MSE News: Ryanair threat for passengers without online boarding pass

Former_MSE_Guy

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"It could bar travellers if an appeal fails to overturn a Spanish ruling to outlaw its €40 airport fee to print a pass ..."

Read the full story:
Ryanair threat for passengers without online boarding pass

dmg24

There are already three threads on this subject ... Perhaps they could be merged?

cactusdust

And after three threads people still don't get that it clearly states in the T&Cs accepted at booking that you must print your own boarding pass.

Alpine_Star

cactusdust wrote: »

And after three threads people still don't get that it clearly states in the T&Cs accepted at booking that you must print your own boarding pass.

What you don't seem to get is that the contractual term itself is illegal.

The judge ruled that the obligation to provide a boarding pass lays with the airline - regardless of what the T&Cs claim.

dmg24

Alpine_Star wrote: »

What you don't seem to get is that the contractual term itself is illegal.

The judge ruled that the obligation to provide a boarding pass lays with the airline - regardless of what the T&Cs claim.

Is it? You do realise you are not in Spain, and whatever a court of first instance judge says has no influence on the UK.

davidgmmafan

In other news an interveiw at the playground revealed Ryanair is also considering taking the bat and ball home.

Alpine_Star

dmg24 wrote: »

Is it? You do realise you are not in Spain, and whatever a court of first instance judge says has no influence on the UK.

Did I say Spanish case law has UK jurisdiction?

But as you mention it, it may well do if it was contested in the UK as the case was brought under sec 4.2 of the same European Directive that gave rise to UTCCR in the UK and which is harmonised with Spanish consumer law.

That it is a first instance judgment and somehow not binding is meaningless unless it's successfully appealed.

Rainmaker_uk

Has there ever been a nastier company than Ryan Air?????

dmg24

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Did I say Spanish case law has UK jurisdiction?

But as you mention it, it may well do if it was contested in the UK as the case was brought under sec 4.2 of the same European Directive that gave rise to UTCCR in the UK and which is harmonised with Spanish consumer law.

That it is a first instance judgment and somehow not binding is meaningless unless it's successfully appealed.

So how can you claim that it is illegal, when a UK court has not ruled on the issue?

richardw

Rainmaker_uk wrote: »

Has there ever been a nastier company than Ryan Air?????

er any airline that feels they are above EU laws/Regulations and the Montreal Convention gets my not nice vote, I wouldn't say nasty though.

Alpine_Star

dmg24 wrote: »

So how can you claim that it is illegal, when a UK court has not ruled on the issue?

I can claim it was illegal because the judge said it was ''illegal'' in his judgment.

I'm not claiming that a UK court has ruled on the issue.