Heads up - Panorama tonight, BBC1 8.30pm

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:25:48 GMT, "bartc" wrote:

It's not stated whether that £5 check-in charge is per return flight or each
way.

As Ryanair sells only single tickets (and as it's Ryanair), I would
assume the latter.

And it doesn't mention that £40 penalty for re-issue of boarding card
either (and whether it's on top of the £5/£10 you may have already paid, and
whether the £40 is each way)

I assume it's on top, again it being Ryanair. The £40 is mentioned -
it's in the right-hand column.

(The charges have also increased tremendously in last few years. In 2004,
the charges on top of a £0.00 return fare to Europe, with baggage, were £25
taxes plus I think some £4 debit card charges, total £29.

Now, it would be £50 taxes, plus £30 baggage, plus £10 check-in, plus £10
credit-card, some £100 (and a minimum of £60 without optional items)

That is indeed true. But, however unsavoury you find this, it's not
exactly hidden.

IOW, there are many things wrong with Ryanair, though when I've used
them they've been fine. But "hidden charges" is, IMO, not a fair
allegation. They aren't hidden at all.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:25:48 GMT, "bartc" wrote:

It's not stated whether that £5 check-in charge is per return flight or
each
way.

As Ryanair sells only single tickets (and as it's Ryanair), I would
assume the latter.

The name change however is per passenger, so per return flight (or for each
of two single flights...)


And it doesn't mention that £40 penalty for re-issue of boarding card
either (and whether it's on top of the £5/£10 you may have already paid,
and
whether the £40 is each way)

I assume it's on top, again it being Ryanair. The £40 is mentioned -
it's in the right-hand column.

OK, seen it now. But this sort of proves something: I was actually looking
for it and didn't see it! Somebody quickly glancing over these fees wouldn't
even know the significance of that item until it happens that they need to
pay it...

(The charges have also increased tremendously in last few years. In 2004,

[by some 200%...]

That is indeed true. But, however unsavoury you find this, it's not
exactly hidden.

IOW, there are many things wrong with Ryanair, though when I've used
them they've been fine. But "hidden charges" is, IMO, not a fair
allegation. They aren't hidden at all.

They are not hidden, but even so many would only be in the back of most
passengers' minds, until circumstances dictate a change of plans, then they
find out how the charges mount up.

--
bartc

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009, Neil Williams wrote:

IOW, there are many things wrong with Ryanair, though when I've used
them they've been fine.

When I've travelled from Stansted, there have often been moans from
staff of other airlines complaining that the Ryanair desks are so
understaffed that they frequently have to field questions from Ryanair
passengers.
--
Paul Terry

In message , at 13:25:48
on Fri, 16 Oct 2009, bartc remarked:
It took me a while to find the link from the home page.

http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/faqs.php?sect=CHARGES

When I looked the other day, I think it was the top hit on Google for
"Ryanair fees".
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
standard policy, earlier today]



Since no contract exists, you have boarded a train in error there is no
intention to use the service provided you probably cannot be compelled to
pay anything. You will of course have to vacate the train at the earliest
opportunity and pay for your own ongoing transport.

Terms and conditions can only be enforced if you have agreed to them,
normally by the act of paying for the service.
There can be no liability under civil law if you have not contracted for the
service they wish to charge for.

There may be criminal law about travelling without a ticket, but generally
criminal law requires some degree of 'intent' which is not present
in catching the wrong train.

The rail company's failure to adequately identify their trains destination
or route is hardly the passenger's fault

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
Eh? Like getting on the wrong train by mistake and being charged a "full
anytime fare - no railcard discounts" ? [EMT announcement of their
standard policy, earlier today]



Since no contract exists, you have boarded a train in error there is no
intention to use the service provided you probably cannot be compelled to
pay anything. You will of course have to vacate the train at the earliest
opportunity and pay for your own ongoing transport.

Terms and conditions can only be enforced if you have agreed to them,
normally by the act of paying for the service.

rubbish

Starting to use the service amounts to entering the contract. The fact that
it is not the intended train is irrelevant, if it is going to the correct
station.

tim

Starting to use the service amounts to entering the contract.

A contract cannot exist unless a fee has been expressly agreed.
This is why Ryan Air charge 1p for its 'free' tickets. Without this
monetary exchange it cannot claim a contract exists
and therefore the terms and conditions apply. It is also why you tick the 'I
have read the terms and conditions' before the payment.

It is also why lots of vouchers have a marked value of 0.001p. A meaningless
value but represents a 'payment' and allows the terms and conditions to
be contractual.

Because the rail system has come out of a government body it may have
special statutes applying that are specific to transport law.
As a private company its terms and conditions are meaningless unless it can
show you have entered into contract with them.

A key point is that both parties understand what they are getting from the
contract:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Meeting_of_the_minds


Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket and
the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms and
conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company saw
little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message



http://wapedia.mobi/en/Meeting_of_the_minds


Remember Cheri Blair got off from boarding a train without a ticket
and the means to pay for one because
she believed she could pay in Euros, while the rail company's terms
and conditions do not allow for this.
The key point being Cheri Blair is a barrister and the rail company
saw little point in bluffing that there terms and conditions applied.

pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of the
former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of the
former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant


Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair.

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
pedantCherie Booth QC is a barrister. Cherie Blair is the wife of
the former prime minister. I know of no barrister named "Cheri
Blair"./pedant


Nah .. she stopped being Booth when she became Mrs. Blair.

Not professionally, she didn't.