manshimajin Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 The only answer is the last one. It's the rules - right or wrong. Having previously worked for a well known aircraft manufacturer, it'll be the boat for me for a while thanks. Even O'Leary has accepted he has to pay out - IMO the issue is whether, in light of the last week's experiences, the rules are sensible. The EU appear to be coming round to a view that they are not and will probably change them to cover what was originally intended. On your last para .......... gulp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 You can't use rules to your advantage and ignore them when they don't suit you. Perhaps the rules need modifying but O'Leary accepted them in order to conduct his business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 I do think the rules need modifying. After all, it was a 'natural disaster'. You don't see business having to pay out all the costs for say an earthquake - governments and charities go out to aid people in distress. They don't then send the bill to Ryan Air et al. What seemed clear to me in all this (and don't forget that this is still going on for many people, who are running out of, or have run out of, money and have still not got back), was that there was a government responsibility that failed to be invoked. Navy/RAF Ships and transport planes should be still flying/sailing some of these many stragglers back, especially those in deep doo doo - even if that meant some kind of means/occupational testing to sort out priorities i.e. no money, teachers, doctors, dentists, cared for relatives back at home etc. Lots of people only had insurance for, say a week, and then it ran out. I don't see that a persons reliance and expected support from the government - as a citizen - ends when they happen to get on a ferry or a plane and leave the border and a disaster occurs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 I don't see that a persons reliance and expected support from the government - as a citizen - ends when they happen to get on a ferry or a plane and leave the border and a disaster occurs. I think that what Ryanair (and other airlines - I heard EasyJet saying the same) are after is the same compensation rules to be applied to them that are applied to trains, ferries and coaches in similar circumstances - which I understand is rebooking or repayment of fares. Clearly verbooking is a quite different situation to a volcano. Are there reasons why airlines hould be treated differently to other public transport? After all these days you can get a coach or train to Prague, Rome etc etc and you could get stuck in France if there is some reason for ferries not sailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 I don't see that a persons reliance and expected support from the government - as a citizen - ends when they happen to get on a ferry or a plane and leave the border and a disaster occurs. I think that what Ryanair (and other airlines - I heard EasyJet saying the same) are after is the same compensation rules to be applied to them that are applied to trains, ferries and coaches in similar circumstances - which I understand is rebooking or repayment of fares. Clearly verbooking is a quite different situation to a volcano. Are there reasons why airlines hould be treated differently to other public transport? After all these days you can get a coach or train to Prague, Rome etc etc and you could get stuck in France if there is some reason for ferries not sailing. Perhaps the simple answer is to ensure people have a certain 'european minimum coverage' insurance policy (either a very basic one provided as part of carrier's responsibility - any plane, boat or train leaving the border - effectively through the ticket price) or another insurance, otherwise they won't get on, and the carrier can then reasonably refuse to accept a 'duty of care' for people not demonstrating a reasonable 'duty of care' for themselves and their families etc.? You can be thrown out of many countries if you have no demonstrable means - whether that is covered by insurance or what's in/not in your bank account. I still say this was a European governmental problem, as it was a natural disaster, that affected practically everyone in the chain at one time. While I wouldn't expect the government to have to pay hotel bills etc. that doesn't IMO negate their responsibilities to get people back. People also have to remember that there are just as many people flying in and out after this natural disaster, and that even if people can afford to get back, they still go to the bottom of the booking list as it is the people that have booked previously and got seats for today's flights that have the priority. My son was affected and his return flight is not till the end of the month. Personally, I think if something is not sorted, it will put many people off travelling, especially on these last minute holidays - worried about potential situations they might find themselves in. Some might say that is no bad thing though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Personally, I think if something is not sorted, it will put many people off travelling, especially on these last minute holidays - worried about potential situations they might find themselves in. Some might say that is no bad thing though. 'Act of God' seems to be quite a let out - maybe we should have 'Act of God' insurance! People also need to be aware that if they try to sort their own situation out to get home they negate the contract they have with the airline and they no longer have any obligation to pay for accommodation and food. I understand that they still have an obligation to refund the airfare (£10 with Ryanair!!!). If people are nervous about getting home if they fly this could be a real marketing opportunity for destinations with ferry links....dare one say like the i....o.....m.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mæŋksmən Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Is sea travel safer than air travel then shim. Or even less disrupted schedule wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Is sea travel safer than air travel then shim.Or even less disrupted schedule wise. Well according to the IOMSPC website they are 99.7% reliable and 97.8% punctual.Mind you they do not define reliability and punctuality is measured on when they depart not on when they arrive! I found these statistics which indicate that flying is safer than water transport - just stay clear of bicycles and motorbikes if you are interested in safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onchan1 Posted April 26, 2010 Share Posted April 26, 2010 The only answer is the last one. It's the rules - right or wrong. I agree with Albert but I guess there will be changes very soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I don't like the way MOL runs his business (although I do use RA) but surely this isn't his fault. The EU legislation was designed to stop operators cancelling loss making flights at short notice just because they were loss making. I doubt anyone would disagree with that idea. Closure of airspace on this scale has never happened before and I doubt if it was considerded in the law making process. It's all very well saying laws are laws etc, that's just convenient simple thinking. This law should be amended to cover problems that are completely outside the airline's control. For the first time ever, I'm on MOL's side on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I don't like the way MOL runs his business (although I do use RA) but surely this isn't his fault. The EU legislation was designed to stop operators cancelling loss making flights at short notice just because they were loss making. I doubt anyone would disagree with that idea. Closure of airspace on this scale has never happened before and I doubt if it was considerded in the law making process. It's all very well saying laws are laws etc, that's just convenient simple thinking. This law should be amended to cover problems that are completely outside the airline's control. For the first time ever, I'm on MOL's side on this one. Maybe if the airline industry had prviously investigated the matter I would have a bit more sympathy but apparently when the subject was raised in 2007 manufacturers did not want to discuss. Maybe if they had done the tests then that they did last then the many of the cancellations would not have arisen http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/25/volcanic-ash-air-industry-warned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 LL the airlines weren't responsible for drafting this faulty EU legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.