Ryanair Compensation

[jimbms]

Was it fair that Ryanair and other cheap airlines had to pay out compensation for delays due to the volcanic ash cloud and what are your thoughts regarding on how this could now spell the end of cheap flights.

[jacko]

You pay your money and you take your choice.

I voted A.

[Rog]

He’s wrong. There are certain minimum standards that should apply across all airline operators in order to prevent unfair competition.

 

On the other hand the compo could be limited to a fixed amount on production of receipts. Maybe the actual amount depending on where the delay took place.

[Cambon]

If you want to take the risk of running a low cost business, that is the price you pay. Hopefully, after his profits have plummeted with this, low cost carriers will put their prices up and we will have a fair playing field again.

 

 

[Pragmatopian]

I'm all for punishing carriers in any market segment when they cancel or massively delay flights due to their own problems, but it does seem unfair to hold them liable for flight restrictions which were forced on them by the regulators.

 

People should have the choice to organise travel insurance or take their chances.

 

 

[Tempus Fugit]

any airline should only be responsible for delays or cancellation which they are responsible for, not for anything beyond their control (i.e. weather, airfield closures, atc strikes etc.) - that's what travel insurance is for !

 

(applies equally if you paid 99p or £1000 for your seat)

 

[poll is confusing as I don't see any reference to what 'HE' said to be able to tell what 'HE' said is right or wrong, so did not vote]

[jimbms]

Interesting he is right and he is right and should insist on seeing insurance gets 6 votes so far and he is wrong gets 6 yet only 3 can be bothered to give reasons. For me I went for B, at least that way the airline is ensuring the passengers are covered, but on Cambons point I do agree especially when you look at the quality of service in some of these airlines.

[Lost Login]

He knows the rules, though he habitually does not seem to want to play by them, so it has to be D. Why should Ryanair be excluded from complying when others are not, especially when they seemed the slowest to start flying again

 

I have to admit I do feel a bit sorry for the airlines as it was obviously out of their hands but if they expect passengers to have insurance to cover such scenarios then surely the airlines themselves should also expect to have such insurance cover

[Rog]

The rules may well be unfair but should equally apply.

[Gladys]

I voted a, there once was a philosophy that unforeseen circumstnaaces which are so devastating should not be borne by individuals/commerce, but should be dealt with at government level. That is where I would stand. EU decided to close the airspace, EU should compensate those who have lost.

[manshimajin]

The EU set up its compensation scheme based on dealing with those situations where individual flights were cancelled or where flights were over-booked and passengers had to catch later flights. From everything I have heard there are plans underway to modify it to exclude situations like the present one because it is unsustainable economically.

 

I think the question should not be limited to budget airlines - should any airline be expected to pick up all the customers' additional costs caused by 'Acts of God' when nobody else, including insurers, are willing to do so?

 

At least Ryanair is a profitable airline but what does something like this do to BA or Virgin?

 

The other thing IMO is that love him or hate him Michael O'Leary has made sure that this issue is not going to be pushed under the carpet.

[matty]

From my understanding, your flight tickets /bookings with European airlines are a 'contract' to get you from A to B, if they can't do this, then they are duty bound to look after you (accommodation / food etc) until they can get you on your flight, or home by other means.

 

Cancelled flights due to technical reasons / weather etc are covered by the above.

 

Although the plume from the volcano can't be considered 'weather', I would say winds blowing ash into flight paths is a condition of the weather, so the airlines should be duty bound in looking after you.

 

If you enter any kind of contract and pay money, you expect to receive a service.

[jimbms]

I note nobody has yet managed to comment on if this will no cause budget airlines to increase prices to cover these costs

[manshimajin]

I note nobody has yet managed to comment on if this will no cause budget airlines to increase prices to cover these costs

Including your goodself

 

Maybe two additional charges at Ronaldsway? Cleaning ash off the old runway. Cleaning ash off the extension - oh I forgot - cleaning ash off the RESA too.

[Albert Tatlock]

The only answer is the last one. It's the rules - right or wrong.

 

With at least three other volcanoes up there due, or overdue, to erupt, the only company that will insure against this in the future would probably be Plonker Insurance Unlimited, but they went bust years ago.

 

Rumours abound that military jets have subsequently been grounded due to ash damage. Only time will tell if prolonged exposure is causing damage to commercial jets, and operators have a sufficiently rigourous after-flight testing regime IMO i.e. whether one subsequently crashes or not.

 

Personally, I feel that if the rules can be bent like this, so can aircraft.

 

Having previously worked for a well known aircraft manufacturer, it'll be the boat for me for a while thanks.

 

Money talks....but it also causes most cock ups.