Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Ryanair ONLY

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

I quite agree. But we are not confined to discussing what the law is. I am genuinely quite interested in your views as to what the law ought to be.

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

Again, I quite agree. For this reason, the contractual limitation period argument is relatively minor compared to, for example, Huzar.

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

It’s simply not correct that the limitation periods set out in the Limitation Act 1980 cannot be reduced by a contractual term. The English courts have upheld the validity of contractual limitation periods on numerous occasions. The minimum wage example is a different thing entirely, because the relevant legislation is drafted in such a way that it is mandatory and cannot be derogated from by contract.

howticklediam wrote: »

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.

The terms and conditions were almost certainly drafted with the intention that all claims would be subject to the 2 year limitation period. They were probably drafted at a time when all aviation claims were covered by the Montreal Convention, so the word ‘damages’ was apt to cover all claims that the airline might ever face. Whether or not they are ‘misinterpreting’ them is yet to be seen, unless you think HHJ Platts is going to have the last word (which seems unlikely).

howticklediam wrote: »

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.

The relevant question is whether the term is an unfair one to include in a contract of this type. For the reasons I have already given in this thread, it seems to me that the answer is 'no'. And there would be little point lobbying the EU for change, given that the Regulation itself does not prescribe a limitation period.

Vauban wrote: »

Perhaps - but the European Court is able to interpret legislation in this way. And it did so. Perfectly legally

That’s not necessarily true. For example, the United Kingdom Supreme Court could not ‘interpret’ an Act of Parliament in the same way that the European Court ‘interpreted’ the Regulation. That would be impermissible judicial law making which would offend against the fundamental constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

Vauban wrote: »

"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.

Indeed, although it’s really not terribly clear what Lord Justice Elias was trying to say.

Vauban wrote: »

Passengers are not obliged to search for their rights.

Everyone is presumed to know the law, so whether or not airlines have an obligation to inform passengers of their rights is strictly speaking neither here nor there. The law will assume that the passengers already know them.

Vauban wrote: »

There is no evidence that airlines are sacrificing safety for punctuality

I agree, there is no evidence. They wouldn't tell you if they were. But it follows as a matter of common sense. They know the potential cost implications of a 3 hour delay. If an aircraft is on the border of reaching a 3 hour delay, the need to avoid a delay of that length inevitably becomes a factor. Perhaps not a significant one, compared to the overriding safety imperative, but it seems to me that it would be better if that factor were not present at all.

Vauban wrote: »

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!

As I suspect you know, compensating for a loss of time is only one of the aims of the Regulation. Is everyone’s time worth the same amount? If I choose to fly with a budget carrier, have I not voluntarily assumed a greater risk of delay or poor service than if I fly with a more expensive carrier? These are merely musings on my part.

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

Vauban wrote: »

They'd do even better if they invested in their fleets and operations so they weren't late quite so often.

With the greatest respect to you both, these two comments display a rather naïve attitude. It’s not quite like finding a spare charger for your iPhone or hailing a taxi when your car breaks down.

Mark2spark wrote: »

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.

I agree with the sentiment and would like the effect of such actions, but I think if the airline can just add 2 or 3 Euro to the price, not lose business and pay the compensation when required, they would much rather do so.


I could live with that.

ffiscool wrote: »

Interesting reading all of this.. Agree re adding the 2 or 3 Euros etc and then pay out.


From my point of view, I may not have put in a claim if a) when I was delayed my 7 hours at Faro, there had been any staff there to assist. We waited an hour and a half for someone who dished out ridiculously low priced voucher for food which did not even cover it and then said they couldn't help with our entitled to emails or calls. b) if we had been notified before arriving at the airport that the flight was so badly delayed. This they knew because it wouldn't have even been due to leave the UK at that point. I got a text ten minutes before the departure time to say it was delayed and c) if when checking in our luggage for the hold, we had been advised that we could have taken another RA flight to the UK d) my case was not left on the plane when we finally got back to Stansted, as they missed it tucked in a corner in the hold and e) I had to pay £65 to get home by cab as it was now 2am and no transport networks running.


I have never claimed before when delayed but this was down to appalling service and lack of information. I think straightforward obvious claims should be just dealt with by the airlines. The amount of time they cost in delays and hopefully ultimate pay out anyway, are a disgrace.

Well said. It's the way they treat passengers that causes bad feeling. We aren't greedy, money-grabbing chancers.

The fact that they aggressively defend claims with complex legal challenges just emphasises their attitude to customers. It's as if they have declared war on their customers, which is a really bizarre way to conduct a business.

If someone opens an airline whose unique selling point is that they guarantee to pay compensation for delays and cancellations they will probably take the market.

In my opinion the airlines have clearly demonstrated that they will treat passengers like sh*t if they can get away with it. And that is why they need to be taken in-hand. Hopefully the ombudsman service will provide that.

etiene wrote: »

Similar response here to my initial contact regarding a MAD-STN delay of 4hrs - am I right in assuming that Huzar v Jet2 is the right case to cite to shoot down most 'extraordinary circumstances' defences?

Found some references - would anyone suggest additions to the below?

Dear Customer Service Department,

Reference: FR5985 XXXX

I am writing to complain about an issue with your response ref XXXX/XXXX/MAC.

I have contacted your customer services team with my complaint, but am dissatisfied with the response I've received so far.

This is because there are several errors contained within.

Firstly, Huzar v Jet2 has held that technical errors are not considered 'extraordinary circumstances' and thus do not constitute a defence under EU261. Consequently monetary compensation is indeed due under EU261/2004 in the sum of €500 (€250 for each passenger).

Secondly, it is not true that refreshment vouchers were made available at Madrid Airport - none were forthcoming.

As I am sure you understand, the situation as it stands is very frustrating and I would be really grateful if we could move forwards towards a solution.

Yours sincerely,
Me