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.