For once I agree with Ryanair!

[m500dpp]

Not a great fan of MOL or RYA, but who can argue that having bought a £30 ticket, the airline should be responsible for £'000s of hotel bills when the flight is cancelled by events outside of their control?

If a pax decides not to take out adequate travel insurance, then they have opted to take the risk themselves, and shouldnt try and get the airline to pay for their mistake!!!

[36050100]

But in this case the liability rests with the airline. The airline can take out insurance to cover itself against the risk.

[m500dpp]

Legally yes, but IMHO the law is out of touch with reality - It does not pass the common sense test!.

Travellers must take some responsibility for looking after themselves, or pay premium airfares to the likes of BA, you pays your money and takes your choice!!!

it is unreasonable to expect BA type service at bargain basement prices!

[jimd-f]

but surely this is european law.
the airline has to give you refund or book you on the next available flight, and look after you in the meantime.
the airlines know the rules, and MOL is an expert on rules.
it is unfortunate that the airlines have to pay out a lot more than they have received for tickets, but they were all aware.
could they not have taken out insurance to cover this, or did the perceived risks outweigh the premium.
there may be a case for the EU to provide some compensation to the airlines, as the airlines themselves were unable to mitigate their losses.
although most travel insurance policies do not provide the levels of cover that individuals need when faced with this sort of disaster, anyone trying to get the level of insuance that would protect them would almost certainly be faced with a ridiculously high premium.
however, when you read some of the stories about the expenses people are running up to get home, i feel the airlines are perfectly justified in refusing to pay for some of these things ie a taxi home from spain is really taking the proverbial ...
so, i think that the airlines must pay the hotel/food, and bite the bullet, but anyone who has taken any other option to get home may find that there is no-one to pay these costs bar themselves.

[36050100]

If a party thinks the law is wrong, they can lobby parliament to get it changed.

Deciding after the event that you are going to ignore the law because you don't agree with it is no way to do business.

[Octopussy2]

36050100 has it exactly right. European law says that the risk lies with the airlines. The airlines are aware of this and (doubtless) can insure against it. If an airline chooses not to, tough.

Many individual travel policies will not include cover for this type of event; and in this case, IMHO, an appropriate allocation of risk (in circumstances where it is hard for an individual to insure against this kind of event) is that the risk lies with the airline.

MOL seems to be arguing that the cause of the delay was not actually the eruption but the government's (alleged) overreaction to it. That is a different point. But if that is his view, the correct course of action is to pay out (as he is obliged to by European law) and then sue the government to reimburse him.

[Skipness One Echo]

but surely this is european law.

Well it does fail the common sense test to have the airline laible for a weeks accomodation and food for thousands of people and not be insured for the loss.

As for European law, I don't even have the will to begin to explain how far away from my life this modern Versailles is.

[praa]

With a family of five and not a whole load of disposable income, I came to the conclusion long ago that lo-co airlines are too risky to plan a holiday around. First off, there are rarely discounts for children. Secondly all those extra hidden costs add up. Thirdly, what happens in the case of a cancellation (money back and find your own way home or god knows how long till they put you on the next flight)? Frankly, if you're travelling with kids, you can't afford to travel with an airline who won't help you when things go wrong. FYI: as a result, we usually go by car!

[PAXboy]

Cynical view mode

The old guard of European airlines wanted to force RyanAir to have the same problems as them and got their pals in the EC hierarchy to pass this weird legislation. They must be very pleased.

I thought it entirely reasonable for RyanAir (and other LCCs) not to pay hotel and food as that was part of the bargain basement price.

Now FR will increase prices a bit and make everyone pay - like they did for wheelchairs. Had the old carriers left FR as it was, then more people might have thought it worth the while to pay extra for what they offer. Now that FR have to offer the compensation - but still at much lower prices - they are stronger competition not weaker.

I do like the law of unintended consequences and hope that the big boys are very pleased with themselves.

I sit to be corrected.

[wowzz]

MOL might not like it, but the law is the law, and when he set his fares, he should have taken into acount the possible costs of potential flight delays.
It is not possible, as I understand it, to operate flights within the EC without being on the same 'level playing field' as every other carrier.
What MOL should do, is offer flights at 2 different charges: one with EC protection on delays etc and one without [with pax signing some form of disclaimer]. Then his customers can decide if his 'cheap' flights are really value for money and make their choice accordingly.

[Seat62K]

Don't give him ideas!!

[Fargoo]

I have a view - the law has its merits but is not really suited for the situation we've just had.

I always thought there was a get out clause if the cancellations weren't the airlines fault?

Always pays to have good comprehensive travel insurance devoid of "act of god" clauses. Clearly people who pay €2 for their ticket aren't the sort of people who have the foresight to spend €100 a year on travel insurance :ugh:

I'm sure the rest of the European airlines will be just as obstructive in paying customers reasonable costs as per the EU directive. I wonder how many travellers will be shocked to find the cost of alternative travel arrangements is not part of the EU deal?

[PAXboy]

wowzz That's the answer. But then the old guard will insist that you cannot circumvent the law by signing away your rights. They had to find a way to hurt hi financially. Of course, MoLs in a much better financial state than most of them!

[ExXB]

Paxboy said: Cynical view mode

The old guard of European airlines wanted to force RyanAir to have the same problems as them and got their pals in the EC hierarchy to pass this weird legislation. They must be very pleased.

That actually wasn't how it happened. 261/2004 was not the first regulation. It was adopted in 2004 to replace the previous one (i've now forgotten it's number) which covered only denied boarding.

The LCC and charter carriers, at the time, had no interest in this older regulation because their business model didn't/doesn't call for overbooking. Originally the Commission and the Parliament wanted to ban oversales, but the network airlines convinced them that the airline's practice actually provided significant benefits (in that passengers could make bookings on otherwise 'full' flights) and that the airlines got it right much more often than they got it wrong.

So the rule was that if you bumped somebody, you rebooked them (or gave them a refund) on the next flight and, if necessary, you fed them and put them up in a hotel if they had to overnight. You also 'compensated' them with money.

When they adapted the old regulation they kept all of these provisions (why reinvent the rule) but extended them to cancellations and long delays. To discourage 'commercial' cancellations they kept the compensation, but waived it for delays and for other cancellations. At that time nobody considered that hotels might ever be required indefinitely or more than one night.

Cryanair, and Sleezy to a lessor extent, normally apply the Regulation by telling the punter :mad: off - you sort it out". For that small percentage of passengers that keep their receipts and claim they usually settle.

But then the old guard will insist that you cannot circumvent the law by signing away your rights. They had to find a way to hurt hi financially. Of course, MoLs in a much better financial state than most of them!Actually this prohibition is already in the Regulation. Even if they sign a waiver, the regulation still applies. So if anyone has signed such a waiver, you can still claim.

[Ancient Observer]

Ryannair plays the Aviation game. To play the game, you have to observe the rules.

Some rules might be seen as daft. Don't ignore them, try to change them, but don't cry if you don't succeed.

Simples

[shogan1977]

The fact is that passenger compensation is completely unrelated to how much a passenger pays for his/her ticket. Whether you paid £30 or £300 compensation relates to the impact a delay or cancellation has on your life - missing a family event, missing a critical meeting, not getting back to take care of your relatives/children.

Airlines are insured for these eventualities and such compensation provides an obligation to treat your passengers fairly (regardless of business model) but just as importantly an incentive to avoid long delays and/or cancellations. Clearly a unprecedented shutdown of airspace is probably not foreseen in these rules, but are we suggesting that passengers should be abandoned?

[ExXB]

Airlines are insured for these eventualities
Actually they are not. Policies to protect airlines from eventualities, that nobody expects, are not available. Let's not forget that insurance companies too are expected to make money - meaning that they have to collect more than they pay out. Airlines couldn't afford the premiums.

Clearly a unprecedented shutdown of airspace is probably not foreseen in these rules, but are we suggesting that passengers should be abandoned?I'm certainly not suggesting passengers be abandoned, but why should it be one part of the delivery chain that is responsible. There are no obligations on hotels, nor on surface transport, nor on restaurants - just the airlines? And they can't insure against losses.

[Coquelet]

You can buy Ryanair flights at very low prices, and if one of them is cancelled, you manage by yourself until the next available flight.
For me, I believe it's a fair deal, and I freely accept it.

[Seat62K]

And what about those who buy Ryanair tickets at prices equivalent to, or in excess of, legacy airlines'?

[L'aviateur]

If you bought a ticket expecting the EU law to be honoured, regardless of how much you paid, then there is no justified argument.
However, if after this event Ryanair and the likes want to lobby for a change in the law now, I can understand that.

[crewmeal]

And if you buy a FR ticket at £1 then pay £xxx for printing it off, £xxx for checking in baggage, £xxx for boarding first etc etc and the price somes out to that of a schedule carrier, how much would you get back? £1?

In my views fares are fares, extras are extras. Where does the EU compensation rule stand with that?

On the same theme, did anyone see Watchdog the other night with all the complaints about trying to get a refund with Easyjet using their refund button?

[Seat62K]

I'd be very surprised to see a Ryanair £1 fare (with "extras" added) ending up costing the same as a legacy carrier's fare.

If anyone has examples, please post them!

[boredcounter]

Do the same EU rules apply to other modes of transport that fail commuters and holiday makers during natural happenings, such as dry snow or leaf fall chaos?

Is it me, or is it just the glamourous, cash rich aviation industry treated this way?

Should I pay 1 or 200 pounds/euros for a Eurostar ticket, and snow delays me four days, just what is Eurostar's liability?

I hope all the airlines caught up in the volcanic episode see it through to the other side. Insured for every eventuality, or not, too many fail during everyday operations. Cost to insure an airline going up.

Bored



Bored

[Rwy in Sight]

I did not know that any airline may decide to opt out of a regulation that does not like. Maybe next year FR will decide not to pay taxes (because it cost money) or eliminate some other expenses. Would that be ok too?

Rwy in Sight

[PAXboy]

ExXB thanks for clarification and I was aware that you cannot sign away your rights.

boredcounterIs it me, or is it just the glamorous, cash rich aviation industry treated this way?Good question. I think this is all to do with history, like 1950s/60s even 70s, when few people travelled by air and it was glam and the airlines made some cash. I recall my great aunt telling me about the Imperial flying boats and her journey to Cape Town across an amazingly quick six days, staying in hotels each night.

In this regard, it's very much akin to the BA CC having to update their Ts&Cs (unpleasant though that might be) to 21st century economics. All of this has happened before, of course, when the great shipping lines passed from their apogee to become just cruise ships with non-urgent traffic. They used to make money and be glamorous ... For a country, having your 'own' international shipping line and flag ship was very important for status. That passed on to the airlines and people are loathe to give it up without any new place to transfer it. But, I digress.