jonathang:
I can see how you are approaching this but what about this case.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we booked a daytrip with FR to LBC last May, we found out the day before that our return sector time had been brought forward by about 6 hours too and as a result, we had to cancel the trip altogether as the daytrip would have been about 3 hours long!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The carrier has not breeched any terms and conditions got you from A to B back to A again. In this case I know Ryanair would not normally offer a refund. Can also understand why passengers would be annoyed. However I know that there is a risk when I book a same day return when I am told that the times are subject to change.
Nothing specifies the time the carrier must keep you at your destination.
I would not expect a refund in this case however there are passengers who would expect a refund.
This is definitely a more difficult case. I don't know the frequency to LBC - is it one a day or two a day, or more than that? A schedule change after a trip is booked is a deliberate act by the airline, not comparable to unplanned delays for wx, tech etc. If a pax has booked round-trip travel in reliance on having roughly a certain amount of time at the destination, and then the airline (with the knowledge via a single PNR) deliberately alters its schedule so as to frustrate the trip by effectively telling the pax that all he can do is fly there and fly back again, my gut feeling is that there is a case in there.
The interpretation of contracts, like the rest of law, is less of a science than an art. The courts have always allowed themselves some leeway to ensure that justice is done even in cases where one party to a contract could abuse the black-and-white letter of the contract to take advantage of the other party. Experienced lawyers get a feel for where a judge is likely to think that justice lies; judges always do their utmost to secure what they think is the just result if they can.
So in this greyer case, my instinct is that FR was also right to avoid the potential for a messy legal fight by giving what was also good customer service/customer relations - namely a refund for a trip that had become largely pointless.