6 hour delay due to technical fault, Ryanair say no compensation!

Toe-Jam

blondmark wrote: »

Ah! I got one just like that once (no figures mentioned in the letter) ... Not only did it turn out eventually to be something like 50p and a mars bar, Ryanair "forgot" to send anything at all, so back to square one!

Honestly, just sue them - it's the only language they understand.

Hmm interesting, I'll give them the full 2 weeks and the benefit of the doubt. I only requested a refund for the return leg of my flight and the costs for the hotel, so its not like I was being unreasonable.

I just faxed them to clarify their letter, and pending cheque.

If they don't pay up i'll be claiming the lot in court.

NFH

tripled wrote: »

Personally I believe 300 euros would be excessive in most cases.

The statutory compensation has to be sufficiently high to create a disincentive for airlines to delay passengers unreasonably. Given that this compensation is due only when a delay is within the airline's control, the airlines have nothing to worry about; they can simply ensure that flights operate correctly and on time. If they save costs by having insufficient contingency arrangements, then it is a risk they choose to take.

callum9999

tripled wrote: »

I wouldn't voluntarily add in a clause offering to pay £60 if I forgot my boarding pass. Those are terms imposed by the airline as a condition of the ticket. The delay compensation is a term imposed on behalf of the passenger as a condition of the ticket. Of course there's a difference but that doesn't make it any less valid.

I never said they should move to a different continent. They have to adjust their business model, close down and return cash to shareholders, or potentially go into administration or bankruptcy.

I for one never made any comment on whether I beleive the legislation is reasonable. Personally I believe 300 euros would be excessive in most cases. However I suspect most airlines would be much happier with this than having to refund all monies payed for flights delayed by sixty minutes or more, as a significantly higher proportion of flights would be caught in this net, along with the associated costs of processing these claims.

Oh no! Never mind. I'll try and survive, even without any compensation to overcome my dissapointment at your lack of response.

Exactly... On behalf of the customer, not by the customer. Ergo, it is NOT the same as the airline imposing whatever charges they like. Of course it makes it less valid as it is a 3rd party interfering with a contract between 2 other parties. This is (allegedly) a free country - if an airline wants to impose a £60 boarding pass fee then they can do it. If a passenger doesn't want to risk having to pay such a fee, they can refuse to fly with that airline - I hardly see what business it is of the EU to butt-in and dictate additional clauses like this. For some sectors - e.g. water/power supply etc. yes, but in sectors like air travel that aren't remotely a necessity for anyone, why?

Which is equally as absurd.

Granted you used inverted commas, but you certainly did imply that by saying that the customer deserves €300 compensation for being delays. Which begs the question, if you didn't actually mean they deserve the €300, why use the word deserve at all?

callum9999

blondmark wrote: »

Is that your version of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la la" very loudly?

When your views are so extreme and out of touch, responses need to bring you back to basics (e.g. the function of the law, incentives to comply, deterrents for non-compliance, compensatory damages for the inconvenience caused by being stranded / missing ongoing flight and hotel bookings, the rarity of flight compensation, etc.). In other words the accepted norms in a civilised society.

Sorry if lots of words of more than one syllable are a bit challenging for you.

No, it's my way of saying you have an awful debating style. While long-winded passages that are only loosely connected to the point in hand may superficially make it look like you are intelligently putting important points across, it doesn't wash with me. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that previous post contained a large amount of gibberish. Thankfully you've "dumbed down" this post so my feeble mind can just about grasp what you're saying though...

It's an "extreme" view to think people don't need €300 compensation for being held up in an airport for 3 hours? And there you go again, stupid phrasing to try and make your argument look better than it actually is. I honestly cannot believe you can come up with the line "accepted norms in a civilised society" with regards to €300 compensation for 3 hour flight delays. Never in my entire life have I ever encountered someone who felt not being given €300 for a 3 hour delay. And that's just 3 hour delay - not compensation for missing flights, extra hotel bookings etc. which I've already clearly said is completely fair.

tripled

callum9999 wrote: »

Exactly... On behalf of the customer, not by the customer. Ergo, it is NOT the same as the airline imposing whatever charges they like. Of course it makes it less valid as it is a 3rd party interfering with a contract between 2 other parties.

I could argue that the airline is brokering and fulfilling contracts on behalf of its shareholders. I agree it's different, I disagree with you on the point of validity.

This is (allegedly) a free country - if an airline wants to impose a £60 boarding pass fee then they can do it. If a passenger doesn't want to risk having to pay such a fee, they can refuse to fly with that airline - I hardly see what business it is of the EU to butt-in and dictate additional clauses like this. For some sectors - e.g. water/power supply etc. yes, but in sectors like air travel that aren't remotely a necessity for anyone, why?

We are also free to vote for the MPs that write the laws we have to live by, and companies have to operate within. Those same MP's mean we have to operate by the laws of the EU. Some laws I disagree with, some I ignore, some budget airlines try and do the same

Granted you used inverted commas, but you certainly did imply that by saying that the customer deserves €300 compensation for being delays. Which begs the question, if you didn't actually mean they deserve the €300, why use the word deserve at all?

They deserve it becuase they and other customers have paid a €2 surcharge on their ticket, levied by Ryanair and broken down in their charges, towards a fund (Ryanair's balance sheet) that can be claimed from in the event of a delay exceeding a certain length and deemed to be within in the airline's control. Even if Ryanair hadn't itemised it though, it would still be part of the contract entered into and a "hidden cost" within the fare.

I use "deserve" in quotes because I disagree with the EU law, at least in part. Personally I would rather lower costs and therefore cheaper ticket prices, although that's not to say I don't agree with all regulation. If that rule didn't exist I'm sure Ryanair wouldn't have entered contracts offering that compensation with passengers and the OP wouldn't deserve it. However it has, and therefore the OP is entitled to (and deserves) it.

tripled

NFH wrote: »

The statutory compensation has to be sufficiently high to create a disincentive for airlines to delay passengers unreasonably. Given that this compensation is due only when a delay is within the airline's control, the airlines have nothing to worry about; they can simply ensure that flights operate correctly and on time. If they save costs by having insufficient contingency arrangements, then it is a risk they choose to take.

Personally I would rather see lower levels of compensation. Competition should in principle mean lower costs lead to lower fares. That's not to say I wouldn't take advantage of it if I was fortunate enough to delayed by the airline next week! But if I would like the airline to delay me for the compo, the balance is probably wrong.

photome

tripled wrote: »

. If that rule didn't exist I'm sure Ryanair wouldn't have entered contracts offering that compensation with passengers and the OP wouldn't deserve it. However it has, and therefore the OP is entitled to (and deserves) it.

Thats the answer in a nutshell.

A certain poster can keep going round in circles but it still comes down to the above

lazyjack

For everyone defending Ryanair, please tell me exactly what this is for on their breakdown of charges on flights:

EU 261 Levy: 2.00 GBP

As someone else pointed out, at around 80 million passengers per year they are making a huge amount of money from this. However, when it comes to handing it back out, they don't seem to like that part of the deal so much.

callum9999

photome wrote: »

Thats the answer in a nutshell.

A certain poster can keep going round in circles but it still comes down to the above

tripled wrote: »

I could argue that the airline is brokering and fulfilling contracts on behalf of its shareholders. I agree it's different, I disagree with you on the point of validity.

We are also free to vote for the MPs that write the laws we have to live by, and companies have to operate within. Those same MP's mean we have to operate by the laws of the EU. Some laws I disagree with, some I ignore, some budget airlines try and do the same

They deserve it becuase they and other customers have paid a €2 surcharge on their ticket, levied by Ryanair and broken down in their charges, towards a fund (Ryanair's balance sheet) that can be claimed from in the event of a delay exceeding a certain length and deemed to be within in the airline's control. Even if Ryanair hadn't itemised it though, it would still be part of the contract entered into and a "hidden cost" within the fare.

I use "deserve" in quotes because I disagree with the EU law, at least in part. Personally I would rather lower costs and therefore cheaper ticket prices, although that's not to say I don't agree with all regulation. If that rule didn't exist I'm sure Ryanair wouldn't have entered contracts offering that compensation with passengers and the OP wouldn't deserve it. However it has, and therefore the OP is entitled to (and deserves) it.

I replied to this earlier but it didn't work for some reason, though to clarify, (to the best of my knowledge) I have never said that airlines shouldn't be paying this out. They shouldn't have to pay it out, but the law is the law and as long as it's in affect, they should be complying with it.

The only point I am making (which is continually quoted out of context - why?) is that the law should not state that automatic compensation of €300 should be given to people who are delayed by 3 hours and suffered no loss because of it. That is all - so please stop going on about "emotional distress" and consequential losses as that has nothing to do with my point - and should be compensated for.

I also profoundly disagree that the role of the law is to place fines on companies to "discourage" them from having delays in their service. This is a free economy, if passengers are upset at the levels of delay on one carrier then they can use another more punctual one. I also don't see why airlines are singled out for this - why not fine Royal Mail for delivering letters late? ISPs for breaks in service? Mobile networks for downtime? These can all be just as irritating/damaging to people as airline delays are.

Toe-Jam

Can someone please clarify for me, If your flight is delayed due to bad weather, but the airport is not closed (Only Ryanair is) are you entitled to ask for a refund for the flight if its cancelled and rescheduled the next day ?

I know you can get the costs of Hotels back, it is just the flight I need to be clear of.