Ryanair: flight rescheduled to 6:50 AM

Quentin

tofu wrote: »

....I have not yet contacted Ryanair, wanting to make sure I did not make a mistake due to not knowing what my rigths are. I will call them, asking for

a) alternative travel arrangements on the same day that can get me to my destination in time, or failing that,
b) reimbursement of expenses incurred if I accept the rescheduled flight, or failing that,
c) compensation under EU261.

I'll keep you updated, but if you have any further advice, please let me know.

Apart from getting a refund for your fare (ie not taking the flight), you have no "rights", so you should be really trying for a goodwill gesture (not something they are well known for!)

(EU261 is a non starter as you haven't had your flight cancelled/delayed)

Centipede100

Your best bet (time and cost wise) might be to fly MAN-HAM at 08.15 on Lufthansa. One way cost £80. You can then take the 'Metronom' train from Hamburg to Bremen for 22.50 euros single. Journey time is 1hr10mins.

Ryanair are not liable for your options described above in a), b) or c).

In a) they are getting you to your destination in time (although somewhat earlier) and you will therefore forfeit your rail tix if you accept the new time.

Airline is not liable for your own arrangements (hotel, train etc) in your case.

Compensation is not available for this type of reschedule (as yet).

richardw

NFH wrote: »

It has. It's irrelevant that the original flight number has been reused for a different flight.

Why, hasn't it just moved earlier?

richardw

Centipede100 wrote: »

...Compensation is not available for this type of reschedule (as yet).

Can you expand on this a bit please, is something pending for this type of reschedule?

TIA

NFH

richardw wrote: »

Why hasn't it just moved earlier?

The 11:30 flight has been cancelled. There is a 06:50 flight instead. They are not the same flight, despite reusing the same flight number.

Centipede100

NFH wrote: »

It has. It's irrelevant that the original flight number has been reused for a different flight.

I have to agree with Richardw on this one.

Whilst the timings have changed, the flight number and day are the same so it cannot be described as a cancellation under 261/2004, the definition of the word delay is "a period of time by which something is late or postponed" which cannot apply to something which is brought forward - at least in 261/2004 terms.

Centipede100

richardw wrote: »

Can you expand on this a bit please, is something pending for this type of reschedule?

TIA

Not to my knowledge but someone is bound to bring a case on it sometime!

NFH

Centipede100 wrote: »

Whilst the timings have changed, the flight number and day are the same so it cannot be described as a cancellation under 261/2004, the definition of the word delay is "a period of time by which something is late or postponed" which cannot apply to something which is brought forward - at least in 261/2004 terms.

It's not a delay, but a cancellation. The reuse of the original flight number is irrelevant under 261/2004.

Quentin

NFH wrote: »

The 11:30 flight has been cancelled. There is a 06:50 flight instead. They are not the same flight, despite reusing the same flight number.

Where do you get this from?

The flight has clearly been rescheduled! (One thing they are well known for!)

Centipede100

NFH wrote: »

The 11:30 flight has been cancelled. There is a 06:50 flight instead. They are not the same flight, despite reusing the same flight number.

NFH wrote: »

It's not a delay, but a cancellation. The reuse of the original flight number is irrelevant under 261/2004.

There is substantive case law on this. For a flight to be described as cancelled, the airline would have to fly one less flight per week for example.

Lets say they fly on a route once per day 7 days per week, in this case the airline is still flying the same number of flights per week. For it to be described as cancelled, they would have had to reduce the numbers of flights in that same period. Not the case here.