Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

111KAB

Infant compensation - Bott & Co


http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2026671&c=setreg&region=2

Tyzap

111KAB wrote: »

Infant compensation - Bott & Co


http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2026671&c=setreg&region=2

Thanks for that little gem 111KAB.

They are going down the same road as Jet2.com by requesting leave to appeal.

Hopefully that will lead to a new precedent setting ruling following the appeal. Somehow I cannot see that happening tho as the last thing the airlines want is clarity. My money is on no appeal.

legal_magpie

I'm not surprised they are seeking permission to appeal.

Vauban

There have been rulings in the County Court before about this, which have found in favour of the passenger. I remember reading one such story in the "Court Success Thread". The CAA has consistently supported this interpretation of the guidelines too.

EDIT: I see Ryanair have chipped in:

"In this case, the two parents and a sister have already received €1,200 in EU261 compensation, which is almost four times the three one-way airfares they paid of just £104. This is compo culture gone mad. If this ruling is not overturned we will have to consider increasing the infant fee from €20 to €40 to cover these idiotic infant compo claims."

First, whilst I appreciate the alliteration, the phrase "compo claims" deserves a slap regardless. Second, if Ryanair really did want to make sure that infants were not able to claim flight delay compensation, then why not let them travel free? No paid ticket, no claim. Simples. To suggest that it requires an additional €20 levy is pure baloney - as usual.

Ganga

Vauban wrote: »

There have been rulings in the County Court before about this, which have found in favour of the passenger. I remember reading one such story in the "Court Success Thread". The CAA has consistently supported this interpretation of the guidelines too.

EDIT: I see Ryanair have chipped in:

"In this case, the two parents and a sister have already received €1,200 in EU261 compensation, which is almost four times the three one-way airfares they paid of just £104. This is compo culture gone mad. If this ruling is not overturned we will have to consider increasing the infant fee from €20 to €40 to cover these idiotic infant compo claims."

First, whilst I appreciate the alliteration, the phrase "compo claims" deserves a slap regardless. Second, if Ryanair really did want to make sure that infants were not able to claim flight delay compensation, then why not let them travel free? No paid ticket, no claim. Simples. To suggest that it requires an additional €20 levy is pure baloney - as usual.

It was inevitable that fares would have to rise to cover the cost of the claims!As for the term " COMPO CLAIMS" that is exactly what they are,i have been a member of this forum for years and have noticed the number of posts on not only this forum but also on the PPI one starting off - "I am sure we flew sometime and were delayed" and "i am sure i had a credit card/loan 20 years ago can i claim" this is surely the compo claim culture that has spread from the USA and like the rise in car insurance thru ambulance chasing legal firms,costs will certainly have to passed on to the travelling public.

Vauban

Ganga wrote: »

It was inevitable that fares would have to rise to cover the cost of the claims!As for the term " COMPO CLAIMS" that is exactly what they are,i have been a member of this forum for years and have noticed the number of posts on not only this forum but also on the PPI one starting off - "I am sure we flew sometime and were delayed" and "i am sure i had a credit card/loan 20 years ago can i claim" this is surely the compo claim culture that has spread from the USA and like the rise in car insurance thru ambulance chasing legal firms,costs will certainly have to passed on to the travelling public.

Of course you are right, Ganga, that prices have to rise if the airlines costs rise too (unless the airlines can find efficiencies elsewhere - or a prepared to take a hit on their profits). But do you know how much extra this cost is? It's about €2. And if you want to know how I know that, it's because Ryanair already charge the levy when you buy a ticket. See here:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/30/ryanair-levy-compensation-eu261

So to suggest that infant fares will need to rise by another €20 is nonsense scare tactics, designed only to generate a headline for the gullible reader.

I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with you about "compo culture" - I just hate the word "compo", which was actually my point.

But I would make one additional point too: since airlines have been liable for flight delay compensation payments, their punctuality records have improved enormously. So the Regulation has had the effect that was always intended - that airlines would need to prioritise reducing delays, rather than simply putting profits before their passengers, which is what I am afraid was happening before the introduction of 261/04.

Have a great weekend.

Ganga

Vauban wrote: »

Of course you are right, Ganga, that prices have to rise if the airlines costs rise too (unless the airlines can find efficiencies elsewhere - or a prepared to take a hit on their profits). But do you know how much extra this cost is? It's about €2. And if you want to know how I know that, it's because Ryanair already charge the levy when you buy a ticket. See here:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/30/ryanair-levy-compensation-eu261

So to suggest that infant fares will need to rise by another €20 is nonsense scare tactics, designed only to generate a headline for the gullible reader.

I don't think I'm necessarily disagreeing with you about "compo culture" - I just hate the word "compo", which was actually my point.

But I would make one additional point too: since airlines have been liable for flight delay compensation payments, their punctuality records have improved enormously. So the Regulation has had the effect that was always intended - that airlines would need to prioritise reducing delays, rather than simply putting profits before their passengers, which is what I am afraid was happening before the introduction of 261/04.

Have a great weekend.

Whilst improving punctuality through reducing delays,i personally think that it is unfair on any airline that has a malfunction on aircraft that prevents it from flying SAFELY and putting peoples lives at risk then having to give out large sums of money to people who paid little to fly.this is only my opinion but it beggars belief when i read on this board that people believe that airlines should have spare planes available at the drop of a hat at any airport when problems occur.

Tyzap

Just an interesting note about Ryanair and infant charges.

In October 2014 we took a return Ryanair flight from MAN to AGP, the adult fair, minus tax etc was £44 but the infant charge was £60 and he did not even get his own seat, he had to sit on an adults knee.

Ryanair charge whatever they can get away with plus they benefit from the 261 levy which they have been charging for many years.

It is very disingenuous of Ryanair to charge a levy on each sector flown and yet still fight genuine delay claims. To them it's just another income stream from which they want to profit, rather than a neutral income stream which just covers their 261 costs.

leylandsunaddict

Ryanair only charge £20 per flight for an infant now.

richardw

Ganga wrote: »

...airlines should have spare planes available at the drop of a hat at any airport when problems occur.

Ryanair is enormous, they have hundreds of planes, it is inevitable that there will be problems, a back up system is just sensible.