Ryanair - 1Million and you WONT fly !

[sunnykid]

from the RTE web site - it's not the principle - it's the money !!

Ryanair's one-millionth passenger, who claims the airline reneged on a prize of free flights for life, is suing the airline for damages. Jane O'Keeffe from Leopardstown Heights, Dublin was awarded the prize in 1988 at a champagne reception in Dublin Airport.

The Ryanair Managing Director said at the time that they would see a lot of her in the years to come, and he spelled out the prize.

. .But this morning Jane O'Keeffe arrived at the High Court to do battle with Ryanair. She says the prize awarded with such razzmatazz in 1988 has been reneged on.

. .Ms O'Keeffe told Mr Justice Peter Kelly that, for nine years until 1997, Ryanair honoured its commitment on the free flights and she used the concession four or five times a year.

. .Trouble arose in October 1997 when she tried to book two flights to Preswick in Scotland. She claims the Marketing Director, Tim Jeans, told her that as she had nothing in writing about the prize, he was going to limit it to one flight a year.

. .Then Ms O'Keeffe was told the matter had moved to Managing Director, Michael O'Leary. Jane O'Keeffe found Mr O'Leary "very hostile", she said, and he asked her who she thought she was, phoning Ryanair looking for flights.

. .When she complained of feeling badly treated by Ryanair, she says Mr O'Leary responded that that was her problem. She described his attitude as very aggressive and bullying.

. .Ryanair is denying the claims made by Jane O'Keeffe and they claim that there was no contract and this was gift bestowed on Ms O'Keeffe. This morning, they also tried unsuccessfully to plead that the alleged prize was unenforceable because it was unlawful under the Gaming Act.

[Aircraft_Nut9]

I seem to recall a photograph in a Dublin newspaper earlier this week showing the recipient with a large 4 foot by 2 foot cardboard gift certificate. It had text in large lettering, to the effect that the recipient had free flights for life on Ryanair.

Could somebody with a legal background say whether this has any value i.e. would it need to be signed by somebody in authority in the company to be valid. Alternatively, would proof of it's existence (photograph), be sufficent evidence.

Is there a law of Tort that covers this ?. . . . <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[groundbum]

in the UK there is a concept of an "officous bystander". Where a contract term is ambiguous, or totally missing, then the court would pay attention to what an "officious bystander" would think.

So personally "free flights for life" in the absence of anything else would mean just that, my interpretation would be for the winner only, with a reasonable limit of X per year and so forth.

[Steepclimb]

This is all very amusing. It also demonstrates the arrogance of our man O'Leary again!!!!

I was amused to read in the paper tonight that the judge commented on the fact that Ryanair were relying on a plea where they admitted committing a criminal act under the lotteries and gaming act. This led to that defence being hurriedly withdrawn. In any case I don't think that's true. It's a test of skill to get something for nothing out of Ryanair, a place where even a job application costs you money. . .Truly O'Leary must believe any publicity is good publicity. They can't win this one.

[Lucifer]

I am amused by the bit where O'Leary is alleged to have 'asked her who she thought she was, phoning Ryanair looking for flights.' Do they sell anything else that anyone knows about?

[TRANQUILLO]

Yes, you can get a sim-ride for about £150!!!!

[FL310]

...and having fun on a website filing your application and subsequently pay for it...in case they take the money, as they did not do always in the past.. .And there is the interview they sell...may be seen as an investment in acquiring some interview skills...

[ST.CRISPIN]

Surely it could be twisted in her favour as a basic tenet of contract law is offer and acceptance.. .I think there was a similar case in MRU with Air Austral a good few years ago.Plaintiff is still travelling (How many times can you do MRU to Reunion?) <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

[Gilhooley]

Todays Irish Times

Ryanair is sued by 'free travel' winner. .By Mary Carolan

. . . . A woman who was told she would have free flights for life when she became Ryanair's millionth passenger in 1988 was told by the airline's managing director, Mr Michael O'Leary, nine years later: "Who do you think you are, ringing up demanding flights?" the High Court heard yesterday.

Ms Jane O'Keeffe (35), married with two children, told Mr Justice Kelly that Mr O'Leary was very aggressive, bullying and hostile to her when she got through to him unannounced in October 1997. She said the conversation was in raised voices and he told her not to phone Ryanair any more.

Mr O'Leary had said a flight she had requested was not available and she could not travel. She told Mr O'Leary she thought she was being very badly treated by Ryanair and that it was trying to put the onus on her of trying to prove the legitimacy of her prize when it should have done the paperwork.

Mr O'Leary told her it was her problem and it was up to her to prove the legitimacy of the prize.

Ms O'Keeffe, who was six months pregnant and was hoping to get a flight with her husband to Scotland for the October bank holiday weekend at the time, is suing Ryanair Holdings for damages, negligence, misrepresention and loss of expectation.

In its defence, Ryanair claims there was no enforceable contract in law and that what Ms O'Keeffe received was simply a gift bestowed on her by the company.

During yesterday's hearing, a video was shown in court of a champagne reception and a band playing at Dublin Airport to mark Ms O'Keeffe - who was 21 at the time and unmarried - being declared Ryanair's one millionth passenger in 1988.

Ms O'Keeffe, of Mount Eagle View, Leopardstown Heights, Dublin, was a marketing executive in London at the time.

The video showed her being carried aloft by then Ryanair chief executive Mr P.J. McGoldrick and being interviewed about how she felt about getting free flights.

An interviewer asked Mr McGoldrick if he had calculated how much Ms O'Keeffe would cost the airline over the next 40-50 years and he had replied: "I haven't calculated that. We don't nitpick on a gift like that."

At the start of the hearing yesterday, Mr Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, applied unsuccessfully to Mr Justice Kelly for leave to amend its defence to include a plea that the system under which the prize was awarded was an unlicensed lottery under the Gaming and Lotteries Act.

Mr Justice Kelly said the plea being advanced had traditionally never been looked upon in a very meritorious light because it was not very meritorious. Nor was it attractive because it was an assertion by Ryanair that it was itself guilty of a gaming activity which was prohibited by law and therefore the airline was itself involved in unlawful activity.

Ryanair seemed to rely on that unlawful activity with a view to denying Ms O'Keeffe an entitlement to recover damages.

In evidence, Ms O'Keeffe told Mr Mark de Blacam SC that when she and her sister were returning to London after attending a funeral in October 1988, there was a film crew present. She was told she could be Ryanair's one millionth passenger and asked if she would mind any publicity. She replied she would not. She got a badge, as did everyone, which said "One-in-a-Million", with the Ryanair logo.

At the duty free area, a Ryanair worker told her and her sister to go to an area where they were going to announce the winner. Mr McGoldrick said the winner was Jane O'Keeffe and that she had won unlimited travel for herself and a companion on any Ryanair flight for the rest of her life.

Some weeks later she was sent a written contract. At the time she was not married and did not want to name a travelling companion. She phoned a Ryanair manager who was very understanding. She left the contract with that person and never received another one. She used free Ryanair flights a number of times. She had moved back to Ireland in 1989.

In October 1997, she phoned Ryanair to book a return flight to Scotland.

The person she rang took her reservation and said she would fax the details. After a number of further calls to Ryanair, she was told there were no seats left on the flights she had booked and no booking had been made for her. On the day before she was due to travel, she spoke to a marketing executive who asked her if she had anything in writing. She told him she did not but had a video and cuttings.

The executive said that because she had nothing in writing, she was going to be limited to 12 flights a year and that Ryanair would not be liable to issue her with unlimited flights. This was a "bolt out of the blue". She made several calls to Ryanair staff and then got on to Mr O'Leary.

While negotations were going on between the sides in 1998, she had one flight to Rimini. If there had been no dispute, she would have hoped to take flights to many cities. Ryanair had expanded since she won the prize.

Cross-examined by Mr Hayden, Ms O'Keeffe said her understanding was that, as she was the airline's one millionth passenger, she was to get free flights for life. That was what she was told.

Mr Hayden said that Ms O'Keeffe had flown four times with Ryanair in 1993, once in 1994, once in 1995, once in 1996 and twice in 1997.

He told the judge he was outlining the number of flights because Ms O'Keeffe was claiming a monetary sum from the airline as distinct from a number of flights into the future.

The case continues today.

Yesterday afternoon, while the High Court case was continuing, the Supreme Court refused an application by Mr Alistair Rutherdale, for Ryanair, to put a stay on Mr Justice Kelly's decision not to permit Ryanair amend its pleadings in order to raise a new issue.

The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, asked if counsel was seriously proposing that the Supreme Court should hear an appeal from a ruling by a High Court judge in a case at hearing.

The court had always made it clear it would not entertain for one moment such an application, the Chief Justice said.

[frazhm]

Am I imagining it, or does there all of a sudden seem to be a dearth of FR supporters!!!. . :) :) :)

I do not see the PPrunes "Emerald Isle Division" springing into action as they have done on previous FR negative threads-- and there have been quite a few, on some of the most outrageous activities!!!

Or, even in their blinkered perceptions have they accepted that MOL is on his own on this one!!!. . :) :) :)

[newswatcher]

Latest news - Ryanair offered to settle the issue with a €4,000 pay-off for legal costs and a commitment to guarantee her free flights for the rest of the life. However, Ms O’Keefe, who is seeking €400,000 in compensation, rejected the offer because, she said, she no longer trusts the airline.

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: newswatcher ]</p>

[Gilhooley]

RTE`s website..

The sales and marketing director of Ryanair has told the High Court that he tried to limit a prize awarded to a Dublin woman in the interests of "proper administration."

Jane O'Keeffe, from Leopardstown Heights, claims the airline reneged on a promise it made to her of her free travel for life when she became the airline's one millionth customer in 1988.

. .Ryanair sales and marketing director, Tim Jeans, said he first became aware that there was a problem with Jane O'Keeffe's prize in October 1997. She wanted to book a flight to Scotland.

. .But Mr Jeans said there were only four or five of the most expensive seats left on that route. He said these seats would never be made available to people who had won prizes or had any other form of concession.

. .The court heard that he refused to allow Ms O'Keeffe free tickets to Scotland and told her that from then on she would be limited to one flight a year.

. .Mr Jeans told the High Court that he had no documentation at that time to show that Jane O'Keeffe was entitled to unlimited free travel on Ryanair's flights. He denied that her prize did not suit the company. He said he had wanted to put some "proper administration" in place around it.

. .Mr Jeans said this view was endorsed by Chief Executive, Michael O'Leary. He agreed with Mr Justice Kelly that there was no evidence of a limit on Ms O'Keeffe's entitlement before he tried to impose one nine years later.

. .Earlier, Ryanair attempted to settle the case by offering Ms O'Keeffe and a companion free travel on its flights, subject to availability.

. .However, Ms O'Keeffe told the court she did not trust the company any more. She said she would feel awkward about ringing up looking for flights when everyone knew she had had to go to court.

. .The company also offered Ms O'Keeffe €4,000 in compensation this morning. She is seeking more than €450,000.

[stevobeevo]

Your anti low cost reply would actually have meaning, if you negate the fact that HIGH COST carriers have accidents and fatalities on a regular basis. I don't think that the families of the deceased passengers of the British Airtours Manchester disaster or British Midland Kegworth would agree with your rant. Ryanair have been operating out of Bournemouth for nearly 6 years with no accidents. A British Airways ATR 72 crashed on landing here only 14 months ago. Go figure.

YOU CERTAINLY DON'T GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

[Few Cloudy]

Well for the next few months she can fly free to Scotland with EZY - and so can you...

[FlyingV]

I hope Ryanair loses this case in spectacular fashion. Having said that, I'll still be quite happy to fly with them while they continue to offer such competitive fares.

Regards,. .V.

[ 02 March 2002: Message edited by: FlyingV ]</p>

[JRF]

I have real trouble supporting FR in any way now. Prior to this I would fly on them, as the price is right and the flights are short enough.. .. .However, this stunt meets the criteria for a bad bunch of people. Deception and fraud 101.

[Flintstone]

Sorry eghh man but who are you replying to?. .. .I've looked back through the thread and can't see where anyone has mentioned safety (unless there's been some editing).. .. .I'm confused (again <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" /> )

[stevobeevo]

Mr Flintstone, The post that I was replying to has now been removed. Unfortunately I was in a hurry and neglected to mention the name of the postee. They basically implied that low cost airlines were the only ones to suffer engine fires etc. Basically it was an anti low cost rant, which sadly seems to happen with all the time.

[Gilhooley]

Yesterdays Irish Times....... .. .Ryanair chief says harassment claim by woman is 'nonsense'. .. . . . . . Ryanair's chief executive Mr Michael O'Leary has described as "nonsense" a claim by a woman who had been offered free Ryanair flights for life when she became the airline's one millionth passenger that she was "harassed" by him when she sought to avail of a free flight to Scotland in 1997.. .. .However, Mr O'Leary acknowledged his company was wrong when it sought that year to put a limit on the annual number of free flights which Ms Jane O'Keeffe could take.. .. .Last week, the company's sales-marketing manager, Mr Tim Jeans, said he had sought to impose a limit in 1997 in the interests of proper administration.. .. .In the High Court yesterday, Mr O'Leary told Mr Justice Kelly the first he had heard of the allegation made by Ms O'Keeffe that she had been "bullied" by him when she tried to avail of a flight to Prestwick in October 1997 was when he read about it in the newspapers last Friday.. .. .He said the purpose behind the 1988 offer of free flights to Ms O'Keeffe was to mark the occasion of the one millionth passenger with Ryanair, then 3½ years in existence, and to generate some publicity.. .. .Mr O'Leary, who was temporary chief financial officer with the airline in 1988, said Ryanair was then in financial turmoil. He was working for Mr Tony Ryan, who had asked him to put a stop to all the spending.. .. .He denied having a "hostile attitude" towards Ms O'Keeffe when she called him prior to the October weekend in 1997 about a flight to Scotland. There was no need for him to be. Ms O'Keeffe might have raised her voice in their conversation but he did not. Just over a week later, she wrote to him and made no suggestion of hostility or bullying in her letter.. .. .Yesterday was the third day of the action by Ms O'Keeffe (35), of Mount Eagle View, Leopardstown Heights, Dublin, who is seeking damages from the airline for negligence, misrepresentation and loss of expectation.. .. .Ryanair is alleging Ms O'Keeffe has no enforceable contract in law. It contends that what she had received in 1988 was simply a gift bestowed on her by the company.. .. .Yesterday, Mr O'Leary acknowledged Ms O'Keeffe was now suing the airline for more than £360,000.. .. .Cross-examined by Mr Mark de Blacam SC, for Ms O'Keeffe, he said what she had been given was a "gift". Ryanair was wrong to put a limit on it because it was clear the woman had been given free flights for life.. .. .He denied a claim by Ms O'Keeffe that he had said to her, when she phoned him in connection with the flight to Scotland in 1997: "Who do you think you are, ringing up demanding flights.". .. .Asked by the judge if Ms O'Keeffe in her conversation with him about the Scotland flight in 1997 had asked him not to bully her, Mr O'Leary said that did not happen.. .. .Ryanair's personnel officer, Ms Emer Purcell, said Ms O'Keeffe would normally call up a few weeks earlier before making a booking for a particular flight. That did not happen in October 1997. Ms Purcell said she was surprised by this.. .. .The evidence concluded yesterday with financial and actuarial evidence for Ryanair, after which legal submissions began.. .. .Mr Martin Hayden SC, for Ryanair, argued Ms O'Keeffe was seeking to turn into money a prize or a gift which she had received entitling her to fly on a low-cost carrier for the rest of her life. There was no contract with the plaintiff; it was purely a gift.. .. .The actuarial value of the loss of the free travel came nowhere near that estimated by Ms O'Keeffe who, when asked about the £347,280 figure which had been put on the capital value of the loss, had said she had no idea where that figure came from.

[sunnykid]

She is claiming £350K - I'd love to get a . .breakout of that number. She may have forgotten. .that Ryanair is the 'low cost' airline.. .. .Let's see :. .. .Say 10 flights a year for 2 people at an. .average cost of £70...that's £1,400.. .Say she has a flying life left of 40 years. ...that's £56K - then discount the cash to today's. .prices - that's about £40K max. Then add something. .on for the 'stress'. .. .She may win her case but I reckon the damages will. .be far lower - she may even have to pay the . .differential in costs between the lower and . .higher courts. If that's the case,Ryanair will . .be very happy with the outcome <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="frown.gif" />

[Aircraft_Nut9]

The High Court has awarded Ryanair's one millionth passenger €67,500 damages and her costs against the low cost airline.

Link to story http://www.onbusiness.ie/2002/0619/ryanair.html

[sunnykid]

...and the conclusion

_________

The High Court has awarded Ryanair’s 1,000,000th passenger €67,500 damages and her costs against the low cost airline.

Jane O'Keefe, a mother of two from Leopardstown Heights in Dublin, had sued Ryanair because she claimed they had reneged on a commitment made to her in 1988 of free flights for life.

By 1997 the relationship was turning sour with Jane O'Keeffe finding it increasingly difficult to deal with the airline and use her concession.

Ms O’Keeffe subsequently sued for breach of contract, with Ryanair claiming there was no contract.

Today, Mr Justice Peter Kelly – who heard the case over four days – found there was a contract and that Ryanair had not met its commitments.

Ms O’Keeffe was awarded €67,500 to compensate her for loss of her flights’ concession to date and loss into the future. She also received her costs.

Mr Justice Kelly also found her clear in her recollection of events and steadfast in her testimony.

He found her a more persuasive witness than Ryanair Chief Executive, Michael O’Leary, and rejected Mr O’Leary’s assertion that he was not hostile or aggressive towards Ms O’Keeffe.

[brownstar]

nice to see someone has taken MOL to Task, Bring on the Rest !!

[exeng]

O'leary really is a disgrace, as proved by this case. He also manages to single handedly cast a slur on the whole concept of 'low cost' airlines. ( See thread: Low cost airlines cutting corners.)

He is also quoted in this weeks Flight International as saying he will break the law if necessary.

MOL comes across as a man completely without morals who will do or say anything as long as there is money in it.

It has been my experience that those who play with fire will eventually get burned. I would guess that this individual is in line for a good barbeque.

Despite this man I believe the concept of 'low cost' will thrive, but will Ryanair continue to do so?


Regards
Exeng

[HugMonster]

Well said, exeng.

There is nothing whatsoever with the low-cost concept. It has (I hope) a great future as part of the whole European aviation picture.

There is a LOT wrong with that grubby little man's entire attitude towards everyone and everything except money, and getting it by any means he can.

[inverted flatspin]

It cost Ryanair a little more than 67500 euro, more like 267500 euro when you count legal costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A RYANAIR passenger who won free flights for life after becoming the airline's one-millionth passenger was yesterday awarded €67,500 after the High Court found the no-frills carrier had reneged on the deal.


Mother-of-two, Jane O'Keeffe (35), of Leopardstown Heights in Dublin, was also awarded costs, estimated at €200,000.


But the award was substantially less than the €500,000 compensation her lawyers had sought.


In his judgment, Mr Justice Peter Kelly found Mrs O'Keeffe was a more "persuasive" witness than Ryanair boss Michael O'Leary.


He also found Mr O'Leary had been bullying, hostile and aggressive in his interaction with Mrs O'Keeffe.


On October 28, 1988, Mrs O'Keeffe - then 21 and unmarried - was returning on a Ryanair flight to London following her grandmother's funeral.


During a ceremony at Dublin Airport the then chief executive PJ McGoldrick announced she was the one-millionth passenger and would have unlimited travel for herself and her nominee for life.


A video of the affair was taken and was shown during the court hearing.


Justice Kelly found that the free-flights deal offered by Ryanair that day was an enforceable contract and that Mrs O'Keeffe fulfilled her obligations to participate in publicity.


He said the arrangement had worked smoothly for many years from 1988 up to 1997 when the breach of contract took place.


Justice Kelly accepted that when Mrs O'Keeffe tried to take a free Ryanair flight to visit Scotland over the 1997 October Bank Holiday weekend, the airline reneged on the deal. Mr Justice Kelly awarded Mrs O'Keeffe damages of €6,000 for loss of entitlement for the past five years and he awarded her €1,500 in compensation for the "disappointment, frustration and upset that was suffered ... arising from the unpleasant and shabby treatment she suffered on that occasion".


He then dealt with the matter of future loss and awarded Mrs O'Keeffe €60,000 bringing her award to €67,500.


Outside the court, Mrs O'Keeffe, accompanied by husband Mark Higginbotham, said she felt vindicated by the judgment and denied she was disappointed with the award.


"I'd just like to say I'm absolutely delighted. The judge obviously considered all the evidence very thoroughly. It was very fair and I feel very vindicated by his findings," she said.


Mrs O'Keeffe, who works as a marketing executive in Rathmines, said she was glad the "ordeal" was over.


"I'm not disappointed. My legal team had always advised me that this would be approximately the figure we could expect," she said.


Asked if she would fly Ryanair again she said she had anticipated the question and believed the best answer to be "subject to availability".


Asked about Ryanair's conduct throughout she said the judgment answered that. "I can only reiterate what was said in court - I was shabbily treated by them and the judgment has vindicated me," she said.


Mrs O'Keeffe described the telephone call with Mr O'Leary as "very upsetting" and said "it was one of the reasons we ended up in the High Court".


If she wanted to fly again, she would be paying for her flights like everyone else.


In a statement issued after the judgment, Ryanair said it would not be appealing and declared itself "very satisfied" with the outcome. "Ryanair is pleased that the matter has at last been brought to a conclusion," the statement said.


During the March hearing, Ryanair had offered Mrs O'Keeffe free flights for herself and a nominated companion subject to availability, €4,000 compensation and her legal costs. Mrs O'Keeffe rejected the offer
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of particular note is the fact that it was the way Michael O'Leary treated her on the phone that caused her to go to the High court.

Herb Kelleher he is not.

[RevMan2]

Didn't something similar happen at Virgin some years ago? I seem to recall that one of Branson's partners was promised free lifetime F-class transportation, only to find his entitlement severely limited when the beancounters worked out what the boss had committed to.

[newswatcher]

It will be interesting to see what happens when she tries to buy her next flight. I wonder how many of the cheapest tickets will still be available for her, when she gives her name!

[brabazon]

newswatcher

If she uses their web-site she doesn't need to give her name until she's seen the price - so no discrimination there, at least!!

[hmm...]

The executive said that because she had nothing in writing, she was going to be limited to 12 flights a year and that Ryanair would not be liable to issue her with unlimited flights.

Only 12 free flights a year? Oh the poor thing! :mad:

[Arkroyal]

hmmm, you forget that that offer of 12 flights p.a. was only made in an attempt to avoid court. Ryanair originally tried to pull out all together.

Excellent result.

As for 'Mr O’Leary’s assertion that he was not hostile or aggressive towards Ms O’Keeffe.' He probably doesn't realise that he comes over as hostile and aggressive towards everyone he comes into contact with. (a view based on his TV performances) He's probably hostile and aggressive to his reflection in the shaving mirror each morning.

To Ryanair and its workers I wish only success. I look forward to MOL's bbq.

[HugMonster]

You miss the point, hmmmm.

Has she been told by Ryanair that her prize was £20m but later they only decided to give her £1m, would you say the same?

It's quite simple. They reneged on a promise - on a legal contract. They wanted the publicity, to be seen as the nice, generous airline when they awarded her the prize. Later on, when they reckoned the public gaze was elsewhere, they tried to take back what they had given.

More fool them. :rolleyes:

[sky9]

An interesting article by Jeff Randall in The Sunday Telegraph headlined "Ryanair is heading for a nose dive"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2002/06/23/ccjeff23.xml&sSheet=/money/2002/06/23/ixcoms.html

[hmm...]

I understand why they offered her 12 flights per year as a "settle out of court" tactic. But as she previously noted she doens't fly 12 times a year! So what's the harm?

Sure they offered her a verbal contract of unlimited "life time travel" but I still think 12 flights a year isn't so bad.

I sense this has more of a twist then just "free flights" in this case. She has obviously sensed she can make some money and she has gone running to the nearest lawyer.

Guys, I know Ryanair are not the most favourable airline in Europe but I sense people are jumping on the band wagon just a tad to quick.

Would it be fair if she got a contract from now stating that she should recieve 12 free flights per year? :confused:

Its not at all about unlimited travel, its about all the money she thinks she is entilted to.

[hmm...]

Its not at all about unlimited travel, its about all the money she thinks she is entilted to.

Meaning that she is entilted to free flights not 20 million pounds!

Just had to clear that up!