Airports closed as volcanic ash drifts toward UK

Originally Posted by Maggy J

DISCUSSION!

More like arguing for the sake of arguing..Just like a bunch of teenagers that try to chop logic so as to get their own way or point of view accepted.

Adults however learn to compromise and sometimes compromise means just accepting you cannot change the facts or someone's opinion.

So who is going to walk away first?

Maggie with all respect the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss and that by it's nature will mean some people disagree with other people .You think we should all agree to disagree most people here don't ...it's called a difference of opinion and it is allowed and it would be a very boring forum if we all agreed to disagree

so i would ask with all respect to stop jumping on people who disagree with other people

Originally Posted by martyh

Maggie with all respect the whole point of a discussion forum is to discuss and that by it's nature will mean some people disagree with other people .You think we should all agree to disagree most people here don't ...it's called a difference of opinion and it is allowed and it would be a very boring forum if we all agreed to disagree

so i would ask with all respect to stop jumping on people who disagree with other people

I get that this is a discussion board, I'm really not that stupid.

I asked at what point will the argu errr debate/discussion stop because Flyboy does have a reputation of keeping up an argument long after he has lost it...

Now you might think that's me being heavy handed but the point is eventually people get fed up,get cross and then the trouble starts..I'm just trying to head it off.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I get that this is a discussion board, I'm really not that stupid.

I asked at what point will the argu errr debate/discussion stop because Flyboy does have a reputation of keeping up an argument long after he has lost it...

Now you might think that's me being heavy handed but the point is eventually people get fed up,get cross and then the trouble starts..I'm just trying to head it off.

i take your point and realise you have job to do ,i wouldn't allow anyone on this forum to get to me to such an extent where personal attacks are the only recourse

it's only a forum ..

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well if someone has bought a £40 flight ticket, but can then potentially reclaim 5 days hotels and meals costs. I consider that unreasonable.

Perhaps you do, but the law disagrees with you and more importantly Michael O'Leary.

---------- Post added at 17:25 ---------- Previous post was at 17:23 ----------

Originally Posted by gazzae

If a flight is cancelled or you cannot get on the flight due to the airline, i.e. overbooking, crew strikes etc then the airline should have responsibility to find you hotels, meals etc
If it is cancelled due to something outside their control i.e. natural disaster, ATC strike then they should not have to provide hotels, food etc.

After all how can an airline like easyjet factor in the possibility of having to pay for 15,000 hotel rooms and meals for up to 5 days to their business plan. You can say they have insurance, but insurance costs money.

Which is the risk all businesses take when they factor their cost/price modeling. If they have saved a few quid without buying insurance, then that is their problem. It is the risk every business has to accept.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Perhaps you do, but the law disagrees with you and more importantly Michael O'Leary

Well the law actually states that the airlines should reimburse "REASONABLE" costs. It doesn't go into state what is deemed as reasonable and that is open to interpretation, and I would go so far as to say that if you've bought a cheap ticket with a budget airline, then what is deemed reasonable would be different to say buying a 1st class BA ticket.

In any event I was only expressing my opinion that I thought, in this instance, the law was wrong. Perhaps in helping the debate, you may decide to tell why YOU think the law is right, or wrong, instead of glibly telling me what the law says as I already know that, thanks

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Perhaps you do, but the law disagrees with you and more importantly Michael O'Leary.

and this is a very contentious point ,why should airlines be forced to pay compensation to passengers over and above the cost of the ticket?
after all coach train and ferry operators don't ,they only have to reimburse the cost of the ticket .I am pleased Michael O'Leary has done a "sort" of u turn and said only reasonable costs will be reimbursed in line with passenger rights legislation.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

and this is a very contentious point ,why should airlines be forced to pay compensation to passengers over and above the cost of the ticket?

Errr...because it's the law?

The easy way to have sorted all of this out, and have a profound effect on the psyche of the British electorate, would have been for Gordon Brown to have declared that stranded travellers would have had additional monies made available to them, whether by way of credit limit increases or availability of funds in their accounts, and that any additional accrued expenses would be written off / paid by the banks.

Job done, sorted.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The easy way to have sorted all of this out, and have a profound effect on the psyche of the British electorate, would have been for Gordon Brown to have declared that stranded travellers would have had additional monies made available to them, whether by way of credit limit increases or availability of funds in their accounts and that any additional accrued expenses would be written off / paid by the banks.

Job done, sorted.

well that would have done the trick ,but an easier way would have been to use the fleet of private aircraft (GA traffic) and the raf troop carriers to bring people home these were not grounded and continued to fly throughout the crisis ...suffering no damage

[alferret]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I asked at what point will the argu errr debate/discussion stop because Flyboy does have a reputation of keeping up an argument long after he has lost it...

Tis true, I can attest to that

Getting back to whether or not the CAA & NATS were overly agressive with the lenght of the ban I have to agree with others that IMO there was little chance of an accident happening due to dispersal rates of the ash by the time it reached UK and northern European air space.
Back in '82 when the famed plane lost all engines it was because it flew directly into the volcanic ash plume and not your usual common garden variety ash cloud.

It has been pointed out on many web sites by those that have been testing for the ash cloud that they can not test for density only that there is some ash in the atmosphere. There are 10's of thousands of cubic kilometers of air above Europe the north atlantic and the north sea. 90% or more of ejecta returns to earth within a few hundred miles of the eruption, the rest gets thinned out by the prevailing winds, by the time it reached mainland UK\Europe I would say (and this is my guess) that there was around 1 or 2 particles @ <2mm per cubic metre and once the initial eruption had taken place and the main body of the ash cloud had reached Eurozone airspace then 24-36hrs later the sky's could have been re opened. Obviously safety has to be taken into account and the CAA & NATS took it to the limits that they saw fit.
The above is just my opinion and is what I have gleened from TV\T'interweb\papers and a dose of common sense (mine though)


As for payments for accommodation & food whilst being stuck somewhere due to the closure I think that there should be a limit to the amount one can claim per meal and per night. Its not difficult to get 3 squares a day for about £20 anywhere in Europe and further afield, the same as its not difficult to find a room for £50 a night. I can see where companies like Ryanair come from when they get a bill for £700-£1000 from someone who's ticket cost them £30.
If you buy a budget ticket expect budget accommodation and food, if your ticket is business class or above expect to be treated as such and have a higher claim.
If your on a package holiday then your tour operator will look after you.


Again just my opinion.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by martyh

well that would have done the trick ,but an easier way would have been to use the fleet of private aircraft (GA traffic) and the raf troop carriers to bring people home these were not grounded and continued to fly throughout the crisis ...suffering no damage

But that would be like the act of a "nanny state" - we can't be having that now, can we?

Originally Posted by mr angry

but that would be like the act of a "nanny state" - we can't be having that now, can we?

lol:d

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Not everyone books a budget airline because of cost. I booked easyjet because it was the only one who's flights suited my travel requirements.
The ec regulations state what a airline is liable for if planes are cancelled or grounded. I'd say an airline not insuring itself against this risk is taking a bit of a gamble.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by alferret

As for payments for accommodation & food whilst being stuck somewhere due to the closure I think that there should be a limit to the amount one can claim per meal and per night. Its not difficult to get 3 squares a day for about £20 anywhere in Europe and further afield, the same as its not difficult to find a room for £50 a night. I can see where companies like Ryanair come from when they get a bill for £700-£1000 from someone who's ticket cost them £30.
If you buy a budget ticket expect budget accommodation and food, if your ticket is business class or above expect to be treated as such and have a higher claim.
If your on a package holiday then your tour operator will look after you.


Again just my opinion.

Well when I was last in Europe I could easily spend £30 on an evening meal, and that was then expensive option on the menu. Plus what if the resturants don't do kid options, so a family of 4 could easily spend £100 on an evening meal.

Plus the fact some hotels were charging in some cases 4 times the normal price.

I stayed in a 3 star hotel and that was £150 per night and included breakfast free, i was allowed £15 for noon meal and £40 for evening including a drink which could be booze.

Thank god I was on 100% expences.

[gazzae]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Which is the risk all businesses take when they factor their cost/price modeling. If they have saved a few quid without buying insurance, then that is their problem. It is the risk every business has to accept.

Yes, but incase you haven't noticed insurance has this habit of increasing when you claim on it.
I work for a large manufacturing company. We ensure that our processes are as safe as possible and this cuts down on any claims against us, keeping the premiums low and our costs down. How can an airline keep premiums low and costs if they are forced to claim huge amounts for factors totally outside their control?

[Ignitionnet]

Q: What's the difference between Eyjafjallajoekull and Cheryl Cole?
A: Eyjafjallajoekull has been blowing Ash this week.