Ryanair Changing Flight details

richardw

Westin wrote: »

Richardw - the above needs to be read in conjunction with the FULL EC Regulation 261/2004' particularly Article 5. The OP does not say when they are flying but I'd wager a pound to a penny that it is for more than 14 days time in which case Ryanair have given sufficient notice of the cancellation and your advise would not stand. Article 8 does not apply as notice has been given.

I have read the full EU Regualtion EC 261/2004 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML many many times.

Article 8 applies irrespective of when the cancellation happens.

Article 5 says

Cancellation
1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8

and then refers to Article 8.

Article 5 (c) (i), (ii), (iii) is all about the right to compensation.

Westin, perhaps read more about lewroll's success https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3070460

Westin

Goodness, a hornets nest!

richardw & apt
I still stand by my previous comment. I believe the Regulation reads as Article 5 1 (a), plus (b), plus (c) being read in conjuction - unless:

(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure

Article 5

Cancellation

1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:
(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with
Article 8; and
(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with
Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably
expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the
departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified
in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and
(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance
with Article 7, unless:
(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before
the scheduled time of departure; or
(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days
before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them
to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to
reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of
arrival; or

(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the
scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart
no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their
final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.
2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be
given concerning possible alternative transport.
3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in
accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by
extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all
reasonable measures had been taken.
4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the
passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with
the operating air carrier.

2sidestoeverystory

after Westin's "Not a scam" bleat

- but it's not a SCAM it is a rescheduling of a flight that very unfortunately has impacted the OP. I can assure you that Ryanair is not on my Christmas card list and I have no loyalty to them so would normally not defend them. I actually stopped flying with them myself years ago. My choice.

Thank you apt for the speedy correction. I was tempted to post last night
after Westin's "Not a scam" bleat, but I thought Richard's post had done the
trick much more convincingly. Blow me if Westin isn't back again today calling
black white.

I do wish some industry participants would get their facts
straight before shooting their mouth off like it was good advice.

My
criticism supposes of course that "Westin" is indeed a travel industry person
with a username after a 5* hotel chain
If I am right, then perhaps Westin should stick to making those "Heavenly beds"
instead of advising customers of how they may be "legally" forced by their
chosen airline to cancel outright or to arrive a day late and miss a night's
heavenly experience and maybe even a damned good breakfast too

A rather arrogant suggestion that you know what I do for a living just because my username is a hotel chain!

Unfortunately my career path is not so glamorousas working for a hotel or in the travel industry but I do however spend large amounts of time away from the family flying overseas on business, missing important family events, social time with friends etc etc. The shiny glamour of travel quickly wears thin. Travelling at the moment mostly to the USA and normally 2/3 times a month! I stay in various hotels and yes - sometimes a Westin (which could have been the inspiration for my username when I first found MSE, but I can't recall for sure and certainly my username could equally have turned out being "Hilton" or "Sheraton" or another other hotel than I end up spending time away from home at. The only benefit of all the travelling is accruing lots of airline miles, hotel points, car rental points etc which I do take use of for flights/holidays and taking the family on some great trips. Some joy!

My travels, both on business and leisure haven't always gone smoothly. I've been on many a delayed flight (the longest was 27 hours), aircraft going "technical" half way through the flight (BA) and landing in dubious places (some airfield in UAE) weather diversions, medical emergency diversions (Virgin and the Azores once and Gander another time), standed in the USA for 5 extra nights after 9/11 (Boston), stranded in the USA again with one of the ash clouds closing airspace (Las Vegas). Sure at times I have been P'ed with the delays and agro but these things happen. It's part of the great travelling experience.

oh yes - Westin do have great beds....

budgetflyer

Like Westin, I always thought the "unless" applied to ALL above it. However if it applies to just (c) compensation ,then its a different game altogether.

richardw

Westin wrote: »

Goodness, a hornets nest!

richardw & apt
I still stand by my previous comment. I believe the Regulation reads as Article 5 1 (a), plus (b), plus (c) being read in conjuction - unless:

(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure

It doesn't.
The regulation is drafted that it only applies to (c) compensation. If the time limit applied to (a) and (b) the regulation would be drafted in a different way.

If it did apply to (a) and (b), the solicitor didn't want a claim to continue in lewroll's case in https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3070460

Please also read post number 19 in https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2287415 from WickedWolfie a legal drafter. The airline conceded in that case.

richardw

2sides2everystory wrote: »

...I don't know what Richard does for a living either but he's pretty hot on this stuff and has straightened me out a few times ... right up there with Cityboy ...

I'm not a lawyer, I've just read and understood a lot of what has been discussed and remember what the results were.

NMSE12

Unfortunately the same has happened to me. It seems there is nothing that we can do either. Its completely unfair and i jut can't understand why RyanAir think its acceptable. I plan to avoid them after this holiday as after the extra charges i have now had to add due to changing carparking, holiday accomodation, transfers etc it would of cost me roughly the same to holiday with a package company.
I hope you manage to recoup some of the extra charges. Try and explain to your hotel, you never know you might get a sympathetic ear.
Good luck, and regardless of this hassle enjoy your holiday.

budgetflyer

Why have all the posts from cityboy been removed?

budgetflyer

richardw wrote: »

It doesn't.
The regulation is drafted that it only applies to (c) compensation. If the time limit applied to (a) and (b) the regulation would be drafted in a different way.

If it did apply to (a) and (b), the solicitor didn't want a claim to continue in lewroll's case in https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3070460

Please also read post number 19 in https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2287415 from WickedWolfie a legal drafter. The airline conceded in that case.

Excellent Richardw.

richardw

budgetflyer wrote: »

Why have all the posts from cityboy been removed?

I'm guessing that it was for personal reasons and they requested the removal of the posts.

Centipede100

richardw wrote: »

I'm guessing that it was for personal reasons and they requested the removal of the posts.

That's quite correct.