Ryanair loses Volcano compo case!

[whatmeworry]

Let the sooking by the Ryanair CEO begin!

The airline immediately warned that ticket prices even for budget travellers will rise to offset costs from any future extreme events that the company previously considered to be ‘‘acts of God’’ for which it was not financially responsible.

Airline erupts over volcano ruling

 

[The Rok]

Be he would be right to sook on this occasion. He should of won this one.

 

[serfty]

Be he would be right to sook on this occasion. He should of won this one.

The other EU airlines conceded to the regulation and paid up - Ryanair went it alone.

The legals fees they will have to suck up will be enormous.

 

[anat0l]

Poor arrogant sod. Life's a b**** and then you die. Cough up.

 

[The Rok]

So why is it insurance companies can bail on "acts of god" but airlines can't?

 

[serfty]

So why is it insurance companies can bail on "acts of god" but airlines can't?

Because there is no regulation that prevents underwriters from doing so.

Note that this is only to cover costs of accommodation, food, etc. in relation to "Duty of Care". There is no compensation payable.

If you look at the EU regulation 261/2004 preamble, the compensation/duty of care provisions are designed to be somewhat punitive due to actions of carrier in the past.

Also, it's not all airlines, just those under the flag of an EU member country or those with services departing from an EU member country (and only those services).

EUR-Lex - 32004R0261 - EN

 

[Simo]

I wonder how many claims that Ryanair will get now.

 

[anat0l]

I wonder how many claims that Ryanair will get now.

If some versions of this story are to believed, it should only be the one which is specific to the action brought against Ryanair (which has been abstracted as a more general conclusion in the article).

Of course, Ryanair may have other claims, but the affirmative action is on the part of the affected passenger to launch the claim and/or action, i.e. if the pax do nothing, there's no obligation for Ryanair to "proactively" compensate them.

 

[trooper]

I "get" that folks are angry about various airline tricks and traps.. BUT.. how an airline can be held responsible for providing accommodation etc in this sort of situation.. I don't "get" that at all... If a volcanic eruption is not "extraordinary" circumstances.. one wonders what IS?

So other than some people being gleeful about "sticking it to the man", or saying "They deserve it because of other poor behaviour" can anyone suggest specifically how it is reasonable that the airlines get stuck with this?

 

[whatmeworry]

The interpretation by the court as I understand it, is that an airline is responsible for pax that are at the airport or in transit.

 

[anat0l]

I "get" that folks are angry about various airline tricks and traps.. BUT.. how an airline can be held responsible for providing accommodation etc in this sort of situation.. I don't "get" that at all... If a volcanic eruption is not "extraordinary" circumstances.. one wonders what IS?

So other than some people being gleeful about "sticking it to the man", or saying "They deserve it because of other poor behaviour" can anyone suggest specifically how it is reasonable that the airlines get stuck with this?

The interpretation by the court as I understand it, is that an airline is responsible for pax that are at the airport or in transit.

I think that's basically the guts of it.

It should be noted that the provision of care is compulsory in all cases where the Regulation applies, i.e. even during extraordinary circumstances, provision of care is mandatory. There is no doubt that the volcano eruption was "extraordinary" - that is not the point of the case. The point is that even in cases like this, provision of care is required. Cash compensation is not required to be paid during extraordinary circumstances.

Is it reasonable? Perhaps not, but we are used to a regime where we do not have this kind of protection. Certainly there are quite a few in the relevant airline circles who are arguing against this regulation (including the implicated airline in this topic).

I'm sure there must be some sort of case law or event that must've happened which has resulted in Regulation 261/2004 stating that even during extraordinary circumstances, airlines are bound to provide care for passengers (at the airline's expense).

The decision of the court in this instance is not whether the regulation (enacted into national laws) is flawed and thus there should be no further proceedings. The court ruled in accordance to the regulation being violated and that is that.

Frankly, if Ryanair want to raise their fares to specially cover such circumstances, then so be it. Every other EU airline (and airline who operates into the EU, to a lesser extent) has to also be ready for such circumstances, and part of that needs to be factored into their financial and risk modelling affecting their bottom line.

A funny thing I just thought of: if all EU carriers are bound to provide care for passengers, why are scenes at airports of pax sleeping everywhere still commonplace?

 

[serfty]

...

A funny thing I just thought of: if all EU carriers are bound to provide care for passengers, why are scenes at airports of pax sleeping everywhere still commonplace?

Maybe not so much at EU airports these days.

 

[Sprucegoose]

Maybe not so much at EU airports these days.

quite so, they're on the streets!

 

[UP4014]

Ryanair order to pay up

Sorry all, I can't post a link using the 'smart' device I'm on.

but, Saturdays SMH has a news story about Ryanair ordered by the European Court of Justice to compensate passengers who plans in 2010 were disrupted by the Icelandic volcano.

Ryanair said it would cost all travellers more; and the sky was falling. (My bit added in)

all other airlines had coped ok with compensation for passengers, but Ryanair blamed governments for closing airspace.

matt

 

[oz_mark]

So other than some people being gleeful about "sticking it to the man", or saying "They deserve it because of other poor behaviour" can anyone suggest specifically how it is reasonable that the airlines get stuck with this?

It's the legal framework that the airline works in. All airlines are in the same situation with it.

 

[UP4014]

I "get" that folks are angry about various airline tricks and traps.. BUT.. how an airline can be held responsible for providing accommodation etc in this sort of situation.. I don't "get" that at all... If a volcanic eruption is not "extraordinary" circumstances.. one wonders what IS?

So other than some people being gleeful about "sticking it to the man", or saying "They deserve it because of other poor behaviour" can anyone suggest specifically how it is reasonable that the airlines get stuck with this?

I think it's more that for years Ryanair has been happy to take people's money with all care and zero responsibility, now the shoe is on the other foot and surprise surprise, Ryanair doesn't like getting a dose.

 

[trooper]

OK... Good answers. It still seems totally unreasonable to me however - in principle.

I suspect this imposition on airlines is very much a "one off" and that no other industry is required by law to look after folks gratis in such circumstances.... and if that IS true..then I maintain it is unfair.