Ryanair not paying compensation

mikey72

Even then I would expect years in court before any ruling.

bagand96

Ryanair were well aware of the EU rules on 'duty of care' when they signed up to them, so I ask you, why should the airline not pay compensation?

If O'Leary doesnt agree with the rule, why on earth did he sign up to it then??!!

I ask the question again, If O'Leary doesnt agree with the rule, why did he sign up to it then??!!

When did O'Learey or Ryanair sign up these regulations? For that matter when did British Airways, Virgin, Thomson, Thomas Cook, Monarch, easyJet, Jet2 etc sign up to these regulations?

These regulations were imposed as law in 2005, long after any of the above airlines started operating in EU airspace. I don't recall any airlines signing up. Unless it passed me by? I recall they protested, and have continued to do so from day one.

PhylPho

Mr_Lahey wrote: »

Did O'Leary cause the Volcanic eruption - No.
Did O'Leary refuse to fly planes - No, he was forced.
Has O'Leary let everyone effected change their flights free of charge - Yes.

How can he possibly be at fault?

Let's, for a moment, take it that Michael O'Leary is an intelligent multimillionaire who is running a business with the intention of making the biggest profits possible.

Let's, for a moment, take it that Michael O'Leary has decided to base his business model on the ancient commercial maxim of stack it high, sell it cheap.

Then let's examine how, when it comes to achieving that with an airline -- an airline now arguably the most cash-rich in Europe -- the strategy is developed.

Or rather: a couple of the ways that strategy is developed.

The first is to sign up to legally binding European agreements that govern your licence as an EU registered carrier but without any intention of making financial provision to meet the demand those regulations may, possibly, exert.

The next is to ensure that although the vast majority of your customers are from the UK, your operation is firmly centred in another country -- Ireland.

Which means that no UK customer has any chance at all of bringing a County Court action against you in the UK if that customer happens to suffer as a result of you failing to abide by the rules you voluntarily signed up to.

Commercial sense?

Absolutely. Take the customer's money. Make no provision for the kind of finance you must have in place to meet the regulations governing that customer's contract with you.

And then, perhaps, quietly chuckle at the thought that the customer doesn't realise that she / he is flying with a foreign airline every time she / he boards a Ryanair flight and so can never chase you through a British court.

Good stuff, huh?

Well yes. It is. If you can get away with it.

This time though, O'Leary can't. Nor can Ryanair. Not unless they want to continue operating as an EU carrier.

To be honest, I'm not sure if it's O'Leary's macho posturing that most annoys me or the fact that some people -- including yourself, apparently -- wish to play bleeding heart to a commercial operation that is vastly profitable run by a businessman who is vastly rich.

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who are anything but rich, yet nevertheless pay their lawful dues and demands as a citizen of the UK within the European Community, have experienced, and are still experiencing, an emotional and financial nightmare.

For anyone to come on this consumer's forum and post a defence of a £multimillionaire utterly indifferent to the plight of those individuals, those families, is pretty breathtaking.

You really should ring Ryanair's HQ and ask if it has a vacancy in its PR department. While there's still a Ryanair to work for.

Lincoln_Imp

Mr_Lahey wrote: »

I agree with you in principle, but the laws in place didn't provide for something of this nature or magnitude.

I honestly expect O'Leary to get challenged and end up winning this in the courts. The law is too vague and needs clarifying. Expecting an airline to lose millions of Euros per day and then have to compensate passengers for their costs incurred is simply unfair.

Whatever the legal outcome on this i expect it to be quite interesting.

Yes certainly will be ,and also drag on for a long time i suspect

mikey72

I think they can fine him, but I don't think removing the operator licence is actually one of the penalties in the eu act.
(oh, he's irish, that's probably why he's in Ireland)

BargainMad_3

The above poster is right. Ryanair did not sign up to these regulations - they were imposed on them. They appear on the Ryanair website only because they are obliged to display them. However displaying them and complying with them are two different things. The reason being the sheer magnitude of the situation.

O'Leary can be very abrasive as he is a very straight talker. He has aggrieved passengers in the past and so there will be plenty wanting him to suffer with this. However for an impartial observer, it is important to see both sides of the argument.

There are plenty saying the rules are simple - there in black and white - and Ryanair should pay up; write the cheques and comply. There is no doubt that many have incurred huge bills in accommodation costs and other measures whilst they are stranded. Ryanair flies in the EU and cannot pick and choose which laws it will abide with!

But O'Leary says that is is "ludicrous" for an airline to pay someone with a 20 euro ticket several hundred (if not thousands) in hotel bills/food/refreshments for an extraordinary event of this magnitude. He will argue that the regulations were meant to cover the "odd" flight that went wrong - a tiny percentage of flights - not the total lockdown of airspace.

Ryanair carries 220,000 people per day and has been out of action for 7 days already. There will be plenty of other carriers (on the brink of bankruptcy) egging O'Leary on to defy these regulations. This issue is just going to run and run and today's declaration of war is just the start.

bagand96

I think this thread has quickly lost the plot

Is it really being suggested that Ryanair's AOC (issued by the IAA, who subscribe to EASA) could be suspended or revoked because he is not following a compensation (NOT safety related) law bought by the EU parliament? AOC's are based around EASA safety standards not EU Parliament compensation laws.

Are we also suggesting that Ryanair are based in Ireland just to make it harder for British people to claim monies under the compensation laws. Ryanair was founded in Ireland in 1985 and O'Learey joined in the early 1990s, long before EC261/2004 was even a pipedream.

Finally, when did Ryanair or anyone else sign up to 261/2004. It was imposed law, there was no signing up. It was fiercely criticised by airlines from its conception.

However, we now have Ryanair, bmi, and Jet2 saying they will not pay up. There are also reports that AirFrance and KLM are also refusing to pay. Monarch have been seen on the news claiming how unfair and unsustainable the costs to airlines are (although weren't saying they won't honour them). And the Chief Exec of Thomson has been on the news claiming how outrageous it is that his business (and that of competitor Thomas Cook) have much tighter regulations and responsibilities as package holiday operators than his scheduled airline competitiors.

If ever there was the time for airlines to get together and have something done, this is the time. It looks like thousands of passengers may have to go to court (not just Ryanair!) to chase their costs. Interesting times ahead, and I don't think anyone will see this resolved quickly.

Pelican_eats_pigeon

Ryanair has de facto 'signed up' to this legislation by continuing to operate in the EU. Simple as.

The legislation doesn't need any further clarifying, it is already quite clear. The EC has made clear its willingness to stand behind the legislation in several statements, while if any court case goes as far as the ECJ, Ryanair are in trouble as the ECJ has affirmed and even strengthened this regulation at any time it has come up.

And, as for the rights and wrongs of the issue - the airline is contracted to provide a service. In this case it is not the airline's fault that it can't perform that service. However, it is not the passenger's fault either that the airline can't perform this service. So, to the people who think that the airline should not have to cover care, why should a company have more rights than its consumers?!

The airline is in a much better position to make sure it is insured against such occurrences and in a much better position to calculate the risks involved and provide for them than is the consumer.

I can't see any sensible reason for arguing that the airline should not have to cover care in light of these considerations.

bagand96

The legislation doesn't need any further clarifying, it is already quite clear. The EC has made clear its willingness to stand behind the legislation in several statements, while if any court case goes as far as the ECJ, Ryanair are in trouble as the ECJ has affirmed and even strengthened this regulation at any time it has come up.

While I agree with your post, I think everyone can agree this situation is unprecedented. In both the circumstances leading to the cancellations, and the fact that already 5 big European airlines have already stated their posittion is to ignore the regulations.

I seriously don't think the airlines are scared of the regulator.

As proven last night, if you don't like the fact the regulator has closed down your airspace, you just launch planes at it regardless

Pelican_eats_pigeon

I agree that the situation is unprecedented.

However, the law can't restrospectively be declared not to apply in a certain situation, no matter how exceptional... I just don't see how any airline could begin to defend any competently argued court claim and have the faintest hope of success.