Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Lawrence
    'Is it fair for Ryanair to pay compensation?' poll discussion
    • #1
    • 22nd Apr 10, 10:57 AM
    'Is it fair for Ryanair to pay compensation?' poll discussion 22nd Apr 10 at 10:57 AM
    Poll between 22-26 April 2010:

    Is it fair for Ryanair to pay compensation?


    Ryanair’s boss was mooting while it will give flight refunds, the EU regulations of covering people’s food and accommodation for days of volcano delays are absurd for it (though it will follow them)

    His argument is it’s ridiculous that people only bought super-cheap £20ish tickets, yet the airline should then have to pay out £100s in hotel bills

    Which of these is closer to your opinion?

    A. Ryanair’s right. Why does buying a super-cheap flight gain the right to a hotel room? - 41% (2121 votes)
    B. Ryanair’s wrong. It knows the rules & should price accordingly. - 59% (3100 votes)

    Total votes:
    5221

    Voting has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply' to discuss below. Thanks

    This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email

    Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers

    Last edited by Former MSE Lawrence; 26-04-2010 at 11:21 AM.
Page 1
  • meher
    • #2
    • 22nd Apr 10, 11:27 AM
    • #2
    • 22nd Apr 10, 11:27 AM
    he has to follow the EU consumer regulation to the letter, imo only ofcouse, if there's no other re-route option available to their client; too bad I know

    but then look at the brighter side, there's hope for those who love the planet that this would be the beginning of the end of mass micky mouse flights
  • elvis86
    • #3
    • 22nd Apr 10, 2:05 PM
    • #3
    • 22nd Apr 10, 2:05 PM
    Personally I can see his point. You pay RyanAir peanuts (relatively) to get you from point A to point B, if your flight is delayed they should of course be obliged to get you to your destination as soon as possible, and perhaps provide food vouchers etc for a few hours delay in an airport.

    But I think that in cases like this, it is insurers who should be footing the bill. They are the real villains of the piece. The travel insurance business should be more heavily regulated with standard, consistent levels of cover, and there should be legislation which means that they HAVE to pay up in situations like this. What else is travel insurance for if not for a situation like this?

    The entire insurance business is corrupt IMO. Car insurance for example, we are required BY LAW to take a policy, but the insurers seem to have very few legal obligations to their customers! For example, if you make a claim for something which was not your fault, you should be legally protected against a hike in your premium. Also, there should be an official valuation scheme that insurers have to adhere to when your car is stolen/written off.

    Surely the whole point of having insurance is to ensure that you are not stung when the worst happens?!
    • hallmark
    • By hallmark 22nd Apr 10, 2:26 PM
    • 946 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    hallmark
    • #4
    • 22nd Apr 10, 2:26 PM
    • #4
    • 22nd Apr 10, 2:26 PM
    Of course the airlines should foot the bill.

    Goverments do not pay for anything; taxpayers do. Thus the choice is not whether Ryanair or some Government should pay, it's whether Ryanair or the taxpayer should pay. (Insurers never pay for anything by the way, they simply increase premiums. That's the whole reason Ryanair are arguing for the taxpayer to stump up the money....)

    There is no reason whatsoever why the taxpayer should have to pay towards the costs of either Ryanair or that part of the public that chooses to fly.

    The airlines must pay, there is no other remotely fair answer. If Ryanair etc need to increase the cost of their tickets to fund situations like this then so be it. This volcanic ash situation has highlighted one hitherto unthought of way in which air travel can be a more expensive business than previously supposed and a slight premium on prices in future may well be necessary. But to expect the general public to watch Companies like Ryanair clean up in the good times then have to bail them out when things go wrong is ludicrous.

    The airlines must pay. It's the cost of doing business.
    Last edited by hallmark; 22-04-2010 at 2:30 PM.
    • Jnelhams
    • By Jnelhams 22nd Apr 10, 4:04 PM
    • 1,350 Posts
    • 868 Thanks
    Jnelhams
    • #5
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:04 PM
    • #5
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:04 PM
    I wonder what Ryan Air would say if the passenger failed to pay for a breach of contract? You can't demand all those booking & baggage fees and then squeal when you have to pay us for a law you were aware of.

    The passengers can't claim for 5 star hotels, which is fair, and it is an event unlikely to happen again for many years, but your fees won't go away!

    I would not and do not fly Ryan Air, I would rather support our own airlines.

    What would be interesting to know is which companies behaved the best in this instance, so that we can all use that insurer or airline in future.
    My Mind wanders, if found please return.
    • parrfam
    • By parrfam 22nd Apr 10, 4:18 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    parrfam
    • #6
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:18 PM
    Is it fair for Ryanair to pay compensation?
    • #6
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:18 PM
    Speaking as someone who could only afford to celebrate our 25th Wedding Anniversary in Paris (the first time I'd been back after having worked as an au pair there in 1979) courtesy of the low, low fares of Ryanair, I feel that if you go abroad and are insured, then you shouldn't rely on the carrier to pay all the bills when something like a natural disaster occurs. My husband and I didn't go on holiday when my children were young - we just couldn't afford it. These low-cost airlines have opened up the world for many people who couldn't otherwise afford to go at all.

    My eldest daughter was stranded in Amsterdam with her boss and had to travel on Friday night to Brussels to stay in a hotel there. Luckily, she managed to book a first-class seat on Sunday afternoon but missed a weekend off. She hasn't complained once. Her firm picked up the tab and she was grateful.

    People expect to be covered in cottonwool nowadays. Ryanair has to fight to keep in business and it's tough. My husband is self-employed and finds it tough, too. Everyone wants something for nothing and is ready to blame. This is another regulation too far for the EU. It is unsustainable and companies cannot afford to agree to such diktats.

    Whilst I feel sorry for people who have had to go to extraordinary lengths to come home and have got very tired and fed-up in the process, I do feel the expectation of compensation has got completely out of proportion. When my daughter booked a 3-day visit to Paris to celebrate her friend's 18th, we had to fight the insurers to compensate them for the Eurostar not running due to snow/ice. They did pay up eventually, but I think we ended up paying so much in calls etc... that it was hardly worth the effort.

    I say Ryanair has caved in, but if the taxpayer ends up footing the bill when they turn to the government, it's another 'nail in the coffin' for private enterprise and any company that wants to stick its neck out. In the long run we'll all suffer in the end when there are fewer jobs about for our children and ourselves....
  • mogadon
    • #7
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:25 PM
    • #7
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:25 PM
    I think it's reasonable that airlines' financial responsibility should be capped at the price of the ticket. The existing legislation was never meant to cover this sort of situation. An extraordinary event like this should be covered by travel insurance, not the airline. So for me, the real outrage is the number of insurance companies who are refusing to pay out.

    Insurance is supposed to be there to cover unexpected events. They shouldn't be allowed to use acts of God/natural disaster to wriggle out of it.
    • hallmark
    • By hallmark 22nd Apr 10, 4:35 PM
    • 946 Posts
    • 1,284 Thanks
    hallmark
    • #8
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:35 PM
    • #8
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:35 PM
    As I said, making insurance cover it would change nothing, they will simply increase their premiums.

    If Ryanair have to pay for this kind of thing, they will increase fares to compensate for it.

    If the insurers have to pay, they will increase premiums & Ryanair in turn will increase fares to compensate for it.

    Thus as I said before, the real issue is whether these costs should be covered by the entire public or just the part of it that chooses to fly.

    If Governments have to cover these costs then it is the entire general public that foots the bill.

    If Ryanair OR the insurers has to cover them, it is the part of the public that chooses to fly that will ultimately foot the bill.


    It's entirely fair that it should be the latter option. On the occasions I fly anywhere I don't expect the rest of the population to be waiting with their chequebook handy to cover my costs if unexpected delays occur. Neither should anyone else.
  • mogadon
    • #9
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:46 PM
    • #9
    • 22nd Apr 10, 4:46 PM
    As I said, making insurance cover it would change nothing, they will simply increase their premiums.
    Originally posted by hallmark
    So travel insurers increase their premiums, and travellers who buy it are covered. What's wrong with that?


    Thus as I said before, the real issue is whether these costs should be covered by the entire public or just the part of it that chooses to fly.
    Originally posted by hallmark
    You've missed the 3rd option, the cost is covered only by the travelling public who choose to fly and want all possible eventualities covered.

    If I want to take a chance on a 1p flight to Europe, knowing that if anything goes wrong I'm on my own. Why shouldn't I have that option? If someone else wants the same flight but not take any chances on having to pay out of their own pocket if something goes wrong, well that's what travel insurance is supposed to be for. So let them buy that, at whatever premium is needed to cover it all.
    • rizla01
    • By rizla01 22nd Apr 10, 5:49 PM
    • 6,869 Posts
    • 7,480 Thanks
    rizla01
    Of course the Airlines shouldn't be expected to pay. They were not in any way at fault and did their level best to help get passengers home.

    The Insurance Co's are covered by the 'Act of God' situation and so they should be.

    The Government funds (yours & Mine) shouldn't be used either.

    Who does that leave?

    Just the unfortunate traveller. Tough.

    !!!! happens!!



    Supposing you chose to travel by ferry and on the day of departure a storm blew up, making it unsafe to travel. Would you complain to the Ferry Operators that they haven't risked your life by crossing? What if there was a bomb on board? What then? Al Quaeda won't be interested, be rest assured (Though you could always TRY, I suppose)

    For pity's sake. I got a puncture the other day. Wouldn't have got it if the shopkeeper had served me quicker because someone else would probably have copped that nail.

    Ah! I know.

    Back to the shop with a writ.

    Yeah Right.
    "Unhappiness is not knowing what we want, and killing ourselves to get it."
    Post Count: 4,111 Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,111 Posts (Actual figures as they once were))
    Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 22nd Apr 10, 6:24 PM
    • 6,163 Posts
    • 10,592 Thanks
    Gavin83
    I don't really see why the airlines should have to pay as it was completely out of their control. The airlines should be required to provide a replacement flight or a refund, depending on the circumstances. They certainly shouldn't be out of pocket.

    Frankly, relating it to the recent problems it should be covered by insurance. The only issue is of course the premium you'd be expected to pay, where as you won't be expected to pay anything for an airline refund. Still, I think it should be covered by insurance and if you don't have insurance then you foot the bill yourself.

    Of course, you've all forgotten the final option, that no one pays out and the public who are stranded pay for the extras themselves. That way, nothing is increased above the usual.
    • bylromarha
    • By bylromarha 22nd Apr 10, 6:24 PM
    • 9,960 Posts
    • 13,248 Thanks
    bylromarha
    You wonder why you bother to get travel insurance...it should be them who pay up, not the airlines.
    Who made hogs and dogs and frogs?
  • mogadon
    The Insurance Co's are covered by the 'Act of God' situation and so they should be.
    Originally posted by rizla01
    Why should they be? Travel insurance is supposed to cover you for additional costs caused by unforeseen events, why should Act of God be excluded?

    The insurance companies want to exclude because they prefer to cover events where someone is at fault, so they can reclaim their costs, but sometimes things just happen, and there is no person or organisation that can be blamed for it.

    Aside from medical emergencies, I can't think of a situation that it's more appropriate for travel insurance to pay out on.

    For pity's sake. I got a puncture the other day. Wouldn't have got it if the shopkeeper had served me quicker because someone else would probably have copped that nail.
    Originally posted by rizla01
    What if you had specifically bought insurance that was supposed to cover your immediate and related costs in the event that your tyres got damaged? Then found out it only covers the cost of the puncture if you could prove who left the nail there. Wouldn't that grate just a little bit?
  • Ephemera
    Of course the airlines should foot the bill.

    Goverments do not pay for anything; taxpayers do. Thus the choice is not whether Ryanair or some Government should pay, it's whether Ryanair or the taxpayer should pay. (Insurers never pay for anything by the way, they simply increase premiums. That's the whole reason Ryanair are arguing for the taxpayer to stump up the money....)

    There is no reason whatsoever why the taxpayer should have to pay towards the costs of either Ryanair or that part of the public that chooses to fly.

    The airlines must pay, there is no other remotely fair answer. If Ryanair etc need to increase the cost of their tickets to fund situations like this then so be it. This volcanic ash situation has highlighted one hitherto unthought of way in which air travel can be a more expensive business than previously supposed and a slight premium on prices in future may well be necessary. But to expect the general public to watch Companies like Ryanair clean up in the good times then have to bail them out when things go wrong is ludicrous.

    The airlines must pay. It's the cost of doing business.
    Originally posted by hallmark
    Well said.

    Why should the taxpayer, especially a non-flying taxpayer, bail out a company that can make huge profits???

    The whole economy is in dire straits, with most people having to tighten their belts already, why place an additional tax burden on them?

    There is a third way...

    Pay the airlines what they want if they need it to stay in business, with the caveat that it is a LOAN from the taxpayer, and must be repaid, with interest, when things pick up. And that from this day the airlines will have to insure against such things happening again.

    oooh... I think I saw a flying pig...
    If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.



  • adammouse
    Ryanair is a 'no frills' airline. People can't expect the best of both worlds when buying cheap airline tickets.

    I am all for the cheaper tickets that provide less service & security!
  • teddyco
    Ironically, it's the large corporations who consistently push closer ties with Europe and a push to get Britain into the Euro, but then they whine and moan when that same organization throws a regulation that forces them to pay up for grounded planes caused by another European regulatory group.

    That leads me to another item: The European Union is not a 'government' it's a corporation, just like IBM, General Motors, or British Airways. The EU has its' own articles of incorporation (Lisbon Treaty), they have their own security force to keep people in line, and they have their own corporate shares of stock (Euro). Unbeknownst to the Britain, the people are forfeiting their liberties and freedom's to be a member of the EU Corporation and be told how to live, think, and behave. We fight to collect idiotic Nectar points and earning minimal amounts back from Quidco, while the living guts are being ripped out of our economy and billions paid into that corrupt organization.

    What folks don't seem to understand about Britain being in the EU is the amount of money that we are all having to shell out, and for what? These millions that Ryanair pays out now, will be passed on to future fliers in higher ticket prices.

    Don't believe the fear mongering that bad things will happen if we get out of the EU, Britain cannot afford to stay in the EU!
    Last edited by teddyco; 23-04-2010 at 8:00 AM.
    • NumeroDeux
    • By NumeroDeux 23rd Apr 10, 12:43 PM
    • 4,117 Posts
    • 5,839 Thanks
    NumeroDeux
    I think the really cheeky thing about Ryanair's actions, isn't just that they tried to shirk their legal responsibilities, but how late they did it.

    They announced, what, 4 or 5 days after the flight ban, that they were unwilling to pay the bills. Not when it happened, but 5 days after. Imagine they had pulled this stunt off, all the people who would have been out of pocket thinking that Ryanair would have some scruples and comply with their legal responsibilities.

    Bottom line: The law was there, clear as the light of day, before Ryanair took these bookings, if they didn't want to operate under those conditions, fine, don't take any bookings.
    We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    by MSE Forum Team
    • rizla01
    • By rizla01 23rd Apr 10, 12:55 PM
    • 6,869 Posts
    • 7,480 Thanks
    rizla01
    Why should they be? Travel insurance is supposed to cover you for additional costs caused by unforeseen events, why should Act of God be excluded?

    The insurance companies want to exclude because they prefer to cover events where someone is at fault, so they can reclaim their costs, but sometimes things just happen, and there is no person or organisation that can be blamed for it.

    Aside from medical emergencies, I can't think of a situation that it's more appropriate for travel insurance to pay out on.



    What if you had specifically bought insurance that was supposed to cover your immediate and related costs in the event that your tyres got damaged? Then found out it only covers the cost of the puncture if you could prove who left the nail there. Wouldn't that grate just a little bit?
    Originally posted by mogadon
    And how would YOU feel if your insurance company told you that they could not pay out on what would seemingly be a straightforward claim, because they don't have enough money as they have had to pay out for claims that they didn't forsee due to those claims being 'An act of god' I.E. something that in most people's wildest dreams, couldn't happen.

    Or better stilll how would you feel if there were no insurance companies, full stop. because they certainly couldn't stay in business if they paid out for EVERYTHING - unless, of course, they charged premiums that you couldn't afford. Is that preferable?

    Insurance is a 'Risk' business, sure enough, but it isn't a meant to be a gamble.

    Insurance Co's are in BUSINESS to make money and they will assess a risk and charge the premium that they feel would cover that risk whilst ensuring that they stay in business.

    And they in turn, are insured by Insurance Co's, remember.

    What insurance company would insure a company that might have to pay out extreme amounts in the likelyhood of a claim against nature?

    NO! Everyone has to be aware that things happen that are no-one's fault, therefore no-one will give you some money. Sometimes in this world you need to learn to stand on your own two feet instead of relying on this 'Compo' world that we see all around us.

    It's truly a !!!!!, I know, but that is life!
    Last edited by rizla01; 23-04-2010 at 1:01 PM.
    "Unhappiness is not knowing what we want, and killing ourselves to get it."
    Post Count: 4,111 Thanked 3,111 Times in 1,111 Posts (Actual figures as they once were))
    Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.

  • mogadon
    And how would YOU feel if your insurance company told you that they could not pay out on what would seemingly be a straightforward claim, because they don't have enough money as they have had to pay out for claims that they didn't forsee due to those claims being 'An act of god' I.E. something that in most people's wildest dreams, couldn't happen.

    Or better stilll how would you feel if there were no insurance companies, full stop. because they certainly couldn't stay in business if they paid out for EVERYTHING - unless, of course, they charged premiums that you couldn't afford. Is that preferable?

    Insurance is a 'Risk' business, sure enough, but it isn't a meant to be a gamble.

    Insurance Co's are in BUSINESS to make money and they will assess a risk and charge the premium that they feel would cover that risk whilst ensuring that they stay in business.

    And they in turn, are insured by Insurance Co's, remember.

    What insurance company would insure a company that might have to pay out extreme amounts in the likelyhood of a claim against nature?

    NO! Everyone has to be aware that things happen that are no-one's fault, therefore no-one will give you some money. Sometimes in this world you need to learn to stand on your own two feet instead of relying on this 'Compo' world that we see all around us.

    It's truly a !!!!!, I know, but that is life!
    Originally posted by rizla01
    Insurance companies have reinsurance to cover them for exactly this sort of situation, i.e. very occasional huge unexpected payouts. The reinsurance companies are themselves reinsured, so the risk is spread out massively. The premiums the primary insurers and reinsurers pay for that cover is already passed on to consumers in the premiums they are already charged.

    Insurance is taken against risk, not fault. Insurers aren't being asked to 'give' anyone money, people have already bought the cover. If insurers were only willing to cover predicatable events or those where the risk is offset because someone else is at fault, there would be no need for insurance. If that were the case we'd all know something was going to happen in advance, we could make our own arrangements, and then claim it back ourselves from whoever was at fault.
    • globalds
    • By globalds 23rd Apr 10, 4:11 PM
    • 8,905 Posts
    • 16,706 Thanks
    globalds
    Surely it is up to airlines to buy insurance against this kind of eventuality.

    As it is rare it would be fairly cheap ..The cost would be passed on to customers over time ..And any cut price airlines that saved on the insurance would face the risk of hefty payouts should they have customers claim for food and accommodation.

    Maybe if the EU has enacted this kind of legislation it should have thought it through and made this insurance compulsory for an airline to have.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,123Posts Today

6,785Users online

Martin's Twitter