Compensation ruling - extraordinary events
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
From: Northern Territory Australia
Compensation ruling - extraordinary events
It seems perverse that a court should rule that closure of airspace by regulatory authorities should not be considered extra-ordinary. This being the case that RyanAir was defending when someone wanted compensation for the Iceland Volcano which shut airspace (rightly or wrongly).
There a many things overwhich Ryanair might be criticised for but I do feel a little sympathy for that carrier and all others who will be affected by this ruling.
if this is the wrong forum - I apologise
There a many things overwhich Ryanair might be criticised for but I do feel a little sympathy for that carrier and all others who will be affected by this ruling.
if this is the wrong forum - I apologise
Last edited by Gove N.T.; 31st January 2013 at 14:02.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
From: Newcastle NI
Gove N.T.
Have to agree with you on this one, although i have limited sympathy for MOL after all FR have been adding a 2€ surcharge for sometime now, so even a years worth must be close on €140m !!!
This ruling creates an interesting precedent in respect of other Airline here in the UK, the ruling seems to imply that claims can go back to 2005 so in theory the likes of BA could be liable for some of the many delays incurred by bmibaby back in their black days in 2007-2010.
This ruling creates an interesting precedent in respect of other Airline here in the UK, the ruling seems to imply that claims can go back to 2005 so in theory the likes of BA could be liable for some of the many delays incurred by bmibaby back in their black days in 2007-2010.
