Ryanair sits hen party in FIFTEEN separate rows as outrage over seating policy grows
Options
Comments
-
+1 ^^^^.I think pconfectioneragarnettforeverblowinbubbles needs to engage with the relevant people in authority and JUST GET ON WITH COMPLAINING TO THOSE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE.
If they do they may well be the catalyst in stopping an accident that is waiting to happen.
So why do they not do that?0 -
If you don't think it's lawful, either report them to the airline regulating body or take them to court yourself.
Or People could them to the court by themselves.
That also the challenge to people who keep arguing a safety issue.
Keep in mind there is an incentive here you win you might win a big compensation big enough to not flying RA for the rest of your life.
What is quite strange here.
People keep saying there is a safety issue, yet they keep flying Ryan.
They keep saying hate Ryan air, yet they keep coming back flying RA.
Hate RA do not fly Ryan Air.
You Pay nothing you get nothing0 -
I think you'll find I suggested that in my earlier post - the one you quoted.Or People could them to the court by themselves.
That also the challenge to people who keep arguing a safety issue.If you don't think it's lawful, either report them to the airline regulating body or take them to court yourself.0 -
I know perfectly what it means without even looking it up and so should you before entering a public forum and suggesting Ryanair does not do it when I know 100% that it tried to bait and switch me during the last day before my last flight at least.I think you don't really know what bait and switch means.
When I book a flight and do not book a seat that is one sales transaction. If I get tempted into reconsidering the seat purchase on another occasion, that is a separate transaction.
When I seek to check in at a time to suit me and to suit Ryanair, if I get a headline "from X price for a seat" quoted specifically to me as part of my check in and nobody else's, inviting me afresh at a standalone add-on price to buy an allocated seat, when it already knows who I am before quoting the price (logged in via their system) then there must be a seat available at that price or less.
If I then find there are only more expensive seats left and it then offers me those with no explanation of where the cheap seat went in between the last two clicks, then that is the switch.
I have been baited by one price to buy a seat where I have not chosen to buy one previously as part of the booking transaction, and the price used to interest me again is a false price because it is not available now, then unless I am clearly then told very sorry another purchaser bought the last cheap seat moments after we offered you the cheap price in this session, and before you said yes to it, then the bait is unlawful. It is not enough to say well we quoted the cheap price weeks ago when we sent a reminder to check in early for the seat you want. Sending an invitation like that is not the commencement of the final transaction. It is a failed offer and not a transaction at all. The bait and switch I got offered occurred in a single session lasting less than a second between the bait and the switch.
The bait price is an offer for a new transaction. If that new transaction is impossible and a more expensive offer is substituted, that is an unlawful commercial practice. Simple as.
I am not going to go hunting for the exact clause in the exact named statute, because- I don't need to because I learned the broad bones of this a long time ago as I have been a seller all my working life and follow consumer protection law close enough thanks, and
- I think some armchair critics just want such absolute knowledge handed down on a plate, and I don't agree with culture that consider it is right to dis the messenger in a public forum just because the critic hasn't learned enough themselves, or because they feel the forum audience is too dumbed down to appreciate the niceties of the argument implying MSE is the wrong place to report a problem. You all know by now that I disagree. MSE is an effective megaphone on so many things. Party leaders take daily note of some topics. You can bet your life that MPs offices follow subjects of interest to their MPs.
None of us have ever learned enough. I hope I never stop learning, but I know what I have learned well enough to let my sub-conscious remind me when I am on the correct path.
The unlawful commercial practice one is easy.
The unlawful degradation of emergency evacuation time I have alleged must surely have been caused, is a less easy one for non-aviation people to grasp.
Fact is you can't drive a plane like you drive a bus i.e. use your discretion about how narrow a gap you allow yourself for squeezing past parked cars today or cyclists or for overtaking. Unlike driving on different width roads and different lane widths on four lane motorways, in aviation all those fine standards are generally analysed, reviewed and set very carefully, and it doesn't matter whether the regulations say must or should, no pilot in his right mind would deliberately go against any rule except like Sully in an emergency where he was prepared to set his wisdom and experience to the test against those who set rules or devised hindsight models to show he should have made for another airfield and would have made it.
Pilots just don't do that. I can't explain why, but if you are a pilot then you will understand a little more. Aviation engineers are very similar - they generally would not dream of taking shortcuts. Some very experienced ones can be very creative in coming up with new ideas for certain repairs but they wouldn't dream of just going off piste even if they were confident. They would get the new method approved first.
Airline executives however are of course potentially a different breed - businessmen and women as opposed to day to day technical staff if you like. Airline execs will always be looking for new ways to get more profit out of the same turnover or more turnover out of the same time, or more operational time out of the same assets per year or all three and more.
That's where pilots and engineers have to be strong willed, and generally they are, helped by their above average educations and above average intelligence and the fact they are generally selected for their cool-headedness, readiness to discuss problems and mistakes including their own, teamplay, team leadership, and for their way above average reliability and their general wisdom.
With this emergency evacuation 90 second rule, pilots know it has been knocking around for 50 years hardly altered. That means for a start it is not a safety driven standard but a political acknowledgement that a standard really ought to exist. Pilots also know that for years in the political environment that supports aviation businesses in developed economies worldwide, it is the aircraft manufacturer that generally has to satisfy the test in the first instance for every new aircraft type or type-series if it is a significant "stretch" for example. But it was a wishy washy test to start with so how ought it to be varied to keep safe?
That's where things start to get a bit blurred. Maybe day to day technical staff believe that if an airline uses an aircraft in new ways which are quite different to the original design ways (e.g. why run an operation which regularly stuffs 2 or even 3 tonnes of baggage in the cabin and only half a tonne in two holds underneath which have space for 5 tonnes or more?), that someone (not them) must have ensure it gets checked out every which way. Or maybe they just know it is political and stayed out of it because it is one of the few areas of safety where they can let someone else bother about it!
Perhaps the manufacturer, the airline ops design peeps, and the continuing airworthiness regulator will have a meaningful discussion about how all that extra baggage tempting passengers to try to jump down slides with it or to remove their valuables first, changes likely evacuation times?
Certainly few pilots are in a position to seriously question it unless they are in the worst instance of their assertions to simultaneously stop flying if they have a genuine concern - a bit like some posters here have said I should stop flying if I think the evacuation times are extended. As I say, my contention is that 90 seconds is political anyway. We all know "political" lip service or even "going through the motions" with safety requirements has been shown to have some generally unforeseen horrible consequences recently.
How many of you learned that the law used to say that if you went to watch an F1 type event, or an air display that you were a willing party to some possible danger?
Did you know that it is still the same as a fare paying passenger? Warsaw convention and all that? Still pays a part I think? How much excess danger do you think you are accepting a bit like limiting the unwritten (until you suffer a write off prang) market value pay out on car insurance? In aviation "hull" insurance it is always an agreed value for the aircraft even if it is not new - agreed at the start of the insurance and the payout is based on it! ? But if it is you in the aircraft - you get limited to some "market value" which most people haven't a clue about. If you value your life at over 100,000 Special Drawing Rights then you may like to say whether you think that's what your estate would get paid if you perish in an air crash. If you have never heard of SDR then you might be tempted to Google Warsaw SDR and that is not intended to signify the name and ICAO code of two Ryanair destinations
Its the top hit you want;)
Or if you are an American, are you worth more? (generally they have been over recent decades! . ever since one such drove into the back of a Ford Punto and the petrol tank on the Punto exploded). Not the Punto driver's fault at all, but Ford made a petrol tank which wasn't safe for Americans to drive into the back of and the injured party who drove into the back of the car in front got awarded $125M punitive damages IIRC !
MArket value of American lives and European lives and any lives is political. Why don't we spend more to prevent modern slavery occurring through the same airports we take our own children through to go on holiday? Political.
Our governments decide for us how safe to make us and how safe to make other citizens of other states ... I contend via a series of political changes and some other very questionable twists over decades, that is largely how we had the recent unforeseen catastrophe in London.
If someone could show us that in what many insist on calling "budget airline" ops, when it fact it is now "major airline ops", that extra tests or at least extra calculations and analysis had been agreed by aircraft manufacturer, airline and airworthiness regulator based on the varied style of ops, then that might be adequate. Until then I wonder if any such agreements have actually been attempted ...
There are some things in this life which the masses just don't like to have to believe, and you don't have to. Especially if it is political and the feeling is it is set by an untouchable Establishment or some similar closed shop! So don'y let me stop you closing your eyes and ears and forgetaboud it if you are anxious or annoyed by my thoughts.
I am merely seeking to persuade people generally that these things aren't inconsequential - we are all much more educated in logical thought than ever before. We may not yet be able to logically process which way to vote in a Brexit referendum, but I think if we know what it is like to fly Ryanair, then we can logically deduce the same concerns I have.
(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)0 -
Bait and switch is unlawful pure and simple.
OK.I know perfectly what it means without even looking it up and so should you before entering a public forum and suggesting Ryanair does not do it when I know 100% that it tried to bait and switch me during the last day before my last flight at least.
So you state unequivocally that bait & switch is unlawful.
You state unequivocally that Ryanair tried to use these tactics on you.
Why don't you report Ryanair to the appropriate body?
Suggesting that
is just a cop-out.- I think some armchair critics just want such absolute knowledge handed down on a plate, and I don't agree with culture that consider it is right to dis the messenger in a public forum just because the critic hasn't learned enough themselves, or because they feel the forum audience is too dumbed down to appreciate the niceties of the argument implying MSE is the wrong place to report a problem. You all know by now that I disagree. MSE is an effective megaphone on so many things. Party leaders take daily note of some topics. You can bet your life that MPs offices follow subjects of interest to their MPs.
You say you 'know' that Ryanair are doing things that are unlawful but prefer to keep banging on about it on MSE because you're waiting for 'party leaders' or 'MP offices' to take note of this and do something about it. :rotfl:0 -
I know perfectly what it means without even looking it up and so should you before entering a public forum and suggesting Ryanair does not do it when I know 100% that it tried to bait and switch me during the last day before my last flight at least.
When I book a flight and do not book a seat that is one sales transaction. If I get tempted into reconsidering the seat purchase on another occasion, that is a separate transaction.
When I seek to check in at a time to suit me and to suit Ryanair, if I get a headline "from X price for a seat" quoted specifically to me as part of my check in and nobody else's, inviting me afresh at a standalone add-on price to buy an allocated seat, when it already knows who I am before quoting the price (logged in via their system) then there must be a seat available at that price or less.
If I then find there are only more expensive seats left and it then offers me those with no explanation of where the cheap seat went in between the last two clicks, then that is the switch.
I have been baited by one price to buy a seat where I have not chosen to buy one previously as part of the booking transaction, and the price used to interest me again is a false price because it is not available now, then unless I am clearly then told very sorry another purchaser bought the last cheap seat moments after we offered you the cheap price in this session, and before you said yes to it, then the bait is unlawful. It is not enough to say well we quoted the cheap price weeks ago when we sent a reminder to check in early for the seat you want. Sending an invitation like that is not the commencement of the final transaction. It is a failed offer and not a transaction at all. The bait and switch I got offered occurred in a single session lasting less than a second between the bait and the switch.
The bait price is an offer for a new transaction. If that new transaction is impossible and a more expensive offer is substituted, that is an unlawful commercial practice. Simple as.
I am not going to go hunting for the exact clause in the exact named statute, because- I don't need to because I learned the broad bones of this a long time ago as I have been a seller all my working life and follow consumer protection law close enough thanks, and
- I think some armchair critics just want such absolute knowledge handed down on a plate, and I don't agree with culture that consider it is right to dis the messenger in a public forum just because the critic hasn't learned enough themselves, or because they feel the forum audience is too dumbed down to appreciate the niceties of the argument implying MSE is the wrong place to report a problem. You all know by now that I disagree. MSE is an effective megaphone on so many things. Party leaders take daily note of some topics. You can bet your life that MPs offices follow subjects of interest to their MPs.
None of us have ever learned enough. I hope I never stop learning, but I know what I have learned well enough to let my sub-conscious remind me when I am on the correct path.
The unlawful commercial practice one is easy.
The unlawful degradation of emergency evacuation time I have alleged must surely have been caused, is a less easy one for non-aviation people to grasp.
Fact is you can't drive a plane like you drive a bus i.e. use your discretion about how narrow a gap you allow yourself for squeezing past parked cars today or cyclists or for overtaking. Unlike driving on different width roads and different lane widths on four lane motorways, in aviation all those fine standards are generally analysed, reviewed and set very carefully, and it doesn't matter whether the regulations say must or should, no pilot in his right mind would deliberately go against any rule except like Sully in an emergency where he was prepared to set his wisdom and experience to the test against those who set rules or devised hindsight models to show he should have made for another airfield and would have made it.
Pilots just don't do that. I can't explain why, but if you are a pilot then you will understand a little more. Aviation engineers are very similar - they generally would not dream of taking shortcuts. Some very experienced ones can be very creative in coming up with new ideas for certain repairs but they wouldn't dream of just going off piste even if they were confident. They would get the new method approved first.
Airline executives however are of course potentially a different breed - businessmen and women as opposed to day to day technical staff if you like. Airline execs will always be looking for new ways to get more profit out of the same turnover or more turnover out of the same time, or more operational time out of the same assets per year or all three and more.
That's where pilots and engineers have to be strong willed, and generally they are, helped by their above average educations and above average intelligence and the fact they are generally selected for their cool-headedness, readiness to discuss problems and mistakes including their own, teamplay, team leadership, and for their way above average reliability and their general wisdom.
With this emergency evacuation 90 second rule, pilots know it has been knocking around for 50 years hardly altered. That means for a start it is not a safety driven standard but a political acknowledgement that a standard really ought to exist. Pilots also know that for years in the political environment that supports aviation businesses in developed economies worldwide, it is the aircraft manufacturer that generally has to satisfy the test in the first instance for every new aircraft type or type-series if it is a significant "stretch" for example. But it was a wishy washy test to start with so how ought it to be varied to keep safe?
That's where things start to get a bit blurred. Maybe day to day technical staff believe that if an airline uses an aircraft in new ways which are quite different to the original design ways (e.g. why run an operation which regularly stuffs 2 or even 3 tonnes of baggage in the cabin and only half a tonne in two holds underneath which have space for 5 tonnes or more?), that someone (not them) must have ensure it gets checked out every which way. Or maybe they just know it is political and stayed out of it because it is one of the few areas of safety where they can let someone else bother about it!
Perhaps the manufacturer, the airline ops design peeps, and the continuing airworthiness regulator will have a meaningful discussion about how all that extra baggage tempting passengers to try to jump down slides with it or to remove their valuables first, changes likely evacuation times?
Certainly few pilots are in a position to seriously question it unless they are in the worst instance of their assertions to simultaneously stop flying if they have a genuine concern - a bit like some posters here have said I should stop flying if I think the evacuation times are extended. As I say, my contention is that 90 seconds is political anyway. We all know "political" lip service or even "going through the motions" with safety requirements has been shown to have some generally unforeseen horrible consequences recently.
How many of you learned that the law used to say that if you went to watch an F1 type event, or an air display that you were a willing party to some possible danger?
Did you know that it is still the same as a fare paying passenger? Warsaw convention and all that? Still pays a part I think? How much excess danger do you think you are accepting a bit like limiting the unwritten (until you suffer a write off prang) market value pay out on car insurance? In aviation "hull" insurance it is always an agreed value for the aircraft even if it is not new - agreed at the start of the insurance and the payout is based on it! ? But if it is you in the aircraft - you get limited to some "market value" which most people haven't a clue about. If you value your life at over 100,000 Special Drawing Rights then you may like to say whether you think that's what your estate would get paid if you perish in an air crash. If you have never heard of SDR then you might be tempted to Google Warsaw SDR and that is not intended to signify the name and ICAO code of two Ryanair destinations Its the top hit you want;)
Or if you are an American, are you worth more? (generally they have been over recent decades! . ever since one such drove into the back of a Ford Punto and the petrol tank on the Punto exploded). Not the Punto driver's fault at all, but Ford made a petrol tank which wasn't safe for Americans to drive into the back of and the injured party who drove into the back of the car in front got awarded $125M punitive damages IIRC !
MArket value of American lives and European lives and any lives is political. Why don't we spend more to prevent modern slavery occurring through the same airports we take our own children through to go on holiday? Political.
Our governments decide for us how safe to make us and how safe to make other citizens of other states ... I contend via a series of political changes and some other very questionable twists over decades, that is largely how we had the recent unforeseen catastrophe in London.
If someone could show us that in what many insist on calling "budget airline" ops, when it fact it is now "major airline ops", that extra tests or at least extra calculations and analysis had been agreed by aircraft manufacturer, airline and airworthiness regulator based on the varied style of ops, then that might be adequate. Until then I wonder if any such agreements have actually been attempted ...
There are some things in this life which the masses just don't like to have to believe, and you don't have to. Especially if it is political and the feeling is it is set by an untouchable Establishment or some similar closed shop! So don'y let me stop you closing your eyes and ears and forgetaboud it if you are anxious or annoyed by my thoughts.
I am merely seeking to persuade people generally that these things aren't inconsequential - we are all much more educated in logical thought than ever before. We may not yet be able to logically process which way to vote in a Brexit referendum, but I think if we know what it is like to fly Ryanair, then we can logically deduce the same concerns I have.
That's all. Yeah you baited me with a tiny post and got an enormous one in return - lucky you:p
Meh, If I was to write this essay. I will need to get paid at least £50.
It will be enough to pay my seat reservation with RA for about 25 single flights.
If I believed RA was doing something unlawful regarding safety, It was even better to take them to the court. I might get compensation enough to promise to myself not to fly budget airlines the rest of my life.0 -
Do tell us where the £1 seat allocations are.Meh, If I was to write this essay. I will need to get paid at least £50.
It will be enough to pay my seat reservation with RA for about 50 single flight.
If I believe RA is doing something unlawful regarding safety, is even better to take them to the court. I might get compensation enough not to fly budget airlines the rest of my life.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards