Snooker player to sue Ryanair??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snooker player to sue Ryanair??
Nice story on BBC about world snooker no.2 and his unhappiness with Ryanair....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/2939779.stm
Damages claim over bent cue
World snooker number two Mark Williams is demanding damages from no frills airline Ryanair, claiming his favourite cue was badly bent during a flight to a tournament.
Williams was dumped out of the Regal Scottish Open 5-3 by out-of-form Joe Swail on Thursday - and he blamed his poor patch on his damaged cue.
The 28-year-old player has already made a compensation claim against the airline.
Williams' manager confirmed on Friday he also wants to sue for loss of earnings - a Masters win could have netted him £400,000, and this week's winner in Edinburgh will make £597,200.
Out of sorts, the millionaire Welsh star from Cwm, near Ebbw Vale, south Wales exited at the quarter-final stage of the Irish Masters after a 6-1 rollover by Paul Hunter in Dublin.
He said he arrived in Ireland to find his cue case smashed and the cue, which he has used since he was a teenager, bent in two places.
"The cue was S-shaped when I picked it up at the airport," he said.
"I did well to win two matches because it's hard enough playing with a straight cue.
"I was thrashed by Paul Hunter but I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want it to sound like an excuse.
"The bends have been taken out of it now and hopefully I will get used to it before the World Championships at the Crucible in Sheffield later this month."
Williams' manager Ian Doyle said snooker players have been prohibited from taking their cues on aircraft as hand luggage since the terrorist attacks of 11 September.
"They are put in the hold which means that heavy luggage is thrown on top of them. We will have to think of reinforcing the cue cases in future," he said.
"The cue was very badly bent and we have notified Ryanair that we are making a compensation claim. We are taking legal advice about whether we can claim for loss of earnings.
"There is no doubt that the cue affected his game in the Irish Masters. Since then, Mark has had it repaired but we shall just have to wait and see whether it affects his game in future."
Ryanair told BBC News Online it had not heard from Mark Williams.
"Once we receive a complaint we will look into it," a spokesperson said.
"But, since security was heightened at airports, we have to stick to the rules and regulations and we make no concessions as far as the safety of passengers is concerned"
(PS Can we try to be grown ups and not turn this into an obligatory Ryanair bashing thread ?....)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/2939779.stm
Damages claim over bent cue
World snooker number two Mark Williams is demanding damages from no frills airline Ryanair, claiming his favourite cue was badly bent during a flight to a tournament.
Williams was dumped out of the Regal Scottish Open 5-3 by out-of-form Joe Swail on Thursday - and he blamed his poor patch on his damaged cue.
The 28-year-old player has already made a compensation claim against the airline.
Williams' manager confirmed on Friday he also wants to sue for loss of earnings - a Masters win could have netted him £400,000, and this week's winner in Edinburgh will make £597,200.
Out of sorts, the millionaire Welsh star from Cwm, near Ebbw Vale, south Wales exited at the quarter-final stage of the Irish Masters after a 6-1 rollover by Paul Hunter in Dublin.
He said he arrived in Ireland to find his cue case smashed and the cue, which he has used since he was a teenager, bent in two places.
"The cue was S-shaped when I picked it up at the airport," he said.
"I did well to win two matches because it's hard enough playing with a straight cue.
"I was thrashed by Paul Hunter but I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want it to sound like an excuse.
"The bends have been taken out of it now and hopefully I will get used to it before the World Championships at the Crucible in Sheffield later this month."
Williams' manager Ian Doyle said snooker players have been prohibited from taking their cues on aircraft as hand luggage since the terrorist attacks of 11 September.
"They are put in the hold which means that heavy luggage is thrown on top of them. We will have to think of reinforcing the cue cases in future," he said.
"The cue was very badly bent and we have notified Ryanair that we are making a compensation claim. We are taking legal advice about whether we can claim for loss of earnings.
"There is no doubt that the cue affected his game in the Irish Masters. Since then, Mark has had it repaired but we shall just have to wait and see whether it affects his game in future."
Ryanair told BBC News Online it had not heard from Mark Williams.
"Once we receive a complaint we will look into it," a spokesperson said.
"But, since security was heightened at airports, we have to stick to the rules and regulations and we make no concessions as far as the safety of passengers is concerned"
(PS Can we try to be grown ups and not turn this into an obligatory Ryanair bashing thread ?....)
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Midlands, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Caledonian, I can sympathise with JW411's point here. Perhaps to put it more elucidely; if Mark Williams is claiming that his 'childhood cue' is of such vital importance and would have won him £400k, then surely it is of such value that he would travel in such a fashion so as to ensure it remained attached to his person at all times, even if that entailed chartering his own corporate jet!!
It's the same as saying if you had a briefcase stashed with £400k, would you allow it to be hold loaded? I think not!!
Doesn't matter who the carrier is.
No-one is 'knocking' Ryanair for being a low-cost carrier. After all that is the reason for their extraordinary success. You have to admit however that there is a certain irony here. JW411's post made me smile, I have to admit....
It's the same as saying if you had a briefcase stashed with £400k, would you allow it to be hold loaded? I think not!!
Doesn't matter who the carrier is.
No-one is 'knocking' Ryanair for being a low-cost carrier. After all that is the reason for their extraordinary success. You have to admit however that there is a certain irony here. JW411's post made me smile, I have to admit....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely this could have happened on any airline? How is claim is dealt with would be the interesting part. Since compensation is based on weight at USD20 per kilo.....I am not sure that he is going to add to his million(s) with this claim.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are put in the hold which means that heavy luggage is thrown on top of them
One would have hoped that the airline would have taken a little extra care on an item that pre 911 would have been allowed in the cabin.
The cue was S-shaped when I picked it up at the airport," he said. ....There is no doubt that the cue affected his game in the Irish Masters
Any chance of me taking Manchester to court over there (S-shaped, humped) runway. It most certainly affected my performance at work!
Just a thought, I seem to remember the "load and balance" manual on the gripper (trident) specified where in the cabin a pole vault pole could be carried. Would this now not be allowed as presumably one could attack the flight deck door while still standing in the economy cabin!
One would have hoped that the airline would have taken a little extra care on an item that pre 911 would have been allowed in the cabin.
The cue was S-shaped when I picked it up at the airport," he said. ....There is no doubt that the cue affected his game in the Irish Masters
Any chance of me taking Manchester to court over there (S-shaped, humped) runway. It most certainly affected my performance at work!
Just a thought, I seem to remember the "load and balance" manual on the gripper (trident) specified where in the cabin a pole vault pole could be carried. Would this now not be allowed as presumably one could attack the flight deck door while still standing in the economy cabin!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: keighley
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
must admit
i thougt fr pax carrying sport equipment were subject
to CHARGE OF GBP15.00 EXCESS
And they must sign a "LIMITED RELEASE TAG" Thus taking LIABILTY away from the airline for any damage caused..........................................
may be wrong that happened to my golf clubs ........
i thougt fr pax carrying sport equipment were subject
to CHARGE OF GBP15.00 EXCESS
And they must sign a "LIMITED RELEASE TAG" Thus taking LIABILTY away from the airline for any damage caused..........................................
may be wrong that happened to my golf clubs ........
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A poor workman blames his tools.
Could he not have bought a flight case for his precious snooker cue?
Musicians have been moving their very nice Fenders & Gibsons all over the world in good strong boxes since aeroplanes were invented.
Could he not have bought a flight case for his precious snooker cue?
Musicians have been moving their very nice Fenders & Gibsons all over the world in good strong boxes since aeroplanes were invented.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: The Deep South (Sussex)
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This joker should read the conditions printed on his ticket before he sues.
It's one of those rare occasions when I agree with MOL! You buy a £10 ticket then sue for £400,000?
Give me a break!
It's one of those rare occasions when I agree with MOL! You buy a £10 ticket then sue for £400,000?
Give me a break!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: essex
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have never been fond of fr but in this case i dont realy think it is their fault. they use, in some airports, the same handling agents as other airlines which would have let him pay considerley more for a first class seat. he should be suing the handling agents.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Rhode Island, USA
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive what may be an uneducated question, but if I can purchase a travel case for my shotguns that a elephant can stand on with no threat of damage (to either the firearm or the elephant) can't a professional snooker player find a safe and secure case for his prized snooker cue? Or am I missing something here?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ayrshire
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The snooker cue would not be classed as a piece of sporting equipment in the sense that it would incur an extra handling charge (£15). However it should have been limited released at check in and sent to a special fragile baggage are. This would have been the procedure at PIK anyway.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: MAN
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
must admit
i thougt fr pax carrying sport equipment were subject
to CHARGE OF GBP15.00 EXCESS
And they must sign a "LIMITED RELEASE TAG" Thus taking LIABILTY away from the airline for any damage caused..........................................
may be wrong that happened to my golf clubs ........
i thougt fr pax carrying sport equipment were subject
to CHARGE OF GBP15.00 EXCESS
And they must sign a "LIMITED RELEASE TAG" Thus taking LIABILTY away from the airline for any damage caused..........................................
may be wrong that happened to my golf clubs ........
They will never payout 400k, try 25 pound.
Wonder if he Read the Terms and Conditions?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Musicians+Warsaw convention
Hi!
A couple of points to make.
As a musician, I can say yes, we have. 
But the amount of times, I've retrieved an instrument at reclaim and found either it, or the case(re-enforced flight case) smashed beggars belief. A very close friend of mine has to date, had 2 guitars(up to $2000 value!) and 4 cases smashed on him by different airlines. Unfortunatly, damage still occurs even if there is proper casing around the item, which makes me wonder, how the hell are they causing the damage to these cases? There's a running joke among a lot of musicians over here, that when a baggage handler sees a flight case, he sees it as a challenge!!
Secondly, with passengers rights and the Warsaw convention. Please if I have anything wrong here, let me know. But, after having a good read of it and a couple of arguments with some airline companies, this is my understanding.
Under the Warsaw convention, this is null and void.
Article 23
#109
Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be null and void, but the nullity of any such provision does not involve the nullity of the whole contract, which shall remain subject to the provisions of this Convention. #110
I think the way some carriers get around this is by transferring the liability to the ground handler. With FR, I think it changes beetween different airports. On some, they have they're own handlers(or did have a couple of years ago) and on others they sub-contract to a ground handler.
If it was FR's own handlers, then the cue should be covered under the warsaw convention, which means that he won't get much back with the weight of a snooker cue being what it is.
However, under the Warsaw convention, it states :
Article 25
#114
1. The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct. #115
2. Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. #116
So, if he can prove, in court or through the carriers own acceptance, that the handlers were negligent, then he can claim for the full price of either replacing the item or repairing the item.
As regards the loss of earnings, I would think that it would be a civil action outside the scope of the convention and so, it wouldn't apply.
I think that's the way it goes.
Hope this makes things a bit clearer.
Cheers!
Paul.
PS....Please don't think that I'm FR bashing, the only reason I used the snooker cue as a reference was because it was the thread topic
A couple of points to make.
Musicians have been moving their very nice Fenders & Gibsons all over the world in good strong boxes since aeroplanes were invented.
But the amount of times, I've retrieved an instrument at reclaim and found either it, or the case(re-enforced flight case) smashed beggars belief. A very close friend of mine has to date, had 2 guitars(up to $2000 value!) and 4 cases smashed on him by different airlines. Unfortunatly, damage still occurs even if there is proper casing around the item, which makes me wonder, how the hell are they causing the damage to these cases? There's a running joke among a lot of musicians over here, that when a baggage handler sees a flight case, he sees it as a challenge!! Secondly, with passengers rights and the Warsaw convention. Please if I have anything wrong here, let me know. But, after having a good read of it and a couple of arguments with some airline companies, this is my understanding.
And they must sign a "LIMITED RELEASE TAG" Thus taking LIABILTY away from the airline for any damage caused..........................................
Article 23
#109
Any provision tending to relieve the carrier of liability or to fix a lower limit than that which is laid down in this Convention shall be null and void, but the nullity of any such provision does not involve the nullity of the whole contract, which shall remain subject to the provisions of this Convention. #110
I think the way some carriers get around this is by transferring the liability to the ground handler. With FR, I think it changes beetween different airports. On some, they have they're own handlers(or did have a couple of years ago) and on others they sub-contract to a ground handler.
If it was FR's own handlers, then the cue should be covered under the warsaw convention, which means that he won't get much back with the weight of a snooker cue being what it is.
However, under the Warsaw convention, it states :
Article 25
#114
1. The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct. #115
2. Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. #116
So, if he can prove, in court or through the carriers own acceptance, that the handlers were negligent, then he can claim for the full price of either replacing the item or repairing the item.
As regards the loss of earnings, I would think that it would be a civil action outside the scope of the convention and so, it wouldn't apply.
I think that's the way it goes.
Hope this makes things a bit clearer.
Cheers!
Paul.
PS....Please don't think that I'm FR bashing, the only reason I used the snooker cue as a reference was because it was the thread topic
