For once I agree with Ryanair!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Sussex
Age: 70
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For once I agree with Ryanair!
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!!!
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!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: East Sussex
Age: 70
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: south east
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but surely this is european law.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: munich
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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?
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
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?
Paxing All Over The World
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!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxboy said:
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
off - you sort it out". For that small percentage of passengers that keep their receipts and claim they usually settle.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Last edited by ExXB; 23rd Apr 2010 at 16:43.
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brussels
Age: 46
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compensation not linked to ticket price
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 68
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines are insured for these eventualities
Clearly a unprecedented shutdown of airspace is probably not foreseen in these rules, but are we suggesting that passengers should be abandoned?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brussels
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
For me, I believe it's a fair deal, and I freely accept it.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 32°55'22"S 151°46'56"E
Age: 39
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
However, if after this event Ryanair and the likes want to lobby for a change in the law now, I can understand that.