Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Vauban

For what it is worth, I agree with much of what Sir Gimpy says on this.

I would add it is slightly surprising, and disappointing, that the judge didn't explore the unfair term argument, because surely - from a consumers' perspective - that is the principal beef?

I seem to recall the damages point being explored by the Court of Appeal in the Dawson case. The Court didn't think there was much mileage, I think, in distinguishing between damages and compensation.

howticklediam

Vauban wrote: »

I would add it is slightly surprising, and disappointing, that the judge didn't explore the unfair term argument, because surely - from a consumers' perspective - that is the principal beef?

I agree that the unfair terms argument is the crux of the matter. I looked at the issues for my own case. There are many ways that the contractual terms are unfair. Ambiguous, not negotiated, not delivered on a durable medium, have been amended over time, unduly restricting evidence or imposing a burden of proof that should be with another party. In my case it wasn't Ryanair but with the exception of the word damages it's pretty much the same. I think the fixation on the term damages has detracted from simpler and more important issues.

SirGimpy

I think the unfair terms argument is largely hopeless. If you die on a plane, you have 2 years to claim. If you are delayed on a train, you have 28 days. There are myriad examples of consumer contracts where the limitation period is reduced to 2 years or less where it would be 6 years under the Limitation Act 1980. This may be why the claimants did not argue the point in the Goel case.

JPears

Which really points to the law being an !!!, as tickled intimated in a different thread, having no consistency in its application and interpretation. There is no consistancy. Which is even worse for the consumer.
Unless airlines are forced to make their fare paying passengers fully aware of their rights and the airlines obligations under 261/2004 they canot continue to hide behind small print, limiting terms and conditions and dishonesty.
Unfortuantely, at present there is no body willing or able to enforce thos obligations.

SirGimpy

I find it odd that people are incapable of considering the Regulation from any perspective other than that of someone annoyed at being delayed at an airport and determined to squeeze every last penny out of the experience. I assume that this is borne of your own frustrating experiences trying to make the airlines play ball. However, it might be said, on the other side of the coin, that:

1. The decision of the European Court to extend the application of the compensation provisions of the Regulation to delays, when the Regulation itself expressly deals with long delays and does not provide for the payment of compensation in such circumstances, was an impermissible over-extension of its powers. It re-wrote the law in a way which only the European legislature was entitled to do;

2. The approach of the English courts has generally been very pro-passenger and anti-airline. The Court of Appeal's judgment in Huzar has seemingly created a high threshold for the application of the extraordinary circumstances defence, when it is clear from the discussions which occurred in the European institutions when the Regulation was negotiated that they intended the airlines to have a defence in any situation where the cause of the cancellation was beyond the carrier's control;

3. With regard to the issue of contractual limitation periods, there is no reason why airlines should be forced to investigate and potentially defend claims which arise out of delays or cancellations which occurred many years ago. This is the rationale for limitation periods. It is very common for contracts to contain limitation periods below the default prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980 for this very reason. In terms of being aware of your rights, you are presumed to know the law and even a five minute session on Google would reveal the essentials of what you need to know;

4. The system of compensation in the Regulation amounts to nothing more than compulsory insurance. Not only that, but it places an incentive on airlines to make sure flights arrive with less than a 3 hour delay no matter what. That may seem like a good thing on the face of it, but stop and consider the potential safety implications;

5. The fact that the Regulation is drafted in such a way that the amount of compensation payable can exceed the cost of the passenger's ticket is unjustifiable;

6. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think are not enormous money-making machines with free cash to spare. They struggle to stay afloat, especially when oil prices are high;

7. Flight delays are undoubtedly annoying. But do you really feel we all ought to be entitled to hundreds of Euros in compensation when they occur? Was it really so bad back in the day when we were forced to just take it in the a**e once in a while?

Paul_Sawyer

Advice and information required.

I was delayed in November 2014 for over 50 hours on a Ryanair flight from Areciefe (Lanzarote) to Stansted

The first two days we were told that it was due to weather conditions = adverse winds which would be true it was very windy (Albeit other airlines with the same type of plane were able to take off and land), but on the third day we were further delayed over 3 hours due to the crew being out of hours

I made a claimed with Ryanair who rejected my claim citing adverse weather, only offering me only my out of pocket expenses (they did put us up in hotels and gave us food etc. etc.)

I made a claim through AESA who rejected my claim for the first day's delay but did not investigate the further delays

I have now been informed by one of the no win no fee travel delay claim companies that it is not worth me taking this to court because the travel delay compensation scheme only applies to the first days delay and no other subsequent delays, and as Ryanair can and have proved that the initial first delay was due to adverse weather conditions I would have no claim

How can this be correct? Would this information be true?

Vauban

SirGimpy wrote: »

I find it odd that people are incapable of considering the Regulation from any perspective other than that of someone annoyed at being delayed at an airport and determined to squeeze every last penny out of the experience. I assume that this is borne of your own frustrating experiences trying to make the airlines play ball. However, it might be said, on the other side of the coin, that:

1. The decision of the European Court to extend the application of the compensation provisions of the Regulation to delays, when the Regulation itself expressly deals with long delays and does not provide for the payment of compensation in such circumstances, was an impermissible over-extension of its powers. It re-wrote the law in a way which only the European legislature was entitled to do;

Perhaps - but the European Court is able to interpret legislation in this way. And it did so. Perfectly legally. By all means have the debate about whether that was a good thing or not. But that's not an excuse for airlines to shirk their newly acquired legal obligations.

2. The approach of the English courts has generally been very pro-passenger and anti-airline. The Court of Appeal's judgment in Huzar has seemingly created a high threshold for the application of the extraordinary circumstances defence, when it is clear from the discussions which occurred in the European institutions when the Regulation was negotiated that they intended the airlines to have a defence in any situation where the cause of the cancellation was beyond the carrier's control;

The Regulation sets a high bar for consumer protection, for sure. That's why the courts interpret it generously. The reason for 261/04 is because the airlines treated passengers like rubbish - prioritising their bottom line over substantial inconvenience to the passenger. So they had it coming. "Control" is only part of the test - as I think you know. Inherence of the phenomenon is equally important, as confirmed by the UK Court of Appeal.

3. With regard to the issue of contractual limitation periods, there is no reason why airlines should be forced to investigate and potentially defend claims which arise out of delays or cancellations which occurred many years ago. This is the rationale for limitation periods. It is very common for contracts to contain limitation periods below the default prescribed by the Limitation Act 1980 for this very reason. In terms of being aware of your rights, you are presumed to know the law and even a five minute session on Google would reveal the essentials of what you need to know;

Actually, there is. Partly because that's the default setting of the law. But mainly because the airlines have fought tooth and nail to resist legitimate claims, putting people off claiming until for example the Nelson judgement was settled. Plus they failed - and some still do - to advertise passenger rights, as the Regulation insists they do. Passengers are not obliged to search for their rights.

4. The system of compensation in the Regulation amounts to nothing more than compulsory insurance. Not only that, but it places an incentive on airlines to make sure flights arrive with less than a 3 hour delay no matter what. That may seem like a good thing on the face of it, but stop and consider the potential safety implications;

You'd have had more credibility sticking with six unconvincing points, rather than raising this nonsense. There is no evidence that airlines are sacrificing safety for punctuality, and it would be an absurd business decision for them to do so. It is reasonable, you know, for a passenger to expect that they should arrive both on time and in one piece.

5. The fact that the Regulation is drafted in such a way that the amount of compensation payable can exceed the cost of the passenger's ticket is unjustifiable;

No it is not. The compensation is for lost time. The cost of your lost time bears no relation to the ticket price. Do keep up!

6. Contrary to what a lot of people seem to think are not enormous money-making machines with free cash to spare. They struggle to stay afloat, especially when oil prices are high;

They do alright. They'd do even better if they invested in their fleets and operations so they weren't late quite so often. Then they wouldn't have to pay compensation.

7. Flight delays are undoubtedly annoying. But do you really feel we all ought to be entitled to hundreds of Euros in compensation when they occur? Was it really so bad back in the day when we were forced to just take it in the a**e once in a while?

Amazingly, I can add nothing to your last comment because it illuminates your attitude perfectly. Vauban's bottom remains safe from the airlines. As it were.

howticklediam

SirGimpy wrote: »

I think the unfair terms argument is largely hopeless. If you die on a plane, you have 2 years to claim. If you are delayed on a train, you have 28 days. There are myriad examples of consumer contracts where the limitation period is reduced to 2 years or less where it would be 6 years under the Limitation Act 1980. This may be why the claimants did not argue the point in the Goel case.

And that's fair enough if that's written into the T&Cs and you are aware of it, however that's not what's happening here. The airlines are dragging up old T&Cs from years ago that were meant for something else and deliberately misinterpreting them as a get-out. And they aren't communicated properly and that's why they are unfair.

And the airlines string people along playing letter tennis hoping the get them over the two-year time-bar. And that's unfair.

What you are talking about is the principle of the period for making a claim which is quite different from whether the execution of the contract is unfair. If you think the principle of the law is unfair, then lobby the EU for a change in the law, but in the meantime, abide by it.

JPears

sirgimpy aka un ami de les Deux Os?
The nickname explains paragraph 7....

Mark2spark

Personally I welcome Sir Gimpy onto the forum to offer an alternative stance, that is set out to afford his views, rather than a one line rant of how planes will crash or the airlines will go bankrupt and that the compensation culture is mad mad mad.

I also take a lot of pleasure in reading Vaubans dissection of his points, of which I might expand on further down.

Firstly I'll point out that I have no wish to enter into a debate on whether the Regulation is 'fair' upon the airlines, only the part that it is, like it or not, the LAW, and the interpretation of it.
Having said that, I would point out that Ryanair has been charging every single passenger a EU261 'levy' of approx €2 pp for about 10 years now, which is consistent with the original expectations of cost to the airlines of the Regulation.
I might as well also point out that a 20 hour plus flight delay incurs expenses that do not relate to the cost of the flight ticket either.

IMO the only reason that challenges to the notion of contracts and periods of limitation to claim are going to the courts is because the airlines have (collectively) resisted the Regulation every step of the way over the years, and that within a few years there won't be anyone left that isn't aware that a claim can be made for a delay, and they will do so reasonably promptly, thus nullifying the time length to claim argument.

I believe that RA's argument falls flat on the basis that a contract cannot be introduced that gives a person (in this case a passenger) less rights than that they would enjoy under regular law.
It would be a bit like employing someone but giving them a contract of employment where the wage was set at £4.50 an hour, despite there being a minimum wage of £6.50.

FWIW, I think it's about time the airlines came to terms with the jist of the Regulation, start putting together Plan B's and C's, like greater co-operation between airlines on spare parts availability and engineers to fit them, even spare planes at larger hubs.
They have clearly under estimated the doggedness of passengers who will pursue them right to the bitter end after having being treated like dirt at the airport whilst being delayed, no info, no help, a lousy €5 voucher sometimes for a meal AND refreshments when a bottle of water costs €3 at Palma airport.

The Regulation is a good thing, people are humans and not a commodity for the airlines to just disregard when the profit margin is the greater consideration.