Ryanair ash cloud case: EU's top court rules against airline

**Maggy** · 31-01-2013, 14:50

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21273666

Quote:

Ryanair should have fully compensated a passenger whose flight was cancelled because of the volcanic ash cloud in 2010, the EU's top court has said.
On such occasions there is no limit - in time or money - to the airline's duty to look after its passengers, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled.

Now that is a good result.

31-01-2013, 15:12

seems a bit unfair on ryanair ,after all it wasn't Ryanair that cancelled all the flights or blew up the volcano .

**Maggy** · 31-01-2013, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

seems a bit unfair on ryanair ,after all it wasn't Ryanair that cancelled all the flights or blew up the volcano .

Wasn't the fault of the passenger either..

Osem · 31-01-2013, 15:44

Can't see Ryanair getting too much public sympathy (apart from Marty that is l

). They've redefined the term 'customer service' and not it a good way.

31-01-2013, 16:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Wasn't the fault of the passenger either..

so why should anyone have to pay .All the airlines are fighting this not just Ryanair ,they have already paid out Â£42million how much more should they pay for something they have no control over and didn't want to do in the first place .Do we now start suing airlines when there is an earthquake or bad weather closing airports,how about we sue the real culprit ...Iceland,after all it was their volcano .All they should get is the cost of the ticket they didn't use and nothing else

**Maggy** · 31-01-2013, 18:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

so why should anyone have to pay .All the airlines are fighting this not just Ryanair ,they have already paid out Â£42million how much more should they pay for something they have no control over and didn't want to do in the first place .Do we now start suing airlines when there is an earthquake or bad weather closing airports,how about we sue the real culprit ...Iceland,after all it was their volcano .All they should get is the cost of the ticket they didn't use and nothing else

You know I think you are the sort who would argue black is white whatever the subject.

peanut · 31-01-2013, 18:21

I personally don't think there should be a case to argue against a natural disaster or events such as this. It would be fair that passengers should get their money back, but that should be it.

If they [airlines] were told not to fly, then people should have just accepted it.

Still a ruling doesn't make it anymore right or wrong for me.

31-01-2013, 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

You know I think you are the sort who would argue black is white whatever the subject.

then give me a good reason why the airlines have to pay because a volcano erupted and grounded the planes ,where they negligent in any way?did they endanger lives? or is this simply about being inconvenienced for a few days so someone has to pay.Why not sue the CAA ,they shut the airspace and grounded the planes going against the airlines advice in many cases.

**Maggy** · 31-01-2013, 18:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

then give me a good reason why the airlines have to pay because a volcano erupted and grounded the planes ,where they negligent in any way?did they endanger lives? or is this simply about being inconvenienced for a few days so someone has to pay.Why not sue the CAA ,they shut the airspace and grounded the planes going against the airlines advice in many cases.

Well Ryanair might not have had this problem if they were with ABTA..so maybe they have been their own worst enemy because they could have had access to the common fund from ABTA..

http://www.abta.com/about-abta
http://www.whentobookflights.co.uk/ryanair/

cookie_365 · 31-01-2013, 18:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

then give me a good reason why the airlines have to pay because a volcano erupted and grounded the planes ,where they negligent in any way?did they endanger lives? or is this simply about being inconvenienced for a few days so someone has to pay.Why not sue the CAA ,they shut the airspace and grounded the planes going against the airlines advice in many cases.

Because the law says they have to, and if they don't like the laws that govern the obligations of airlines, they shouldn't be in the airline business.

Is that a good reason?

Sirius · 31-01-2013, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Can't see Ryanair getting too much public sympathy (apart from Marty that is l

). They've redefined the term 'customer service' and not it a good way.

Soon as i saw it was Ryanair i knew this would make my day.

GrimUpNorth · 31-01-2013, 19:28

We were delayed out of New York a couple of years ago by bad weather and missed our connection in Shannon by about 90 mins. Aer Lingus paid for a days food and drink for four people, an over night stay in Shannon, the additional car parking charges at Manchester, an additional night for the cat in the cattery and put some folding money in Mrs G's hand to cover phone calls home etc. Couldn't complain about our treatment, we didn't have to fight for any it.

I think this just goes to show different airlines have different values, and before anyone mentions it I know Ryanair are major shareholders.

Cheers

Grim

Hom3r · 31-01-2013, 19:31

It is a bit unfair for the airline, but you help a customer out above and beyond what you need to do, they will come back and fly with you again.

nomadking · 31-01-2013, 19:39

It should have been the Travel Insurers that paid out, but they were allowed to get away with it, as it was classed as an 'act of God'. The airlines were classed as being 'insurers of last resort'. This wasn't about compensation, but about having a sensible limit on things.

Quote:

Ryanair has already paid out 27m euros to compensate people left stranded by the ash cloud, BBC transport correspondent Richard Westcott reports.

31-01-2013, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Because the law says they have to, and if they don't like the laws that govern the obligations of airlines, they shouldn't be in the airline business.

Is that a good reason?

No

Because it's not the law ,the controversy about this ruling is that the ECJ has overruled an existing EU law which governs compensation payments and the protocol surrounding delayed/cancelled flights for all carriers in Europe .Namely REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004.All the carriers affected by the ash cloud operate under this law and most including Ryanair have settled claims for refunds and compensation as an act of good will towards the passengers .Now they have this new ruling which affects all carriers in the EU they will be obliged by law to compensate passengers for acts of god ,uprisings and strikes that result in the delay or cancellation of a flight.So now the cost of your ticket will rise because that was part of the new ruling as well

Quote:

The ruling stated that airlines "may pass on the costs incurred as a result of that obligation [to look after all stranded passengers for as long as it takes] to airline ticket prices".

REGULATION (EC) No 261/2004

Quote:

As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating
air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases
where an event has been caused by extraordinary
circumstances which could not have been avoided even
if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances
may, in particular, occur in cases of political
instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with
the operation of the flight concerned, security risks,
unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that
affect the operation of an operating air carrier.