735 (Reply 21):
I'm pretty sure that whoever enforces these laws have some sort of discretion. This would be a perfect case where discretion is applied. It is not necessary, and in many cases realistic, for every single law to be enforced to the book. You'd be pretty pissed of if you got a speeding ticket for going 2mph over the speed limit. Someone once told me ,"Sometimes the right thing to do is the wrong thing to do" Very true words indeed.

I agree. And I'm certain that discretion would probably have been used in FR's case had they not seemingly flaunted the law in such an egregious manner.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlineEBGARN From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 225 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9569 times:

Quoting COA735 (Reply 21):
I'm pretty sure that whoever enforces these laws have some sort of discretion. This would be a perfect case where discretion is applied. It is not necessary, and in many cases realistic, for every single law to be enforced to the book.

And how would you handle all the other carriers in the EU who actually DID OBEY to this law? Now that would make a pretty solid case for the other airlines against the governments if they let FR get away with what themselves thought they had to fulfill.

Many from across the pond seems to have a hard time understanding this, but

1) It's a law and it applies equally to all carriers within the EU.

2) You may think it's awkward, but most EU citizens approve of this law. Even most here on a.net, I believe. So we have it, like it, and will keep it. Fairly simple.



A306,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343/6,A380,B717,B727,B737,B744,B752/3,B763,B772/3/W,C-130,AN26,CRJ900,Il62,DC-8/9/10,MD80's,BaeR
User currently offlineFlyWhisperjets From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9519 times:

This law needs some limitations.....This event in my opinion is clearly an Act of God and Ryan is being targeted unfairly because of their horrific reputation....My question is to the Italian authorities who imposed the fine.....Did Alitalia put people up in hotels, bring in food and drink? Exactly what did passengers on other carriers receive that Ryan passengers did not....I read that in N.Y. the Port Authority aided stranded passengers by bringing in provisions....They even brought in portable showers....This event needed to have assistance from the individual governments and airports that where involved and not leaving the airlines to foot the bill.


1st. time Eastern Lockheed L-188, 1st. jet Delta Convair 880
25 vfw614 : Ryanair has denied statutory rights of numerous passengers. I do not see how and why discretion should come into it - they need to be fined in a way
26 nclmedic : Very true! And of course you're right. The law is very clear - if you're travelling on an EU carrier and your flight does not depart, the airline is
27 EBGARN : Not at all. They are targeted because they didn't fulfill thier duties towards their passengers. Customers to other airlines got put up in hotel room
28 COA735 : Let me go back to my traffic ticket analogy: If I see a driver going faster than the speed limit on any given street but I was obeying it. A cop is t
29 Post contains images FlyWhisperjets : Wow that really sounds like the thoughts of a police state.....Laws are meant to be broken otherwise we would'nt have them Ha Ha...just kidding.....B
30 Post contains images COA735 : Exactly!
31 FlyWhisperjets : Yeah! My cousin was on CO and got a We're so so sorry.....So dont say passengers were put up in hotels...The rooms were booked by passengers with the
32 Pe@rson : No, it did not. It said "most" carriers did abide by the law*. This means that some, like FR, did not. I would like to know which airlines these are
33 FlyWhisperjets : Thank You for agreeing that each to his own....But I am German living in the US...So I dont think I am out of bounds...Again just my opinion.... kind
34 ACES320 : Well I actually was. I was traveling from somewhere in the Middle East to somewhere in UK. My plane was diverted to FRA. I was very happy to pay for
35 Post contains images lightsaber : I personally think the free press is worth more to FR than 3 million... I wonder if other nations will fine FR? I personally disagree with the law...
36 vfw614 : Not sure about the police state. Over here, laws are the result of a defined process that follows democratic principles, initiated by member of parli
37 OA412 : I agree that there should not be an expectation of first class accomadations. If you're flying a budget airline, then budget accomadations should be
38 cetaceanjet : This law is unjust. Slavery is the forcible removal of value from one party, for the benefit of another. Just because this form of slavery is legislat
39 crosswinds21 : A law requiring airlines to compensate passengers for events beyond their control is silly and senseless. Nevertheless, this is what one would expect
40 vfw614 : Ryanair usually caves in as soon as the authorities are begining preparations to impound a Ryanair airplane. I remember a case in Germany in which Ry
41 OA412 : Legislated slavery? Being a tad bit over-dramatic are we not?
42 cetaceanjet : No. I'm just forcing people to think. FR is being forced to transfer money to passengers, and gets back nothing in exchange. The EU has a law that, a
43 gemuser : So you are in favour of the airlines stealing the fare from pax when they don't provide transportation as agreeded, like airlines in the USA do? IMHO
44 vv701 : Yes. It is the law. I am no FR lover but here the law s a total ass. Consider some natural disaster- like a voolcanic eruption or an earthquake - tha
45 Lufthansa411 : Not exactly. The law only exists (as far as I know) for passengers travelling on airlines based in the EU, or pax originating in the EU. I worked for
46 cetaceanjet : I'm afraid I only understand half your question. Of course if an airline fails to transport pax, those pax are entitled to a refund of the fare. I do
47 FlyingBird : If you buy a cheap TV, do you expect a budget repair when it's broken?[Edited 2010-05-15 23:06:26]
48 LMML 14/32 : OTHER airlines flocked to fly the minute the airspace opened again. NOT Ryanair. Mighty Mick just took another day off arbitrarily and grounded a qua
49 cetaceanjet : I would never expect a repair that costs more than the original purchase price of the TV. And if my TV were broken not because of a defect in materia
50 XaraB : Except plenty of European insurance companies have the same "force majeure" get-out clause as the airlines, effectively only covering the expenses th
51 Pe@rson : So, you'd have preferred the absurd uncertainty of waiting around just-in-case your aircraft was going? I would have much preferred to have been told
52 retrolivery : i fail to see how the actions of European authorities can be considered "overzealous", when the presence of a volcanic ash cloud has such a grave and
53 gemuser : When they don't transport pax because of "acts of God", like storms, ash clouds, etc. The other side of the coin from your post about pax stealing fr
54 LMML 14/32 : What you are saying is that Mick was right and everybody else did a stupid thing. Tell that to the marines. Ryanair cancelled Wednesday's entire sked
55 NEMA : Many interesting views on this subject and i tend to side with the law until it changes for no other reason than the law is the law, even though in th
56 LJ : This is the reason why the EU regulation doesn't exempt "acts of God". Too often airlines played the "acts of God" card towards their customers, anno
57 797charter : One don't have to understand, agree or disagree. It is written in the law, - and that really should be end of story. (I don't understand that I only
58 tim222 : Travelling where????????? Under EU law only the EU registered airlines are liable and the last time I checked Continental was a US carrier and it is
59 EDICHC : No is not, it is an event caused by scientifically explained geological activity. This Act of God nonsense is just a term used by insurance companies
60 brilondon : I have to agree. The fact that FR (I can't believe I am defending this airline) should not have to pay any fines nor should they be held responsible
61 cetaceanjet : I still don't understand your point, I'm afraid. It seems that the analogy you seek to make is not an apples to apples comparison. When a US airline
62 Go3Team : The earth farted and a bunch of dust came out. Any atheist who can't comprehend what that means anyway is probably a moron. I'm surprised the green c
63 EDICHC : Interesting debate here which offers as many questions as answers... The law in principle as I see it is a good one. As I said before this ash cloud i
64 LJ : The gree crybabies were very happy as the CO2 emmission coming out of the volcano was only a fraction of the emmission of what would have been caused
65 ltbewr : One of the serioius problems with the EU Law is that it didn't seem to anticipate a massive no-fly situation as happened with this ash situation. With
66 XaraB : Read my previous post. Travel insurance in Europe doesn't automatically cover disruptions caused by natural phenomena/force majeure in general. As a
67 Sandager : No. All passengers departing the EU are protected by the regulation EC 261/2004. No matter which airline or destination. Flying an airline NOT regist
68 vfw614 : Volcanoes are an inherent risk for companies that are in the business of air transportation. If a law tells you that you have to take care of your cus
69 coolfish1103 : I am very happy to see FR getting fined for this. I hope all other EU countries follow this. It is the law and FR needs to follow it. If FR does not l
70 UALWN : That's true. Veeery ant-business. So much that there are no businesses left in Europe. Everybody here is lazy, and makes a living out of government h
71 brilondon : Ah but they have. BP are spending millions on the containment of the spill and will I'm sure be spending billions on cleaning up this mess and the co
72 Burkhard : I consider it a good sign. Ryanair has to improve its costumor services on ground due to the law. If this adds 1€ cost per flight, they can take it.
73 777 : Did you know that in some Italian Airports (maybe also abroad) FR simply closed all the desks putting a sign with the sentence "See you after the Volc
74 UALWN : I was talking about fines. But still, this is far off-topic. Let's leave it here.
75 Post contains links vfw614 : All of a sudden, this has appeared on Ryanair's website - apparently a 3m EUR fine makes a difference: http://www.ryanair.com/de/notices/gops/100518-A
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FR Announces MAD-FMM posted Tue May 11 2010 01:39:46 by Pe@rson
FR Seat Block Off? posted Mon May 10 2010 00:41:58 by bjorn14
Southwest Fined $200,000.00 posted Wed Apr 28 2010 09:02:44 by FlyWhisperjets
FR Offer Flights To Disneyland Paris posted Thu Apr 22 2010 12:41:40 by lukeyboy95
FY2009 Results For Gulfstream International (3M) posted Fri Apr 16 2010 23:18:06 by beryllium
FR Announces Vatry posted Thu Apr 15 2010 10:24:57 by Pe@rson
FR Request 3.500 Slots At BCN Airport posted Tue Mar 23 2010 13:04:30 by migair54
FR Registration Help. posted Fri Mar 12 2010 09:45:52 by lhr380
FR To Ciudad Real, Spain posted Wed Mar 10 2010 11:51:16 by joost
Question About US Getting Fined By DOT posted Tue Mar 9 2010 09:08:45 by LHCVG