V-Flyer

Due to the ash cloud Ryan Air shut down the majority of it's flights.

Per EU regulations FR must cover hotel and food bills from the affected passengers.

FR has now publicly stated they will not do so, setting them up for a head to head battle with the EU.

While I happen to agree with FR on this the law is the law.

Does anyone see FR winning this battle ?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100421/tuk ... a1618.html

As seen by my response here the answer is no. The Commission for Aviation Regulation is quite clear about that and will flight it in the courts.

On the RTE News tonight their argument was that if people had paid for €4 flights Ryanair could not be expected to fund hotel bills of €500 or more. While they are completely ignoring the fact that the additional charges probably have racked the cost up to €50+, other airlines will be paying accommodation and food bills well above the base price that people will have paid in fares in economy.

The reality is that it is part of legislation and Ryanair cannot cherry-pick legislation to suit itself

Also, and this is an argument I use whenever a company tries to hide behind their pricing : no one asked Ryanair for €4.00 or £5.00 flights (specifically referring to the ones with all taxes and charges included).

Ryanair have pursued this market all on their own, so they can't whinge that the rules are unfair.

IMO, very foolish of MOL to push this. It'll put PR under the microscope and the EU may just legislate against some of their other practices.

I agree with the comments here - Ryanair chooses its own business model and the markets it operates in. To hide behind these things that are in its control is a fake proposition. Additionally, Ryanair chose not to start flying 'till today when it have done so earlier, thus putting thousands more of their customers out of location / flights / travel. Presumably, to cut cost, Ryanair didn't insure itself against such eventualities either.

It has created its own problem, I hope it is fined substantially - it's a shame we don't have the equivalent of class action lawsuits.

Having said that - the legislation is a mess, I don't believe it was ever intended to cover such a situation as the UVI (unpronounceable volcano issue) nor is it clear about how airlines should actually reimburse / support passengers. It needs amending.

slinky09 wrote:Having said that - the legislation is a mess, I don't believe it was ever intended to cover such a situation as the UVI (unpronounceable volcano issue) nor is it clear about how airlines should actually reimburse / support passengers. It needs amending.

EasyJet put a spokesman on this morning's edition of the Today programme on Radio 4 taking just that line. EU rules are EU rules and have to be adhered to, but the legislation isn't fit for purpose, as it was intended to cover things like IDB and commercial decisions.

Paul

The legislation may not be fit for purpose, but it's not designed to suit the airlines, but to protect the long-suffering passengers.

IF the airlines in general (there are always exceptions) had treated pax reasonably re canx, delays and denied boarding etc in the first place over the years then the EU regulations would simply not have happened - because they would not have had the huge numbers of complaints for the EU to respond too (and we would be talking many, many thousands of complaints not one or two).

They may be tougher than the probbaly should be but thats the price the airlines have had to pay because they (a) were acting unreasonably in the first place and (b) didn't come up with an acceptable set of rules themselves hence the EU imposed the rules.

I can hardly believe my ears! BBC News 10:35 today:-

BBC: Michael, this is U turn, you have backed down?
M O'L: Yes
BBC: I have never known you to admit to a mistake before?M O'L: I've made a mistake. Whenever I make a mistake we try to correct these mistakes quickly.
M O'L: I make more mistakes than any other person in aviation!

I'm speechless!
Cheers
James

tontybear wrote:They may be tougher than the probbaly should be but thats the price the airlines have had to pay because they (a) were acting unreasonably in the first place and (b) didn't come up with an acceptable set of rules themselves hence the EU imposed the rules.

I don't see the issue as being around the legislation itself but around unintended consequences of that legislation in this scenario. The financial consequences of the legislation will be in place to drive airline behaviours and practice - so that they try to get you to your destination and limit their exposure. What happened in the last week is that they had no way of limiting that exposure and risk. Had I money to invest I would not invest in a company will that downside - almost regardless of the upside.

The solution should surely be appropriate insurance either for the airline or the passenger - which ups the cost of travel whatever...

Paul

Vegascrazy wrote:I can hardly believe my ears! BBC News 10:35 today:-

BBC: Michael, this is U turn, you have backed down?
M O'L: Yes
BBC: I have never known you to admit to a mistake before?M O'L: I've made a mistake. Whenever I make a mistake we try to correct these mistakes quickly.
M O'L: I make more mistakes than any other person in aviation!

I'm speechless!
Cheers
James

Someone make a note of the date.

I suspect that a now-unemployed lawyer pointed out that the cost a court action (where winning is highly unlikely) would cost a whole lot more than just paying up.

Darren Wheeler wrote:
I suspect that a now-unemployed lawyer pointed out that the cost a court action (where winning is highly unlikely) would cost a whole lot more than just paying up.

The Commission for Aviation Regulation has been very robust in its defence of customers' rights and made it quite clear that Ryanair could face criminal sanctions at Irish District Court level leading to potential fines of €5,000 per case taken by out-of-pocket passengers with the potential for higher fines if appealed in the High Court.

Vegascrazy wrote:I can hardly believe my ears! BBC News 10:35 today:-

BBC: Michael, this is U turn, you have backed down?
M O'L: Yes
BBC: I have never known you to admit to a mistake before?M O'L: I've made a mistake. Whenever I make a mistake we try to correct these mistakes quickly.
M O'L: I make more mistakes than any other person in aviation!

I'm speechless!
Cheers
James

Is he in love or something? Maybe he's met a man at last! )

He was chastised by the Irish courts twice in recent weeks, and I have to say, the Ryanair website was superb at providing information - even as far as providing links to Sky News so passengers could see why the volcano ash was stopping them flying.

But MOL seems... different these days.

I am sure the in house lawyers pointed out that it would be far cheaper just to pay the hotel bills etc

Also for once the court system had made it clear to FR that if they didn't play by the rules then they would be made an example off.

If your going to play the game, you have to play by the rules, even as in this case the rules are not right.

This amused me

Ryanair fees for compensation payments

Tim wrote:This amused me

Ryanair fees for compensation payments

You have got to be kidding me, ok while I happen to agree with FR as I previously stated, I have to ask myself, are they looking to get slapped around by the EU ?

Tim wrote:This amused me

Ryanair fees for compensation payments

Hopefully the powers that be at Ryanair don't read spoof news sites for policy ideas! It wouldn't have entirely surprised me to see that on the actual BBC.

Willowx wrote:

Tim wrote:This amused me

Ryanair fees for compensation payments

Hopefully the powers that be at Ryanair don't read spoof news sites for policy ideas! It wouldn't have entirely surprised me to see that on the actual BBC.

Oh bollocks

I didn't even look at the address, nice job by newsarse