Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair Loses Ash Cloud Legal Battle Must Pay Out  
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 26972 posts, RR: 57
Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9568 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.

96 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3947 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 9506 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...


User currently offlineScottishDavie From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2011, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9131 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]

User currently offline1400mph From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 1000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 9042 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 !!


User currently offlineshufflemoomin From Denmark, joined Jun 2010, 479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8996 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.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3947 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8944 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.


User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2094 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8915 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

User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8897 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?


User currently offlineweb500sjc From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 739 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 8896 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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...



Boiler Up!
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2790 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8671 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.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8603 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.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8603 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.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3947 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8581 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.

User currently offlineScottishDavie From UK - Scotland, joined Feb 2011, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8546 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


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8504 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.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8494 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.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8492 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]

User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3258 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8461 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.



you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8419 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.


User currently offlinepacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8384 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)


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6649 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8341 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.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2179 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6573 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.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineely747 From Slovakia, joined Jan 2013, 140 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5726 times:

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

User currently offlinespencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1635 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5689 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



EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20629 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 5579 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



International Homo of Mystery
25 Post contains images ely747 : Yes, they do. See below the attached. [Edited 2013-01-31 23:33:32]
26 Post contains images flyingturtle : 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 t
27 jet72uk : This is brilliant news.
28 1400mph : 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. Bo
29 s5daw : 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.
30 Dogbreath : 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 a
31 AndyEastMids : 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 eit
32 kdhurst380 : 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
33 Post contains links UALWN : 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 pound
34 cmf : No, they are completely different. In your BA example BA delivered as contracted. In the Ryanair case they failed to deliver as contrcted. This is wh
35 Post contains links s5daw : Wikipedia says: "The airline is also required to pay cash compensation as described below, unless one of the following conditions applies: ... - the
36 Pe@rson : . 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 il
37 ely747 : 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 peo
38 Post contains links s5daw : Uhmm... http://english.eastday.com/e/101229/u1a5638079.html
39 Post contains images ely747 : 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
40 anfromme : You misunderstand - the court ruling stated explicitly that no compensation is to be paid. However, hotel and food costs are to be reimbursed. This w
41 Post contains images anfromme : 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 were
42 Post contains images 1400mph : 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 m
43 Post contains images anfromme : 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, No
44 Post contains images flyingturtle : 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 t
45 Post contains images anfromme : 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 legislati
46 cmf : 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 o
47 airbazar : 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".
48 MillwallSean : 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 the
49 1400mph : 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 ai
50 RussianJet : 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
51 cmf : 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
52 1400mph : Maybe air travel is 'too easy' and 'too cheap' and perhaps people should think more carefully before carrying themselves and their families to places
53 cmf : 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.
54 Dahlgardo : 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 print
55 L410Turbolet : I am nearly certain, the government appointed bodies did not make it "impossible to honor their contract" out of sheer pleasure but due to extraordin
56 Post contains images anfromme : 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 subsid
57 Pe@rson : Because regulators, as at least partial government bodies, decided to close the airspace that led to the inability of airlines to fulfil their obliga
58 Dahlgardo : 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 Rya
59 Pe@rson : 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. Ai
60 AeroWesty : 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
61 RussianJet : 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
62 Dahlgardo : 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
63 Post contains links avion660 : 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
64 JoeCanuck : 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 ground
65 Post contains images anfromme : 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 no
66 AeroWesty : 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
67 Post contains links anfromme : 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
68 Post contains images anfromme : I was just trying to apply Ryanair's own logic and the logic from your previous statement: By that logic, it's ok for Ryanair not to pay in case of d
69 Post contains images AeroWesty : There you go again, I thought we learned ya better than that.
70 cmf : 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'
71 par13del : 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 t
72 cmf : 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.
73 EagleBoy : 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 h
74 cmf : Not unless the EU regulations change.
75 JoeCanuck : Having the airlines pay compensation over both an act of nature and a legislated grounding has nothing to do with safety. And Ryanair fought the rule
76 EagleBoy : 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
77 L410Turbolet : 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 wh
78 flyingturtle : 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 cont
79 par13del : 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 hav
80 Post contains images cmf : You claim the ash grounding wasn't because of safety? I ask again, what was if for then? They have every right to fight for rules not taking effect a
81 1400mph : 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 som
82 flyingturtle : 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 apar
83 1400mph : 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
84 Aesma : 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 easil
85 flyingturtle : 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
86 sweair : 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.
87 flyingturtle : 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
88 cmf : Then why do you want the passenger to be 100% responsible and the airline 0%? If the delay extend beyond what can reasonably be expected, absolutely.
89 1400mph : 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 cours
90 flyingturtle : 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
91 1400mph : 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 contractu
92 Dahlgardo : 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
93 flyingturtle : 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 somewhe
94 RussianJet : Hmm, not sure how that option bears any relevance to an airline and a volcanic eruption. No amount of spare capacity would have helped.
95 LJ : 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
96 flyingturtle : 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 hotel
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...
Airbus To Pay Out $mills In QF A330 Horror Flight posted Wed Dec 21 2011 00:55:37 by Sandgroper
DOT: JetBlue Must Pay $600,000 For Violations posted Mon Dec 13 2010 17:26:15 by AirFrance744
New Ash Cloud In Europe #2 posted Mon May 17 2010 05:37:02 by SA7700
Interesting Ash Cloud Diversions posted Mon May 17 2010 00:21:26 by Ushermittwoch
New Ash Cloud Heading To Europe, Nearing Africa posted Mon May 3 2010 09:56:03 by oa260
Did Airlines Cheat Passengers During Ash Cloud? posted Mon Apr 26 2010 13:50:48 by mrcomet
Will Ash Cloud Affect Boeing? posted Wed Apr 21 2010 16:36:55 by MikeE07
Volcanic Ash Cloud To See End Of Airlines posted Mon Apr 19 2010 03:32:19 by EZYAirbus
Union Loses Legal Battle With BA posted Fri Feb 19 2010 03:02:56 by nighthawk
Passengers Must Pay For Blankets On American posted Tue Feb 9 2010 06:14:14 by JakeOrion