Reasons I’ll never fly Ryanair again

lfc321

Never

I know I said I wouldn't debate it but since you're obviouly tryng to pick a fight I'll make one final reply on this thread.

malkie76 wrote: »

lfc321 - 1) I understand the case perfectly well, I was making a slightly different, but perfectly valid point.

OK so you decided to make a separate point which made it look like you didn't understand the case. Odd behaviour, but fair enough.

malkie76 wrote: »

Alternatively I could have asked; if it costs extra money to get assistance through the airport and to the plane, the cost should be passed on to those who use it, not those who don't.

You could indeed have asked that. My reply would have been the same as the Court of Appeal's: that is discrimination under the DDA.

malkie76 wrote: »

2) If people want to take heavy items with them it is perfectly fair to pass the costs on to them. No one is forcing them to travel, or even travel on RyanAir.

In most enlightened 21st century societies the agenda (and forunately now the law) is about how to make it possible for "them" (by which I assume you mean people with a disability?) to have the same opportunities as anyone else. You may disagree with that moral stance, but you and I will have to agree to differ on that point.

malkie76 wrote: »

Your 'i don't want to debate it' comment is concession that you know you are in the wrong.

It is no such thing. It is an indication of the fact that I have seen you in action on these boards on many previous occasions.

malkie76 wrote: »

If someone was told they couldn't travel because they were disabled then that would be discrimination. Being asked to cover your own costs is no different to the guy with four suitcases.

This is not what the law says. Charging someone more for reason of disability is unlawful. Even Ryanair now accept that, which is why they introduced the wheelchair levy on all tickets.

malkie76 wrote: »

3) if you did understand the point being made, why did you make an irrevevant response in reply?

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

Anyway, over and out.

Mr_Lahey

Yes

lfc321 wrote: »

I know I said I wouldn't debate it but since you're obviouly tryng to pick a fight I'll make one final reply on this thread.



OK so you decided to make a separate point which made it look like you didn't understand the case. Odd behaviour, but fair enough.



You could indeed have asked that. My reply would have been the same as the Court of Appeal's: that is discrimination under the DDA.



In most enlightened 21st century societies the agenda (and forunately now the law) is about how to make it possible for "them" (by which I assume you mean people with a disability?) to have the same opportunities as anyone else. You may disagree with that moral stance, but you and I will have to agree to differ on that point.



It is no such thing. It is an indication of the fact that I have seen you in action on these boards on many previous occasions.



This is not what the law says. Charging someone more for reason of disability is unlawful. Even Ryanair now accept that, which is why they introduced the wheelchair levy on all tickets.


I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

Anyway, over and out.

Why bother arguing with someone who is arguing about something they've never done????

Ignore the guy. He trawls the forums and is always out to tell people they are wrong or to just generally be negative.

malkie76

lfc321 - you have a gift for putting words into other people's mouths to make them look bad - there 's no need for that, please stick to commenting on what people actually said - you've done that three times now in this thread

"them" (by which I assume you mean people with a disability?)

No. Like I said, putting words in people's mouths. The comment about paying for luggage or heavy items was about any passenger - I don't discriminate.

to have the same opportunities as anyone else

Where have I, or anyone else denied someone an opportunity? This is again putting words in people's mouths. Explain exactly what's being denied.

Charging someone more for reason of disability is unlawful.

But no one is doing that, and I've never advocated that either. If your disability results in you needing additional help which inevitably costs money, then that charge needs to be accounted for in a no-frills low cost business model.

You are desperate to pin a bigot badge on me, but I'm merely explaining the facts here.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.

Not really - you made a remark which didn't reflect the point being made. Some might assume you misunderstood the point raised.

Mr Lahey :-

Why bother arguing with someone who is arguing about something they've never done????

I've never been a disabled person on a plane ? Ok, that's true, but how does that stop me explaining the reasoning behind charging an individual for the optional extras they want to take advantage of ?

Ignore the guy. He trawls the forums and is always out to tell people they are wrong or to just generally be negative.

Sorry you feel that way I post to correct inaccurate information to prevent others being mislead or potentially losing money. Frequently on these forums people post utter nonsense which needs correcting for the benefit of others.

Mr_Lahey

Yes

malkie76 wrote: »

I've never been a disabled person on a plane ? Ok, that's true, but how does that stop me explaining the reasoning behind charging an individual for the optional extras they want to take advantage of ?

Sorry you feel that way I post to correct inaccurate information to prevent others being mislead or potentially losing money. Frequently on these forums people post utter nonsense which needs correcting for the benefit of others.

You have never flown Ryanair, yet you feel compelled to argue it's case??

You post to 'attempt' "post to correct inaccurate information to prevent others being mislead or potentially losing money. Frequently on these forums people post utter nonsense which needs correcting for the benefit of others"
In other words you sit and think you are intellectually better than others, you admire your own responses to peoples often innocent posts, it may be that its some way you like to massage your ego. You cling to people's mishaps and frustrations with a 'told you so' attitude.
It's actually quite sad.

malkie76

I'm happy to discuss anything inaccurate Ive said

I'm not argueing *for* Ryanair, just merely highlighting facts. Please feel free to counter argue anything I've posted.

Attacking the poster rather than their points demonstrates a lack of depth to any
points you are trying to raise.

Mr_Lahey

Yes

malkie76 wrote: »

I'm happy to discuss anything inaccurate Ive said

I'm not argueing *for* Ryanair, just merely highlighting facts. Please feel free to counter argue anything I've posted.

Attacking the poster rather than their points demonstrates a lack of depth to any
points you are trying to raise.

I think most users on here - Even one as new as myself know that it is pointless arguing or trying to make you realise anything different to what you think.

It's best just left here.

malkie76

so you don't actually have a counter-arguement to the points I'm raising ?

melb

I'm assuming malkie76 is practising for an upcoming inter-school 6th form debating society - so let's give him the benefit of the doubt!

ckerrd

melb wrote: »

I'm assuming malkie76 is practising for an upcoming inter-school 6th form debating society - so let's give him the benefit of the doubt!

6th form?

My how standards have fallen.

As an aside I had a pm form the OP asking me if I had read all of his first post.

No idea why. (and I had)

inflationbusting

Actually, it's far easier to respect someone like LFC who have their own principles. If O'Leary had his way, disabled people would be banned. Fair play, if I were disabled, I would want an airline which used airbridges.

At the same time, I don't see the charges as unreasonable. The common sense solution would be for the airport to facilitate access to the aircraft - you would guess that the surcharge per passenger (by the fees levied on the airline) would be a lot more than base cost.

If you're disabled in a wheelchair and visit Harrods, you probably could get someone to push you round, get stuff of the high shelves. If you visit Netto or Aldi, you're not going to get any help, you're going to have to bring your own, ie. no frills.

Onto the OP and their insurance claim. Notwithstanding consumer law (that allows insurance to be cancelled) and the provision of email addresses etc in the FAQ's, first they contended that they forgot to decline insurance, then, when I pointed out, that the form had changed to opt in, they said:

No, the cost of insurance is not hidden but it's easy to think they're asking for country of residence for reasons unconnected with insurance.

Now, if anyone wants a laugh, I'd suggest you go and check out the Ryanair site, make a dummy booking from Stansted to Tenerife, check the insurance part and it's wording, and judge for yourself if these claims can be reconciled. Maybe a screen grab, if you can.