An Open letter to RYANAIR

MyUserNamesTaken

peterbaker wrote:

No I didn't which is why I am complaining and not just walking away. I paid for a return flight at a certain time. It didn't happen, possibly for a reason completely out of their control, but after stating that only 20 passengers would be accommodated on the next available flight it wasn't reasonable to expect 130 odd other passengers to hang around a closed for the night airport on the offchance that sometime someday they might be offered another flight.

Some people will instantly be thinking (again!) yeah but their T&Cs say such and such, and it is regrettable but legal, and you are wasting your time (again) Peter. I think not. It doesn't cost me much to update this thread every now and then and bump it to the top of the list, and for as long as Martin doesn't mind, there's a good chance that Ryanair might get the message that we want this bit of the service improved please.

Actually, you did get what you paid for - cheap flights with next to no customer service. You paid for a cheap flight under certain terms and conditions. You agreed to those terms and conditions when you booked your flight. One of those conditions was that in the event of a cancelled flight, Ryanair would refund your ticket price. They did exactly what they said they would do - refund the price of your ticket in the event of cancellation.

peterbaker wrote:

In 1977 I think, a law was passed called the Unfair Contract Terms Act. Does anyone remember why?

I'm fully aware of why the Unfair Contract Terms Act was passed, having read Law at University. Exactly which terms of the contract do you consider to be unfair? You booked a flight. That flight was cancelled. Ryanair refunded you the cost of the flight. That's where Ryanair's liability stops. It could be argued that you did nothing to mitigate your losses. You made the decision to go to another airport, rather than wait for Ryanair to make alternative arrangements for you (booking you on the next available flight, for example).

Incidentally, there's a test for reasonableness for most things. I'm sure Ryanair would argue that it was reasonable to ask you to take out travel insurance to cover you for cancelled/delayed flights, as bad weather is not something they can control. It would also be seen as reasonable to expect you to mitigate your losses. As it was, they were unable to fly from that airport due to bad weather conditions, and you didn't wait around for them to make alternative arrangements. Had you waited, Ryanair would have done something - as shown in the experience I had with Ryanair. However, you didn't give Ryanair a chance. The fact that you still use Ryanair, which means you still accept their terms and conditions, will also go against you. You say there's no alternative, but there is; use a more expensive airline. You'll find that their terms and conditions will be almost identical to that of Ryanair, but they'll offer more in the way of customer service and goodwill gestures should anything go wrong. As I said before, you get what you pay for.

When you put in a claim for a refund, did you ask for compensation then?

peterbaker

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Actually, I'm fully aware of why the Unfair Contract Terms Act was passed, having read Law at University.

OK then, you've studied it - can you think of ways we moneysavers might be able to use it to get fair play on modest refunds like mine for example? Surely me making my own way down to the next Ryanair airport and booking a new seat on a half empty aircraft consequently ensuring my delay was no more than about half a day was eminently sensible and reasonable than sitting around with a big Question Mark hovering over my head like the proverbial mushroom for a 36 hour or 48 hour period?? Ryanair haven't even offered to pay the difference - currently they have profited from not performing my contract!

PS I called them initially and told them what I had done and said it had cost me about £130. They asked for the booking reference. I said which do you want the original or the new booking. The original they said. After a short while they said "We have processed a refund of £17 to your card for the cancelled flight". I said what about the extra costs and the new flight. I can't help you with that I was told. You'll have to write to our Customer Standards Department if you wish to complain. And that's when this thread began!

MyUserNamesTaken

As far as your situation is concerned, the UCTA doesn't apply, as Ryanair's Ts&Cs are reasonable. The problem you've got is that by buying a second ticket, you entered into a new contract completely separate from your original contract, therefore Ryanair doesn't need to refund you the difference. Many of the more expensive airline companies would have refunded you the difference as a gesture of goodwill. However, this is Ryanair and you really do get what you pay for with them; no goodwill gestures and next to no customer service. You'll find that most airline companies have similar terms and conditions to Ryanair, but they care more about their reputations. Ryanair is so cheap, it knows it doesn't have to worry about bad publicity, as most people will always go for the cheap option if they can.

As far as the Law is concerned, and this is what Ryanair will tell you, you should have mitigated your losses. In other words, you should have stayed put and waited for Ryanair to sort the situation out. As explained in my experience with Ryanair, we were eventually coached to another airport to catch the plane back to Stansted at Ryanair's expense. It took 36 hours, but meant we didn't suffer any real loss. Although you consider your actions sensible, a judge would rule that they were not reasonable and that you have added to your loss. Therefore, you cannot expect Ryanair to pay for your actions.

You need to understand that the terms and conditions to which you agreed cover Ryanair in this situation. You can't keep saying they didn't fulfill their contractual obligations because they were covered by their terms and and conditions, which would not be seen as unreasonable. In the event of cancellation or delay beyond their control (in this case bad weather), Ryanair will refund the price of your ticket. They did this, thus the contract was brought to an end. The alternative was to wait for Ryanair to get you on the next available flight from that airport at no extra cost to yourself. You didn't wait for them to do that, accepting the refund instead.

Personally, I think you should give up chasing Ryanair for compensation, as this really should be covered by your travel insurance. You have no claim against Ryanair, but you could well have a claim under your insurance (without seeing the actual wording of your insurance documents, I can't say for certain). Oh, and don't be fobbed off by your insurance company.

peterbaker

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

As far as your situation is concerned, the UCTA doesn't apply, as Ryanair's Ts&Cs are reasonable.

Wait a minute - says who?!

As far as the Law is concerned, and this is what Ryanair will tell you, you should have mitigated your losses.

I did exactly that.

In other words, you should have stayed put and waited for Ryanair to sort the situation out.

Oh really? I stayed put long enough to establish that they were not going to "sort it out", and on the basis that a reasonable man mitigating his losses is entitled to catch the last bus back to his friends house to find a bed I left the airport and not wishing to incur further unlimited losses I found out I could book a train ticket and another Ryanair plane at modest cost and be in Luton by lunchtime.

As explained in my experience with Ryanair, we were eventually coached to another airport to catch the plane back to Stansted at Ryanair's expense.

Ryanair point blank refused the airport permission to do that in my case.

It took 36 hours, but meant we didn't suffer any real loss.

You might not have done, but I would have done.

Although you consider your actions sensible, a judge would rule that they were not reasonable and that you have added to your loss.

Sorry MUNT, for the moment I prefer to use my own 25 years of insurance and product liability experience to decide what a judge might rule.

Therefore, you cannot expect Ryanair to pay for your actions.

I expected them to pay reasonable mitigated sums resulting from their deliberate acts and inactions.

I don't recognise this strange brand of law you are promoting MUNT. Are we talking about English Law? What law school did you say you were at? Is it Irish?:-)

MyUserNamesTaken

You're on your own. You will fail to get any compensation, as your actions were not reasonable. You most definitely did not mitigate your losses, as you spent money to get back home rather than wait, like most other passengers, for Ryanair to make alternative arrangements. You accepted the refund from Ryanair, thus ending their contractual obligation to you.

By the way, we're talking about Law of Contract. It would seem that you've failed to grasp the basics of it. In this case you are wrong. If you wish to make a complete fool of yourself, just carry on posting to this thread and write letters galore to Ryanair. I'm sure they could do with a good laugh at your layman's take on the Law of Contract. I know I'm finding it highly amusing.

Your need to resort to ad hominem comments about those people with views that differ from your own says so much about you.

I won't be replying to you from now on.

Former_MSE_Abuse_Controller

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

I won't be replying to you from now on.

We appreciate that threads often result in disagreement and when we get to the point where this one has got, which is starting to stray in more personal posting, i think the quote above is sensible action. We dont mind differing views, but can we try not to make it so personal

Also, we'd rather not see people using another culture as a joke - comments about people being Irish or any other demographic can often be seen as insulting.

Thanks

peterbaker

MSE_AbuseController wrote:

We appreciate that threads often result in disagreement and when we get to the point where this one has got, which is starting to stray in more personal posting, i think the quote above is sensible action. We dont mind differing views, but can we try not to make it so personal

Also, we'd rather not see people using another culture as a joke - comments about people being Irish or any other demographic can often be seen as insulting.

Thanks

I am sorry but I was trying to keep it light-hearted! I added "Is it Irish?" in the same vein as someone might comment "That's Double-Dutch" or "That's a bit Irish" in conversation. Does anyone remember when that was ok? I thought it still was - am I wrong? I apologise if it was interpreted as a joke along the lines of what used to be called Irish jokes and what Irishmen called Kerryman jokes. I HAD heard that they were not appreciated! The other justification in my mind was that Ryanair is Irish. I thought it all fitted together nicely:-) Can't anyone deal with language outside the Microsoft Word Thesaurus around here anymore?

PS I am sure I am not the only one who would have liked have known what MUNT meant by the ambiguous ad hominem in this case. Was he or she perhaps saying they took my comments were, shall we say, unnecessarily culture-joke-like, or was it a Freudian slip on his or her part, or was it something else?

Now I know what it feels to be like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Forest! Do you think MUNT'll come back and chop off something else??:-))

donnie_darko_3

As an observer of this thread and occassional commentator, if i were the judge and having read all the evidence, i would decree as follows:

Munt - your statement is interesting and it does appear that ryanair have not broken the contract save that there was no goodwill on their part which would have prevented Mr baker from making the complaint.

PB - You have obviously felt cheated by ryanair because they did not provide you with a customer service that you would have previously received from airlines pre budget airline days, and to some extent current day scheduled airlines. But snow on a runway is snow on a runway and wind is wind and budget airlines are BUDGET airlines for a reason.

This is a money saving website and we are here to save money (not time) and therefore our penny pinching ways come at a price albeit a cheap brand is cheaper but does not last as long as a quality brand, but if you complained you would get your 50p back for the cheap brand and 75p for the quality brand but what you dont get back with either of them is the time it takes to complain etc etc etc.

So its ryanair or bust.

I went with sky europe to cracow this last weekend. The flight was the worst i have ever had, our beverages albeit free were a lemon tea or caffeine dense coffee, nowt else on board except water, we descended at 45 degrees and the plane was turbulent right up till it hit the runway (yes and i mean HIT the runway). Coming back there were 2 people checking in a full flight up to 20 mins before take off (long queues) and then we had to get on board PDQ. My seat was broken and I took off in the lap of the Polish lady behind (not all bad!!) We flew at anywhere between 25,000 and 37,000 feet landed 15 mins early, sat and waited on the plane for 30 mins untill they came to off load the passengers. Will I complain, nah just go down the pub and tell the lads over a pint that it was an "experience". And yes i will fly with them again

ps Cracow what a city!! and I couldnt have gone without my £8 flight with sky europe

nb Peter, I do understand your anger and bitterness towards ryanair but its time to put it behind you and move on (or upwards :-) )

Baz_Bee_2

MUNT, I am sorry you feel that you cannot post again on this thread.

However, I will comment upon some of the matters you spoke about.

I do not know why you consider the UCTA should not apply to Ryanair? Just because they have T&C's that you agree to does not make them fair. Indeed, in this situation the normal protocol would be to find against the drafter of the T&C's especially where those who are relying on them are classed as the professional. Ryanairs T&C's are clearly unfaur and significantyly biased in their favour.

A refund is by no means a fair or suitable resolution if they cancel a flight. They are contracted to take you from A to B and perhaps back again. I agree that the normal situation places no time limit upon this even where a time is stated upon the ticket, except I would suggest, it must be reasonable. For example to leave someone starnded in a foreign airport for a week I would suggest is not reasonable. What is reasonable would need to be judged upon individual circumstances. A 20 something single man may be expected to be put to a bit more inconvenience than a mother with a baby and a couple of toddlers. Ryanair would (or should) be aware of everyones circumstances as they will have age profiles and groupings on their booking system. To move on slightly and go to the extreme would you consider it reasonable to leave someone with no money stranded in Sydney? You book a flight that cost say £600 return. Ryanair (yes I know they do not go to Sydney) cancel the flight because it is too hot for their aircraft they say. You are stuck in Sydney and Ryainair say sorry cannot be bothered to get you back, here's your £300 for the return trip refunded. The only way back is by buying the cheapest ticket available (mitigate the loss) which happens to be a full price economy on Boomerang Airways at £1250. I haven't got £1250 so how do I get back having been abandoned by Ryainair. Or even if I have got £1250 do you consider it reasonable that Ryainair can just walk away without any responsibility? Do you think either of these options meet the rules of reasonableness and/or breaches the UCTA? I do not. You may suggest that I take out insurance. But since when should anyone take out insurance at their cost to cover someone elses breache(s) of contract and/or statute law?

On your basis Ryainair could just cancel flights willy nilly if say there were not enough seats sold to make it commercially viabole to operate that service at that time. Just bung the poor old mugs stuck in some far away hell hole airport their 99p back. There is no way that any Judge would rule that this was reasonable under Ryanairs T&C's I would suggest.

Yes I can only agree that Ryainair are a low cost airline and you get what you pay for. But that does not exempt them from abiding by the normal rules and legislation that everyone else has to comply with. If they cannot afford to do it then that is a financial issue for Ryainair to deal with and us perhaps to pick up the cost of. I cannot recall, bit my recollection is that everytime Ryainair have been challenged upon an issue through the courts and simialr they have lost. Even as far as taking unlawful subsidies amounting to millions. Perhaps that should suggest something about their motivation, attitude and general way that they conduct business?

budgetflyer

Dont you just yearn for the good ol days when BA could charge £300 just to fly you to London,never mind abroad.You were treated like ROYALTY. Thing was ,it was only ROYALTY or BUSINESS MEN who could afford to fly on them.
Id rather have the Ryanair version,warts n all. Fly to Europe for less cost than a night at the pub.
There has to be a trade off . Hands up who wants to go back to the old ways-NOT ME