SSK
 

No need for the warning, that was very informative, thanks.

Nice posting The SKK. What if the airline doesn't have a registered business address in the EU?

The airline should be carrying appropriate insurance against its failure to deliver what it agreed to provide.

If you hired a car and it wasn't available, you'd reasonably expect the car hire firm to sort it out and for you to not have to take out your own insurance to cover the failures of others.

Thats my view anyway.

So if the car hire firm was unable to supply a car because car hire was banned following an environmental disaster then they should be expected to look after you until car hire became permissible again? Well that's a lot less bother than worrying about old-fashioned travel and credit card insurance.

Life is becoming wonderful as our sense of entitlement rises to the point where our every setback is for someone else to wear.

The Regulation applies to ALL flights departing from an EU airport regardless of where an airline may have a registered business address. It also applies to all EU airlines' flights to an EU airport.

Good luck finding such insurance. It simply isn't available and if it was it would not be at a reasonable cost. As a result the airlines 'self-insure'. i.e. they don't give money to an insurance company, but pay out valid claims from their own reserves.

ExXB thanks for clarifying that point. If I was flying out and back DUB-JFK with say EI and my return flight was cancelled because the aircraft was 'stranded' in DUB would EI still have the duty of care even though I am a stranded passenger who is outside of the EU?

Yes. Article 3;

Scope
1. This Regulation shall apply:
(a) to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies;
(b) to passengers departing from an airport located in a third country to an airport situated in the territory of a Member State to which the Treaty applies, ... if the operating air carrier of the flight concerned is a Community carrier.

Note 'operating air carrier' - if code share flight is operated by non-EU airline they are not compelled by this regulation to provide care, although they may do so as a matter of policy.

Also this regulation also applies to Norway, Iceland and Switzerland on the same basis.

You're a mine of information ExXB thank you.

Am I reading what you say correctly when I state Article 3(b) offers me assistance on a through ticket with SQ who ticket me DUB-LHR on EI and LHR-SIN on SQ but I'm not covered on the way back? If EI don't run the LHR-DUB sector, SQ so in this case EI don't have to worry about Article 3.

fair enough, but thats their choice. Its one of the risk of taking folks money to deliver something which you may not be able to insure against. I do however disbelieve that an airline cannot get insurance at a reasonable price - its just that they don't want to buy anything that would increase their fixed cost base. And thats entirely their choice.

Yes they should. Thats assuming that there were no alternative travel methods of course, so my example was poor.

If a business is going to take someones money for doing something, then they should not expect others to suffer because they cannot deliver against insurable risks. If they don't want to pay the insurance costs, then its not reasonable to expect to take folks money and just say 'tough luck'.

GrahamOIn an ideal world = Yes. But your competitor will choose to have no insurance, change the wording of their website to make it clear - and then lower prices.

The next company will cut out the radio/cd and lower prices ...

What do you do? :hmm:

In the airline world - that is the story of the last 20 years and we are STILL spiralling downwards! :(

:confused: The Regulation applies to all EI flights (unless they have a flight between two non-EU airports, which I don't think they do).

On a journey DUB EI LHR SQ SIN SQ LHR EI DUB the Regulation applies to all flights, except the SQ flight SIN-LHR. That does not mean SQ doesn't provide care in some or all circumstances, just that they are not compelled to.

I find it amazing that sensible people still think that any problem they encounter has to be the fault of someone and that compensation can be claimed.

It was not Ryanair's fault that the airspace was closed. If you were at your home airport you could have gone home and if you were away you were stranded, but that is not Ryanair's fault. Yes, perhaps more could have been done voluntarily by airlines, but they do not have bottomless bank accounts and with a lost cost airline, you expect minimal service over and above what you have paid for.

I once ordered a specific type of rental car for a family of five plus large amounts of luggage. When I got to the desk I was given a much smaller car and the excuse was pitiful. I got annoyed and eventually it was swapped over. But, as has been said before, if the authorities had banned driving how could I expect the rental company to help me?

This isn't about compensation, this is about care. Compensation is payable in some cases for delays, cancellations and denied boardings. Everyone agrees that compensation was not applicable for incidents resulting from the volcanic cloud.

Care, on the other hand, is something the vast majority of network airlines used to provide without a second thought. (Yes, there were always exceptions to this practice). The Regulators in Brussels considered practices of non-network airlines to be unfair since they didn't do the same thing. As this Regulation was being introduced the network airlines were nonplussed with these rules as they provided care anyway and, although nobody said so, they were happy to see some of the LCCs cost advantages being reduced. The LCCs hated this idea and fought bitterly. They lost.

So, airlines have an obligation to take care of their passengers regardless of the reasons for the incident. There is no time limit to such obligation written into the regulation, nor do I think there ever will be one. Delays of more than 24/48/72 hours are not common, but they do exist.

As noted above Cranair assesses all of their passengers a €2/£2 surcharge allegedly to cover these costs. My personal view is that they are overcharging for this and are being disingenuous if not deceptive (by blaming the Regulator for this charge) However in doing so they are self-insuring for these known and legally binding costs.

What did Cryanair get out of this? Simple, free publicity from the media in another feeding frenzy.

In all sincerity I wouldn't have claimed for the ash cloud but put me down in a desert for 10 hours and blame it on an 'Act of God', is a horse of a different colour.

When a person insures some almost believe they have a right to receive back in claims each year at least what they have contributed. It is almost a feeling of entitlement to claim and to exaggerate such a claim.

With this new ruling we could create the danger where the travelling public will choose not to insure because they believe someone else will always pick up the bill if things go wrong.

Self-insurance may be one option for the airlines but some of the events the airlines will have to cover are not at all predictable and the aggregate effect of several losses, could have the same affect as a catastrophic loss particularly in the early years after formation of the fund. Imagine an airline that finds themselves under financial pressure, wouldn't they be tempted to borrow from the funds? On the other hand airlines that are doing well won't appreciate having to have capital tied up. Also I think the contributions made towards a fund for self insurance purposes may not qualify for corporation tax relief.

The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk and I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves. There are new risks that have to be covered and insurers will develop new products to cover it.

In all fairness I can't see how you can't have a no limit duty of care that the airlines must now work to.

Actually a diversion, to a desert or elsewhere, is not covered by 261. As long as your flight left within 3 hours of scheduled departure time, that is.

I think the travelling public have an obligation to insure themselves.

I would not normally consider taking out insurance, simply because a substantial proportion of the insurers that I have dealt with have proven to be dishonest.

So assuming we don't insure and leave it all up to the airlines to cover us what additional charges do you think airlines will pass on to their customers?

So assuming we don't insure and leave it all up to the airlines to cover us what additional charges do you think airlines will pass on to their customers?

If we are being rational, airports as much as airlines, would have an appropriate duty of care.

Airports are in a far better position to organise such things so they would probably end up providing a service to airlines even when an airline was responsible for the failure.

Given that such a system could be a lot more efficient there might be no requirement to charge anybody.

In the event of e.g. massive snow cancellations, major airports can normally conjure up camp beds, blankets etc. It’s not their responsibility – under R261 the airlines should already have bussed their stranded passengers off to nice cosy hotels, but it’s yet another measure of the madness of R261 that it assumes that hotel rooms can be found for 5000 passengers caught in a whiteout.

I think you can reasonably assume that the cost of the camp beds and blankets will be passed on to the airport’s customers – i.e. the airlines – through their charging system … and consequently into the airlines’ pricing system.

Be careful what you wish for.

Under a different Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1107/2006 of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 concerning the rights of disabled persons and persons with reduced mobility when travelling by air.) airports are given the responsibility to care for a PRM from their arrival at the airport to the door of the aircraft and vv.

Airlines are mostly unhappy with the costs and, at some airports, with the level of service their customers receive. Meanwhile NGOs representing PRMs are attempting to have the Regulation strengthened. The Regulation allows airports to pass along their costs to the airlines, but these charges are not regulated. Often a monopoly provider charging monopoly rents.

This Regulation came about because some airlines did not view that taking care of PRMs (Passengers with Reduced Mobility) was their responsibility - even though the network airlines for many years had done exactly that. (BTW, does this sound familiar? - drag the LCCs up to the level of network airlines.)

Cryanair also charges for 1107/2006. €0.50/£0.50 per flight - or another €40 million a year (based on their claim of 79.6 m pax per year). They, to my knowledge, have never justified that this fee has any relationship to their actual costs.

You can find all of their non-optional costs here.

When considering what will be the trigger for the next BIG unscheduled air space closure? Consider: BBC News - UK 'can cope with solar superstorm'

My emphasis.

Its a poor example as you are not renting an aircraft to get yourself to a destination, so a comparison is not equivalent. You are effectively paying for a company who just happen to have aircraft at hand, to provide an all in service to some distant point. Thats not the same as renting an aircraft. They can rent you an aircraft, but its not their fault that you will not be granted takeoff and thats not the rental company's problem.

However if say a ban on driving were introduced, and you had booked a chauffeur service, you would insist that the company provides you with suitable alternative means, such as a mix of bus, coach, air, or rail transport.

There's a difference between buying a DIY product and paying for a full service.

Regarding the published list of 'non optional' costs, it seems reasonable that if a charge has to be imposed the collector shouldn't be expected to collect, administer and pass on the payment free of charge.

I agree the taxes shouldn't be collected free of charge (but they are). These are fixed costs imposed by governments which are being passed on to the consumer.

The remainder: Passenger Service Charge/Airport tax (Tax? I didn't know airports could impose taxes); Aviation Insurance Levy;
PRM Levy; Flight Delay/Cancellation Levy (EU261); ETS (Emission Trading Scheme) Levy; Administration Fee are all charges imposed by FR. These are not charges imposed by governments, airports or other third parties which are then passed on to the consumer. The amounts are determined by FR and (excluding the PSC) are at least £14.74/€14.74 per flight.

It's ironic that Mr O'Leary, who is well known crowing "No Fuel Surcharges" goes along with all of these surcharges - which have exactly the same purpose. They should be included in the fare, not added as extras (as should fuel surcharges)

Oh, and they do apply an interesting £/€ rate. (BSR is currently 0.85)

They are not the only ones, I'm not picking on just them - but they do offer one of the better targets.

Just did a dummy quote on Ryanair's site and the fare they quoted is the fare I'm being asked to pay which seems fair enough to me. I assume there is a strong element of them rounding up some of the levies below to provide a contingency fund and / or to profit from the various 'impositions', but the bottom line is they said the airfare would be EUR 72.13 and I could have paid EUR72.13 if I had a debit card.

Going Out23/02/2013 06:25
Dublin T1 » London-Stansted

Fare:22.99 EUR1 x Adult22.99 EUREU 261 Levy:2.00 EUROnline Check-in :6.00 EURETS Levy:0.25 EURAdministration Fee:6.00 EURTaxes/Fees:34.89 EURAviation Insurance/PRM Levy:6.49 EURIrish Travel Tax:3.00 EURIrish Passenger Service Fee PSC:25.40 EURCredit Card Fee:1.44 EURTotal Price:73.57 EUR

ExXBAs I understand it:

1. The unavoidables have to be itemised for transparency.
2. As far as FR are concerned, they like to show how much is NOT their charges.
3. FR just LOVE collecting these taxes, as the money is in their account for a period of time before they have to deliver it to the govt. Whilst interest rates may not be high - at the volumes of cash swilling through their accounts? One might almost say 'Every Little Helps'. :p

The cat has been out of the bag for years about all these invented "additional" charges that increase a "headline" fare of 22.99 Euros to a real fare of 73.57 Euros.

The cat has also been out of the bag for years about Ryanir's claims to be a "cheap" airline; anyone who still believes that should look at their average yield per passenger (Google their latest accounts.) On some short-haul routes it was, last time I looked, the highest among all the airlines on those routes, including BA. (Mind you we are not comparing like with like; the FR route is usually to the middle of nowhere while the other carriers go to the declared destination.)

However, Ryanair provides a safe and frequent service that people, nearly all of whom are quite capable of working out the true cost, still buy instead of cheaper alternatives, or in the absence of cheaper alternatives they still buy to get to places that only Ryanair serves.

My question is, why the hell does Ryanair bother with all that insane nonsense about invented levies, taxes, this, that and the sodding other.

I know every airline does it, and that one or two are unavoidable levies. But Ryanair is worse than anyone else, and it's totally unnecessary, because there cannot, surely, be anyone who is still fooled by it.

Just put the total fare up front, and we'll pay it if we need to use your services, Mr Leary. If we don't, we won't, and pretending for a few moments, as we plod through your intermineable, convoluted website, that it costs 1/4 of the actual figure isn't going to change that.

WE ARE NOT AS STUPID AS YOU THINK WE ARE!

The company based it's whole starting strategy (after the appt of MoL) on the key tenets of:

• Bluster
• Shout about the costs everyone else is imposing
• Get money from the airports and all sorts of new places
• Portray themselves as the 'little guy' and the 'good guy'
• Bluster

Having done that with remarkable success (from 1992) they absolutely CANNOT now change. Even when MoL goes (for whatever reason) the ethos is built into every single layer of mgmt and staff - to change all of them? Besides, since they have made so much money, who would risk changing the formula? That is not to say I agree with them - but change? Not going to happen any more than Tony Blair is going to apologise for making war. once a company has been formed in a particular way it is 90% impossible to change it.

As to anyone still fooled - I agree that number will be dropping but they are STILL often cheaper if you book right and the new generations of 18 something being let loose by their parents are going to go for it. They don't mind a bit of hassle as they have no money. MoL doesn't care if they are fooled - as long as they book. That is all that his ego needs.

Lastly, FR is now a mature business and so they have to find new ways to keep expanding, such as the EI game. It is always fascinating to watch them.

This is an insurable risk. Airlines can either buy the appropriate insurance or take the risk onto their balance sheet.

The practical reality is that most travellers these days (particularly families) cannot afford the costs of a ten day delay getting home from the other side of the world, and don't have the time / knowledge to wade through the small print that allows an insurance company to avoid it's responsibilities.

Governments have decided that for the greater good airlines should manage this issue - and it is probably the cheapest and most expedient way for passengers to be protected.

The real issue is why airlines feel they don't need to comply with the law.

Governments have decided that for the greater good airlines should manage this issue - and it is probably the cheapest and most expedient way for passengers to be protected.

As a passenger it appears to me to be a very inefficient way to protect passengers.

It would be far more efficient if airports, which are on the spot and have the relevant local knowledge, provided the backbone of the system - twenty airlines trying to book hotels simultaneously is hardly likely to be an efficient process.

There is no reason to insist that airlines have to use the airport service.

The airline has a contractual relationship with the passenger: the airport does not.

If an unusually high concentration of volcanic ash in the atmosphere that prevents flying( Eyjafjallajökull, 2010) is NOT an Act of god (as per the ECJ) and thus the airlines' (insurable) risk, doesn't Nemo 2013 (an unusually high concentration of ice crystals in the atmosphere that prevents flying) fall into the same category?

OK, let’s see …

You have bought tickets for the upcoming Man Utd/Arsenal game. It’s postponed because the pitch is under two feet of snow.

Do you:
(a) Get a refund on your ticket?
(b) Have your ticket revalidated for a later date?
(c) Expect hotel accommodation and three meals a day until the match is re-staged?

What a pathetic attempt to draw a parallel between folks stuck in an overseas airport with no way of getting home, paying for a hotel etc and watching a football game. The ticket you buy for a game comes 'sans travel' so how you get there is what you do outside of the 90 minutes you have paid to watch are utterly irrelevant.

You've clearly lost the argument if that the best you can come up with, especially as most people couldn't be paid to watch either of those teams regardless of location.

Feeble attempt on your part.

And just where, pray, does 261 refer to 'stuck in an overseas airport?

You are only "stuck in an overseas airport with no way of getting home" if you've booked and paid for a complete travel package. That is where none of this makes sense any more, because very few people do that and even fewer airlines sell "return" fares. You buy a single journey - maybe or maybe not in conjunction with another single journey in the opposite direction - so the airline should have no particular reason to compensate any traveller for the fact that he or she decided to stray so far from home that he has "no way" of getting back, other than providing a replacement service at the earliest possible opportunity.

Weather delays ARE considered to be an exceptional circumstance and COMPENSATION for delay/cancellation are not payable. However there is no waiving of the duty for care FOR ANY REASON, including Nemo. EU airlines must provide care for (almost) all of their flights. The only exception being sectors between two non EU airports (Virgin, for example, between SYD and HKG).

Sorry for shouting, it's bad form, but we need to be clear - this ruling is about the duty for care contained in Regulation 261, not about cash compensation.

And a volcanic eruption is NOT exceptional - almost an everyday occurence, now I come to think of it.
I think I've understood.....

In the same place as your ridiculous attempt to draw a parallel between the air regulations and buying a ticket for a football match.

You're getting childish now, time for you to go to bed I think.