Ryanair not paying compensation

mikey72

Pelican_eats_pigeon wrote: »

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.

They did it to my car tax.

BargainMad_3

Like the above poster, I have been wondering how Ryanair and other carriers think they can effectively challenge the regulations and not pay.

So I have been looking at
REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004 which outlines the "Right to Care" in Section 9.


However paragraph 14 of the regulations states the following (I have highlighted the bits that might be relevant):

As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating
air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases
where an event has been caused by extraordinary
circumstances which could not have been avoided even
if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances
may, in particular, occur in cases of political
instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with
the operation of the flight concerned, security risks,
unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

Will Ryanair's reasoning be that the right to care (outlined in Section 9 of these regulations) is an "obligation" that can be limited (to the cost of the ticket) because of these extraordinary circumstances, namely the meteorological conditions?

jonnyjackov

As someone who accepts Ryanair for what they are, and uses then regularly and happily, I must admit I think he's gone too far this time.

He has often used 'people know what our terms and conditions are' as an excuse for all the add on costs, eg £40 for not bringing your online check in sheet etc, and I have to an extent agreed with him.

So he can hardly argue now. He knew the law or whatever it is Ryanair have to agree to comply with, so he should pay up. I've not been affected by this, in fact am flying home tomorrow with easyjet as planned, but I will consider the implications of what he said, when booking my next flight. Just like when I next renew my travel insurance it won't be with Insure n Go, who have insured me for 4 years, without any claim, but if I had needed them this week, they would have refused to help me. So I will switch to one of the ones who are helping their customers, even if it costs a bit more.

I have just listened to two lawyers on TV saying they cannot refuse to pay, or they would be breaking the terms of their licence, as according to the regulations they ARE obliged to pay food, hotel costs etc.

As already stated, no one is saying he caused the volcano, and though I and many others may see his point, he did know the 'terms and conditions' when he sold his passengers their tickets.

I hope people stand together and take Ryanair to court. If we as passengers have to abide by the rules, then so does he!

Surely that's fair.

mairi28

Why do people keep talking about "signing up" to the regulations? The law is the law, it's not optional! If I went and stabbed someone, somehow I don't think the defence "Well I never signed up to this law!" would hold up very well in court. You don't have to like it, but you do have to obey it....or else deal with the consequences.

BargainMad_3

Well Teachers have just "defied" the regulations by saying they will not undertake SATS tests this year even though the regulations say they must !

I never thought I would mention Michael O' Leary in the same breath as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but these three men and the teachers refusing to do SATS have signed up to the view that "unjust" regulations should be challenged and defied.

nico26

BargainMad wrote: »

Well Teachers have just "defied" the regulations by saying they will not undertake SATS tests this year even though the regulations say they must !

I never thought I would mention Michael O' Leary in the same breath as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, but these three men and the teachers refusing to do SATS have signed up to the view that "unjust" regulations should be challenged and defied.

Oh come on. How can you compare Michael O'Leary in the same breath as Ghandi and Martin Luther King. They both fought for their people's rights.He took them away. Leaving them stranded in a foreign country without accomodation and food.
.
There is a right way to do things and a wrong way.Letting these people suffer is the wrong way. He should have been looking after them and when the dust settles then start the fight with the regulations.

I know he's not the only one KLM and Air France seemingly just as bad but with passengers struggling and suffering this will do them all more harm than good.

Im sure when things get back to normal we will see a lot of changes in rules and regulations.

Haarlem

My wife and I were recently (before the current problems) denied boarding at Amsterdam by BMI Baby as the plane had 6 seats less than the passengers waiting to board.

BMI Baby agents had gone home, so we were on our own and had to find a hotel ourselves.When the agents arrived next morning we got tickets for that morning flight, but they were no help in advising us how to get our costs back.

12 weeks after numerous letters, involving the Civil Air Authority all we got was the cost of our flight refunded. The CAA advice was the small claims court.

I gave up at this point. If the airlines stick passengers out in cases like mine, they are going to be even more determined not to pay out in the current situation, and I doubt the CAA will take action to really take them to task.

RHYSDAD

It's funny isn't it how the 'terms and conditions' are only ever waved at the customer, never the company....TBH, living under the flight path to Gatwick, it's been heaven the last week, natural blue sky, bird song not interjected every three minutes by a 757 reverse thrusting (oooh err!), i couldn't care less if the whole airline industry went pop.....

Doc_N

EasyJet are paying. They don't like the situation. They don't think it's fair. But they're paying because the law is quite clear, and it says they have to pay.

Ryanair isn't paying - because it doesn't want to pay and because it thinks it can get away with ignoring the law. I think it will be proved wrong on that.

But - if Ryanair chooses to ignore laws that it wants to ignore, just because it costs it money, think carefully before booking with it.

Do you really want to fly with an airline that might choose to ignore safety legislation if it can save some money?

BargainMad_3

It's not just Ryanair that is refusing to pay costs "in full" and it will be interesting to see just how much Easyjet is prepared to pay as well. Earlier in the week they said they would consider "reasonable" costs, but like Ryanair they might decide that the level of "reason" is limited to the cost of the airline ticket.

Afterall, Ryanair is actually NOT refusing to pay costs of accommodation/food/drink ouright. Instead it has stated that it will consider these but because of the extraordinary circumstances, Ryanair will limit this upto the cost of the original ticket, which in many cases is less than £20!

I have no doubt that some Ryanair passengers will have small airfares and large bills that they want refunded and it is this situation that O'Leary is calling "ludicrous". I think many airlines, whilst dis-liking O'Leary, will secretly be egging him on if not publicy joining him.