Has the “Red Baron”Rebel finally been tamesd

Back to Forum

This topic contains 13 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Binman62 10 Feb 2013
at 12:56
.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

  • Anonymous

    TerryMcManus24
    Participant

    Ref To Michael ..Boss of Ryanair..of course
    .(incid quite like him)…however:

    Ryanair ordered to compensate ash cloud passenger…

    …is this the end of the arguments over Airline Compensation

    Ryanair has been ordered to cover the cost of compensating passengers whose flights were grounded due to the ash cloud in 2010.

    The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ordered Ryanair to compensate passenger Denise McD, who was forced to wait seven days for a flight from Faro to Dublin,a delay during which she spent nearly £1000 on accommodation, food and transport.

    Her compensation will be decided by the Irish courts.
    Her case had been referred to the ECJ by the Dublin Metropolitan District Court, which had sought clarification of EU law.***

    The ECJ said Ms McD.was entitled to “reimbursement of the amounts which proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier”.

    Ryanair had attempted to avoid covering the costs of passengers affected by the ash cloud by arguing that the eruption of Iceland’s volcano was so extraordinary that normal rules relating to cancelled flights should not apply.

    However, the judges’ ruling – which will be binding across the EU – said that in such circumstances airlines had a duty to look after their passengers.

    The EU regulation on passenger rights “does not provide for any limitation, either temporal or monetary, of the obligation to provide care to passengers whose flight is cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances”.

    “Thus, all the obligations to provide care to passengers are imposed on the air carrier for the whole period during which the passengers concerned must await their re-routing.”

    In a statement it said: “Ryanair regrets the decision of the European Court which now allows passengers to claim for flight delays which are clearly and unambiguously outside of an airline’s control.

    “When governments closed large swathes of European airspace unnecessarily in response to non-existent ‘ash clouds’ over Ireland the UK and continental Europe in 2010, the travel insurance companies escaped liability by claiming it was an ‘act of God’.(whos god is this?)

    “Today’s ruling by the European Court now makes the airlines the insurer of last resort even when in the majority of cases (such as ATC delays or national strikes in Europe) these delays are entirely beyond an airline’s control.


    LuganoPirate
    Participant

    I’m not a defender of the airlines or Ryanair in particular, but here is yet another instance where the ECJ is forcing another cost onto the airlines. Surely they should go after the insurance companies who refuse to pay out for these types of incidents? In the end the airline got them home and that’s what they paid for. They also paid for insurance and those companies duck out of it. Something very wrong here.

    Another argument could go, why are “citizens” so insulated from any sort of risk to the extent that they no longer think for themselves? It’s no-ones fault the volcano went off – it happened. What used to happen years ago when the sea was so rough the ferries stopped operating, car drivers and passengers just huddled down in their cars, or in the terminal building and waited. No hint of compensation was ever offered or asked for!

    Yet another argument is why did Government shut airspace down so quickly and for so long? Using Flightradar24 at the time I recall seeing military and cargo (Fedex, DHL etc) planes flying across Europe and to the States. If it was safe for them it would have been safe for passenger aircraft.

    The moment you walk away from home, the risk of not getting back escalates exponentially the further you go. That’s a part of life so either stay at home or take the chance but please let the EU/ECJ stop interfering in so many aspects of our private and commercial lives!


    BigDog.
    Participant

    From a logical, even moral standpoint LP you are correct. However from a realistic, practical standpoint I believe the ECJ is correct.

    Most insurance companies stock answer to a policyholders initial claim is “No/Rejected”, then follows a war of attrition with many valid claims falling away due to the stress/hurdles the companies put in place to limit claims/costs. Individuals have a hard time claiming whilst class actions are rare.

    Notice how most of the main carriers paid out well prior to this case, RyanAir sought to fight. The main thing the ECJ ruling does is to clarify the situation so the onus is on the carrier, period. Thus removing the myriad of loopholes companies exploit to avoid paying.

    Bringing clarity maybe unfair but I believe was necessary due to the claim avoidance practices of some carriers and insurance companies. The ECJ has cut out gray areas to the benefit of the travelling customer.


    TerryMcManus24
    Participant

    but please let the EU/ECJ stop interfering in so many aspects ….

    Sorry LG ..but disagree…..

    .. the judges’ ruling – which will be binding across the EU and that includes the UNITED KINGDOM.. – said that in such circumstances airlines had a duty to look after their passengers….straight forward

    The EU regulation on passenger rights “does not provide for any limitation, either temporal or monetary, of the obligation to provide care to passengers whose flight is cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances”.

    “Thus, all the obligations to provide care to passengers are imposed on the air carrier for the whole period during which the passengers concerned ….etc etc…….

    Its EU-and UK law and I for one think its a good one and all EU/UK passengers should be grateful for said clarification……


    SimonS1
    Participant

    I don’t see how it makes the airline the insurer of last resort. Some of the risks (such as volcanic eruption) could surely be covered by commercial insurance.


    VintageKrug
    Participant

    The ECJ in no way benefits the majority of flying customers.

    It is just a payout scheme for those without insurance, or too incompetent to sort out their own affairs, and a thinly veiled anti-capitalist endeavour to punish businesses.

    I shouldn’t have to shell out extra for the tickets I buy to fund a state-mandated free for all which specifically targets airlines and makes them pay when matters which impact people’s plans (weather/volcanies/bombs) are often well outside their control.

    Another example of creeping Socialism at the heart of a discredited European experiment.


    FormerlyDoS
    Participant

    “The ECJ in no way benefits the majority of flying customers.

    It is just a payout scheme for those without insurance, or too incompetent to sort out their own affairs, and a thinly veiled anti-capitalist endeavour to punish businesses.

    I shouldn’t have to shell out extra for the tickets I buy to fund a state-mandated free for all which specifically targets airlines and makes them pay when matters which impact people’s plans (weather/volcanies/bombs) are often well outside their control.

    Another example of creeping Socialism at the heart of a discredited European experiment.”

    The reasons for EU261/2004 have been debated many times in the past.

    Needless to say, the content of VKs post misses the point completely.

    EU261/2004 care is provided to a small minority of pax, who are covered in a situation when insurers may not pay out.

    It is the law and it is therefore a cost of being in the business of air transportation.

    It also costs the passenger very little, even Ryanair charge the airlines only a euro or two per flight to cover its costs.

    Whether the governments were correct or not is another matter for the airlines to pursue and is a red herring in regards to EU261/2004.

    Also, please can we avoid political rants on here, please?


    canucklad
    Participant

    I have a very simple solution to this dilemma…

    The airlines look after their passengers as per the judgement…
    They ensure they keep hotel reciepts, and recieptsfor any other costs incurred during what the insurers call ” An act of God”

    They then send the reciepts to the accountants at the Church of England, the Vatican, etc etc and request re-embursement…

    Simple…If God did it he has to pay for the welfare of his flock!!!


    TerryMcManus24
    Participant

    Its EU-and UK law and I for one think its a good one…

    Some of the risks could surely be covered by commercial insurance.

    Another example of creeping Socialism

    It is just a payout scheme for those without insurance, or too incompetent

    accountants at the Church of England, the Vatican..If God did it……….

    can we avoid political rants

    Ryanair ……St Michael…see what you have done….


    TerryMcManus24
    Participant

    From our RED FRIENDS at the CAA….

    Following this week’s rulings in both the UK and European courts, the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has today reiterated its advice to passengers affected by flight delays and cancellations.

    Tony Finnegan, spokesman for industry watchdog says: ‘If your flight is cancelled or seriously delayed, your airline must look after you no matter what excuses they may come up with for not being liable.’

    Under existing EU law, if a flight is cancelled your airline must still get you to your destination or offer a full refund.

    This refund must also be offered if the flight is delayed by five hours or more.

    Compensation must also be paid for delays of three hours or more. For a flight of less than 932 miles, this compensation is £210.

    Between 932 miles and 2,174 miles it is £340, and for longer flights it is £510.

    Airlines have traditionally tried to wriggle out of paying this compensation by failing to tell customers about their rights, or simply fobbing them off by claiming the delays were ‘extraordinary’

    Passengers whose flights are delayed or cancelled are entitled to assistance from the airline such as food, drinks and accommodation where necessary.

    In addition, passengers whose flights have been cancelled at short notice or arrive three hours or more later than scheduled are also entitled to claim for compensation – unless the delay or cancellation was outside of the airline’s control.

    “These regulations are in place to protect people when things go wrong with their flights.

    Anyone with concerns that they are not being treated correctly by their airline can contact the CAA for advice or to make a complaint.”

    Information on your rights during delays and cancellations, including advice on how to make a claim for compensation to your airline is available for free at

    http://www.caa.co.uk/passengers.


    canucklad
    Participant

    Terry……first time i’ve re-visited this thread…..

    I am going to take exception to your comment about “political rants”

    Insurance companies have been using this clause to get out of paying out for as long as they came out with the clause….

    Ii is not so much a political rant as as a ” Sunday school scholar rant”

    I assume that within each insurance company they have a religious scholar that can deem that “God” wasn’t happy that day and decided to act in a way to punish us? and thus saving so said insirance company a wad of cash in payouts….

    My argument is pretty simplistic…..

    If they can judge this,surely then the blame lies on the accused!!

    and if God was responsible for an Icelandic Volcano to erupt surely his representatives should pay compensation..


    TerryMcManus24
    Participant

    Glad I am not a member of any of the “gods” frequent Flyer clubs…would never get an upgrade


    Binman62
    Participant

    I have always thought the current law was one of the best things the EU ever did and it really needs extending to train and other transport providers.

    If Britain exits the EU it will not make a jot of difference as the law applies to all carriers operating to of from an EU state. If it was the case that UK airlines or foreign operators originating from the UK were no longer covered by such legislation when flying outside the EU, then I suspect they would lose business to EU carriers.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
BTUK October 2018 issue
BTUK October 2018 issue
Be up-to-date
Magazine Subscription
To see our latest subscription offers for Business Traveller editions worldwide, click on the Subscribe & Save link below
Polls