MSE News: Ryanair threat for passengers without online boarding pass

jayok

Alpine_Star wrote: »

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.

You can only claim it is illegal in Spain and that is subject to an appeal.

Your stance is like me saying the death penalty is legal

dmg24

jayok wrote: »

You can only claim it is illegal in Spain and that is subject to an appeal.

Your stance is like me saying the death penalty is legal

Good analogy - homosexuality must be illegal too!

Alpine_Star

jayok wrote: »

You can only claim it is illegal in Spain

I didn't claim otherwise. This is nauseatingly obvious.

Perhaps you'd like to take issue with the Guardian then?

''Judge tells Ryanair that forcing passengers to print boarding passes is illegal''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/14/ryanair-spanish-court-boarding-pass

jayok

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I didn't claim otherwise. This is nauseatingly obvious.

Hmmm......

Alpine_Star_a_little_while_ago wrote: »

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

dmg24

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I didn't claim otherwise. This is nauseatingly obvious.

Perhaps you'd like to take issue with the Guardian then?

''Judge tells Ryanair that forcing passengers to print boarding passes is illegal''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/14/ryanair-spanish-court-boarding-pass

Keep digging that hole ... I'll give you a hand getting out when I get back off my holidays!

Alpine_Star

jayok wrote: »

Hmmm......

Groan.

I was repeating what the judge said. Clearly it was a Spanish judge in a Spanish court under Spanish law. Do I really have to point that out?

danothy

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Groan.

I was repeating what the judge said. Clearly it was a Spanish judge in a Spanish court under Spanish law. Do I really have to point that out?

It did seem apparent to me that the comment made about the contract term being illegal in response to cactusdust's comment about people not adhering to Ts&Cs was intended to be taken in the context of Spanish law where the judgement was made. It came across to me more a comment about the legal obligation overriding the contract clauses as found by a judgement rather than a consideration of where that judgement has jurisdiction.

Maybe we should confine the discussion to the knock on effects to the UK, i.e. the potential situation of not being allowed to fly or that it could be challenged here and upheld if the ruling was based on European standards.

jayok

If the ruling was applicable to the UK, then Ryanair will probably increase prices for everyone as their whole strategy is to remove services that cost them money ie employ or contract people to print out boarding passes for those that do not print them out. That, in my view, would be a retrograde step for the consumer.

danothy

jayok wrote: »

If the ruling was applicable to the UK, then Ryanair will probably increase prices for everyone as their whole strategy is to remove services that cost them money ie employ or contract people to print out boarding passes for those that do not print them out. That, in my view, would be a retrograde step for the consumer.

I completely agree. Ryanair's whole reaction is a regressive one, either the appeal will succeed and will cement the charge, they will remove the facility and the cost will increase to the cost of a replacement flight over a replacement boarding pass, or they will be held to honour the legal point and increase prices across the board as you suggest.

Alpine_Star

jayok wrote: »

If the ruling was applicable to the UK, then Ryanair will probably increase prices for everyone as their whole strategy is to remove services that cost them money ie employ or contract people to print out boarding passes for those that do not print them out. That, in my view, would be a retrograde step for the consumer.

A valid point but isn't having to print out the airline's own paperwork and pay £40 (the entire cost of a printer these days) for not doing so a retrograde step for the consumer?