'Is it fair for Ryanair to pay compensation?' poll discussion

edited 26 April 2010 at 12:21PM in Money Saving Polls
42 replies 6.7K views
Former_MSE_LawrenceFormer_MSE_Lawrence Former MSE
975 Posts
edited 26 April 2010 at 12:21PM in Money Saving Polls
Poll between 22-26 April 2010:

Is it fair for Ryanair to pay compensation?


Ryanair’s boss was mooting while it will give flight refunds, the EU regulations of covering people’s food and accommodation for days of volcano delays are absurd for it (though it will follow them)

His argument is it’s ridiculous that people only bought super-cheap £20ish tickets, yet the airline should then have to pay out £100s in hotel bills

Which of these is closer to your opinion?

A. Ryanair’s right. Why does buying a super-cheap flight gain the right to a hotel room? - 41% (2121 votes)
B. Ryanair’s wrong. It knows the rules & should price accordingly. - 59% (3100 votes)

Total votes:
5221

Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks :)

[threadbanner]box[/threadbanner]
«1345

Replies

  • he has to follow the EU consumer regulation to the letter, imo only ofcouse, if there's no other re-route option available to their client; too bad I know

    but then look at the brighter side, there's hope for those who love the planet that this would be the beginning of the end of mass micky mouse flights
  • elvis86elvis86 Forumite
    1.4K Posts
    Personally I can see his point. You pay RyanAir peanuts (relatively) to get you from point A to point B, if your flight is delayed they should of course be obliged to get you to your destination as soon as possible, and perhaps provide food vouchers etc for a few hours delay in an airport.

    But I think that in cases like this, it is insurers who should be footing the bill. They are the real villains of the piece. The travel insurance business should be more heavily regulated with standard, consistent levels of cover, and there should be legislation which means that they HAVE to pay up in situations like this. What else is travel insurance for if not for a situation like this?

    The entire insurance business is corrupt IMO. Car insurance for example, we are required BY LAW to take a policy, but the insurers seem to have very few legal obligations to their customers! For example, if you make a claim for something which was not your fault, you should be legally protected against a hike in your premium. Also, there should be an official valuation scheme that insurers have to adhere to when your car is stolen/written off.

    Surely the whole point of having insurance is to ensure that you are not stung when the worst happens?!
  • edited 22 April 2010 at 3:30PM
    hallmarkhallmark Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 22 April 2010 at 3:30PM
    Of course the airlines should foot the bill.

    Goverments do not pay for anything; taxpayers do. Thus the choice is not whether Ryanair or some Government should pay, it's whether Ryanair or the taxpayer should pay. (Insurers never pay for anything by the way, they simply increase premiums. That's the whole reason Ryanair are arguing for the taxpayer to stump up the money....)

    There is no reason whatsoever why the taxpayer should have to pay towards the costs of either Ryanair or that part of the public that chooses to fly.

    The airlines must pay, there is no other remotely fair answer. If Ryanair etc need to increase the cost of their tickets to fund situations like this then so be it. This volcanic ash situation has highlighted one hitherto unthought of way in which air travel can be a more expensive business than previously supposed and a slight premium on prices in future may well be necessary. But to expect the general public to watch Companies like Ryanair clean up in the good times then have to bail them out when things go wrong is ludicrous.

    The airlines must pay. It's the cost of doing business.
  • JnelhamsJnelhams Forumite
    1.4K Posts
    I wonder what Ryan Air would say if the passenger failed to pay for a breach of contract? You can't demand all those booking & baggage fees and then squeal when you have to pay us for a law you were aware of.

    The passengers can't claim for 5 star hotels, which is fair, and it is an event unlikely to happen again for many years, but your fees won't go away!

    I would not and do not fly Ryan Air, I would rather support our own airlines.

    What would be interesting to know is which companies behaved the best in this instance, so that we can all use that insurer or airline in future.
    My Mind wanders, if found please return.
  • parrfamparrfam Forumite
    8 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Speaking as someone who could only afford to celebrate our 25th Wedding Anniversary in Paris (the first time I'd been back after having worked as an au pair there in 1979) courtesy of the low, low fares of Ryanair, I feel that if you go abroad and are insured, then you shouldn't rely on the carrier to pay all the bills when something like a natural disaster occurs. My husband and I didn't go on holiday when my children were young - we just couldn't afford it. These low-cost airlines have opened up the world for many people who couldn't otherwise afford to go at all.

    My eldest daughter was stranded in Amsterdam with her boss and had to travel on Friday night to Brussels to stay in a hotel there. Luckily, she managed to book a first-class seat on Sunday afternoon but missed a weekend off. She hasn't complained once. Her firm picked up the tab and she was grateful.

    People expect to be covered in cottonwool nowadays. Ryanair has to fight to keep in business and it's tough. My husband is self-employed and finds it tough, too. Everyone wants something for nothing and is ready to blame. This is another regulation too far for the EU. It is unsustainable and companies cannot afford to agree to such diktats.

    Whilst I feel sorry for people who have had to go to extraordinary lengths to come home and have got very tired and fed-up in the process, I do feel the expectation of compensation has got completely out of proportion. When my daughter booked a 3-day visit to Paris to celebrate her friend's 18th, we had to fight the insurers to compensate them for the Eurostar not running due to snow/ice. They did pay up eventually, but I think we ended up paying so much in calls etc... that it was hardly worth the effort.

    I say Ryanair has caved in, but if the taxpayer ends up footing the bill when they turn to the government, it's another 'nail in the coffin' for private enterprise and any company that wants to stick its neck out. In the long run we'll all suffer in the end when there are fewer jobs about for our children and ourselves....
  • mogadonmogadon Forumite
    312 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    I think it's reasonable that airlines' financial responsibility should be capped at the price of the ticket. The existing legislation was never meant to cover this sort of situation. An extraordinary event like this should be covered by travel insurance, not the airline. So for me, the real outrage is the number of insurance companies who are refusing to pay out.

    Insurance is supposed to be there to cover unexpected events. They shouldn't be allowed to use acts of God/natural disaster to wriggle out of it.
  • hallmarkhallmark Forumite
    1.1K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    As I said, making insurance cover it would change nothing, they will simply increase their premiums.

    If Ryanair have to pay for this kind of thing, they will increase fares to compensate for it.

    If the insurers have to pay, they will increase premiums & Ryanair in turn will increase fares to compensate for it.

    Thus as I said before, the real issue is whether these costs should be covered by the entire public or just the part of it that chooses to fly.

    If Governments have to cover these costs then it is the entire general public that foots the bill.

    If Ryanair OR the insurers has to cover them, it is the part of the public that chooses to fly that will ultimately foot the bill.


    It's entirely fair that it should be the latter option. On the occasions I fly anywhere I don't expect the rest of the population to be waiting with their chequebook handy to cover my costs if unexpected delays occur. Neither should anyone else.
  • mogadonmogadon Forumite
    312 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    hallmark wrote: »
    As I said, making insurance cover it would change nothing, they will simply increase their premiums.

    So travel insurers increase their premiums, and travellers who buy it are covered. What's wrong with that?

    hallmark wrote: »
    Thus as I said before, the real issue is whether these costs should be covered by the entire public or just the part of it that chooses to fly.

    You've missed the 3rd option, the cost is covered only by the travelling public who choose to fly and want all possible eventualities covered.

    If I want to take a chance on a 1p flight to Europe, knowing that if anything goes wrong I'm on my own. Why shouldn't I have that option? If someone else wants the same flight but not take any chances on having to pay out of their own pocket if something goes wrong, well that's what travel insurance is supposed to be for. So let them buy that, at whatever premium is needed to cover it all.
  • rizla01rizla01 Forumite
    7.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Of course the Airlines shouldn't be expected to pay. They were not in any way at fault and did their level best to help get passengers home.

    The Insurance Co's are covered by the 'Act of God' situation and so they should be.

    The Government funds (yours & Mine) shouldn't be used either.

    Who does that leave?

    Just the unfortunate traveller. Tough.

    !!!!!! happens!!



    Supposing you chose to travel by ferry and on the day of departure a storm blew up, making it unsafe to travel. Would you complain to the Ferry Operators that they haven't risked your life by crossing? What if there was a bomb on board? What then? Al Quaeda won't be interested, be rest assured (Though you could always TRY, I suppose)

    For pity's sake. I got a puncture the other day. Wouldn't have got it if the shopkeeper had served me quicker because someone else would probably have copped that nail.

    Ah! I know.

    Back to the shop with a writ.

    Yeah Right.
    "Unhappiness is not knowing what we want, and killing ourselves to get it."
    Post Count: 4,111 Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,111 Posts (Actual figures as they once were))
    Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
  • Gavin83Gavin83 Forumite
    8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Forumite
    I don't really see why the airlines should have to pay as it was completely out of their control. The airlines should be required to provide a replacement flight or a refund, depending on the circumstances. They certainly shouldn't be out of pocket.

    Frankly, relating it to the recent problems it should be covered by insurance. The only issue is of course the premium you'd be expected to pay, where as you won't be expected to pay anything for an airline refund. Still, I think it should be covered by insurance and if you don't have insurance then you foot the bill yourself.

    Of course, you've all forgotten the final option, that no one pays out and the public who are stranded pay for the extras themselves. That way, nothing is increased above the usual.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Ask An Expert: Rewind

Check out last week's energy-themed Q&A with MSE's experts

MSE Forum

Top theatre lotteries

How to grab £10-£25 tix for Cabaret, Matilda etc

MSE Deals