Ryanair Volcanic Dust Rip Off

Pelican_eats_pigeon

Well, sounds like they will have a lot of court cases coming up then, which in my opinion they would not be able to successfully defend.

malkie76

Courts will likely back the airlines due to pressure from government. Will be very interesting to see how it plays out - I think we could be looking at a change in legislation (or rather clarity in how it should be applied).

Pelican_eats_pigeon

The government would find it hard to pressure the courts, as judicial independence is seen as one of the cornerstones of a democratic society. The EC Regulation is fairly clear and it would be difficult for a judge to find a sensible reason to find for an airline given much of the precedent that has already been set.

The legislation is European and the EC has made several statements during this event re-iterating its support for the legislation. And I doubt the airlines will want to see any more cases go higher up to the European Court of Justice as the ECJ has strengthened the legislation in favour of the passenger on every occasion.

Ryanair can't just choose when the law applies to them and when it doesn't, much as they would like to.

malkie76

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens when the claims start arriving.

ManAtHome

Wonder if the airlines will sue NATS/CAA/Met Office - seems a bit suss that we can go from "some airports may have a window for flights over the next few days" to "everything fine and dandy for all airports" in the space of an hour or so...

Pelican_eats_pigeon

ManAtHome wrote: »

Wonder if the airlines will sue NATS/CAA/Met Office - seems a bit suss that we can go from "some airports may have a window for flights over the next few days" to "everything fine and dandy for all airports" in the space of an hour or so...

My suspicion is the airlines have put pressure on the government and the media for commercial reasons, following which first the media and then the government have pressured the bodies in question.

The problem is no-one can prove whether it's safe or not - just because a few test flights were unaffected it doesn't mean UK airspace is necessarily 'safe'. It just means that the test flights and the higher concentrations of ash weren't in the same location at the same time. And the more flights there are, the more probability there will be of the two coinciding.

bagand96

ManAtHome wrote: »

Wonder if the airlines will sue NATS/CAA/Met Office - seems a bit suss that we can go from "some airports may have a window for flights over the next few days" to "everything fine and dandy for all airports" in the space of an hour or so...

Why should they?

Met Office have provided ash cloud forecasts and modelling to NATS and the CAA as they should. The last 6 days have proven that their computer modelling has been incredibly accurate.

NATS decided to suspend clearances into controlled airpsace based on the data they got from the Met Office, ICAO standards, and advice from Vulcanologists (via Met Office)

The CAA have this evening changed policy on acceptable ash levels for aircraft operation. Based on the Met Office information publically available it seems that much of the UK is still going to be covered by this ash cloud.

It is the standards that have changed, and this seems to have happened after meeting with the airlines, and its BA who have been particularly vocal.

I agree its very suspect one moment you can't fly the next moment you can. We will never know what happened in those meetings, but the fact that BA had 18, if not more, long haul aircraft heading for the UK this evening; which were launched hours before anything was confirmed is in my opinion brinkmanship.

apt

Article on the Times on some airlines refusing to fulfil their legal duty of care. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/article7103299.ece
They'll have to pay up if passengers are insistent.

CynicalScotsman

I think the issue here is... the regulation states that if you are re-routed you are entitled to accommodation and food.

What would the definition of re-routing be? Presumably it would mean to go somewhere different to your original booking to finally end up where you wanted to go.. eg rather than going straight from London - Glasgow, going from London-Dublin-Glasgow.

As far as I am aware Ryanair don't offer this service as the are point-to-point. Therefore you have not been re-routed, therefore you are not entitled to accom/food.

Also, when you choose to re-book a flight, you are effectively cancelling your original contract (you are choosing to leave the contract) and entering a new one - as shown by the new confirmation you receive. If you choose to cancel your contract you are not entitled to any compensation under normal UK law.

QUOTE
If your flight is delayed as specified under ‘Flight Delays’ above or you elect to be re-routed to your final destination at the earliest opportunity as a result of a flight cancellation, we will offer you items (a) and (b) above. If the new time of departure is reasonably expected as a result of the delay or your being re-routed following a cancellation to at least the day after the original time of departure, we will also offer you items (c) and (d) above.

Pelican_eats_pigeon

CynicalScotsman wrote: »

I think the issue here is... the regulation states that if you are re-routed you are entitled to accommodation and food.

What would the definition of re-routing be? Presumably it would mean to go somewhere different to your original booking to finally end up where you wanted to go.. eg rather than going straight from London - Glasgow, going from London-Dublin-Glasgow.

As far as I am aware Ryanair don't offer this service as the are point-to-point. Therefore you have not been re-routed, therefore you are not entitled to accom/food.

This is all deeply deeply incorrect. Re-routing does not have the meaning you ascribe to it for a start. Rebooking you onto a different flight counts as re-routing.

It is an obligation on the airlines to offer care to a passenger if their flight is cancelled or delayed.

Cancellation
1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8 (choice of re-routing or refund); and
(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2) (meals + refreshments plus 2 phone calls) , as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c) (hotel accommodation and transfer thereto)

CynicalScotsman wrote: »

Also, when you choose to re-book a flight, you are effectively cancelling your original contract (you are choosing to leave the contract) and entering a new one - as shown by the new confirmation you receive. If you choose to cancel your contract you are not entitled to any compensation under normal UK law.

This is also wrong. For a start, we are talking about an EC regulation rather than a UK law. And we are talking about a 'right to care' rather than compensation. Offering you the chance to rebook is the same thing as the airline re-routing you. Whether you are sent a new confirmation or not, this doesn't make it a new contract or release the airline from their obligation under the regulation.