Great 'service' from Ryanair - NOT!!!

"Roger Chung-Wee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:29:41 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

tim.... writes:

look it up yourself you lazy so and so

So it doesn't exist. I thought so.

Ryanair's general terms of carriage state:

Something which is undoubtedly not legally valid.

It is common practice for companies (many with a with a far better
reputation than Ryanair) to litter their T&Cs with clauses that are legally
invalid, in the hope that they will be able to fob customers off if there is
a problem.

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news
In message , at 22:25:11 on Fri, 8 Jan
2010, tim.... remarked:
Of course, but it is still going to be something that the ground staff
at
the airport (that the plane has landed at) will be likely to have done
before.

Which ground staff? Not the ones refuelling the plane.

The ones who deal with passengers.

Whenever I get back to East Midlands airport in the early evening the
flight crew always chant the bit about "if you need any help there are
ground crew available", but it's like the Marie Celeste. There's sometimes
one person guiding people to the next available immigration desk, but
apart from that, no-one (not even to complain to about lost bags).

I still don't see that this is an excuse. If a plane has been diverted to
an airport it is not unreasonable to expect there to be staff able to deal
with the arriving passengers. If there aren't, then the airport shouldn't
accept the diversion.

tim

In message , at 10:04:28 on Sat, 9 Jan
2010, tim.... remarked:
If a plane has been diverted to an airport it is not unreasonable to
expect there to be staff able to deal with the arriving passengers. If
there aren't, then the airport shouldn't accept the diversion.

I agree. They should let the plane land in a field instead. Crash into
the field if the fuel runs out first.
--
Roland Perry

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

You can complain to the court in the country where you live.

There are limited areas where a British Court will accept a case where the
offence happened outside its direct jurisdiction.

If you look up cases where Ryan Air have been sued by their clients you
will find it occurred in a Dublin court even though the issue was for
flights not including
Ireland. If you Google suing Ryan Air and small claims you will find
references to how to do it.

You may or may no be right about an airlines responsibility, but Ryan Air
know that it is a lot of bother to sue them in a Dublin Court and that the
costs are
not worth it.

It really is a matter of you cannot expect more than you pay for, and Ryan
Air does not have a budget to cover additional unforeseen expenses.
He does not employ staff where he can avoid it, so there is really an
available 'Ryan Air' employee outside of the aircraft. Which by the time you
have cleared immigration have left the airport to the next destination.

In the particular case stated there was a safe and available method of
getting to the final destination. Ryan Air appears to have done all that was
needed to get the passengers to the final destination. I am not sure if it
was stated who would pay the bus fare, but reclaiming this could be done
after the event by post.

I did not see any reference to other passengers having a problem, so it
might be worth knowing how self sufficient the gentleman was. If he was
dependent on others to get him to and from the airport then those people
should have considered what would happen if things went wrong.


Ryan Air has a known business model, you know how he behaves. Vote with your
feet. People got about before he appeared and although he flies lots of
routes not serviced by others
they are accessible by road and rail from airports that are.

I may need to get to Brest in a couple of weeks. The only UK route is with
Ryan Air, BMI being Summer only. Part of the reason he can offer this
service is he can survive on a narrower
profit margin. Add costs and the link will disappear.

In fact I may go via Paris with a different airline because my colleague
does not want to travel on the day the route operates, but at least there is
an option.

My gut feeling is that airlines should sort things out, but when I am more
pragmatic I accept that with low costs comes minimum service.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
JohnT writes:

If you wish me to give you Legal advice then I must insist on a
mmonetary deposit from you as evidence of good faith. I suggest that EUR
¤1000 is an appropriate initial sum.

If you wish me to believe what you say, you're going to have to be a lot
more
specific than just a pointer to a Web site.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...867937240.html

Note that this case is to be held in a Dublin Court, since the (Dutch)
passengers had a contract with an Irish company.
It also refers that it could be referred to the EU court.

Other cases where Ryan Air have been sued outside of Ireland is for a
specific act in a foreign country, not connected to flights.

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

"tim...." wrote in message
...

"Buddenbrooks" wrote in message
...

You can complain to the court in the country where you live.

There are limited areas where a British Court will accept a case where
the offence happened outside its direct jurisdiction.

If you look up cases where Ryan Air have been sued by their clients you
will find it occurred in a Dublin court even though the issue was for
flights not including
Ireland.

Rubbish (to the suggestion that you *have* to do this)

There are multiple cases of Ryanair being sued in the UK courts using UK
law, the one about wheelchairs for example.

If you Google suing Ryan Air and small claims you will find references to
how to do it.

You may or may no be right about an airlines responsibility, but Ryan Air
know that it is a lot of bother to sue them in a Dublin Court and that the
costs are
not worth it.

It really is a matter of you cannot expect more than you pay for,

I don't agree. Whatever price I pay I am entitled to expect the company to
comply with my statutory rights, after that point your comment is valid, but
not before. As per my previous example - I can't sell unsafe toys in the EU
on the basis that "you get what you pay for", why should plane tickets be
any different?

and Ryan Air does not have a budget to cover additional unforeseen
expenses.

that's its problem, not mine

He does not employ staff where he can avoid it, so there is really an
available 'Ryan Air' employee outside of the aircraft. Which by the time
you have cleared immigration have left the airport to the next
destination.

In the particular case stated there was a safe and available method of
getting to the final destination.

It demonstrably wasn't "safe".

Ryan Air appears to have done all that was needed to get the passengers to
the final destination.

They appear to have done nothing except say "there's a local bus over there
go and catch it. Arguably this isn't enough. (but I thought that we had
moved onto the general rule, rather than this specific case.)

I am not sure if it was stated who would pay the bus fare, but reclaiming
this could be done after the event by post.

Evidence suggests that you won't get any money out of Ryanair after the
event without winning in court.

I did not see any reference to other passengers having a problem,

Because the other passengers didn't complain loudly enough .

Come on , you know (or ought to) that this is exactly how it works. When a
company does something which you think is wrong you may make a lot of noise
at the time but ultimately most people never follow it up. Only a very few
will make it through to a "national" complaint, this doesn't mean that they
were the only person who thought that what the company did was wrong. The
rest just though it was more effort than it was worth to complain further.

so it might be worth knowing how self sufficient the gentleman was. If he
was dependent on others to get him to and from the airport then those
people should have considered what would happen if things went wrong.


Ryan Air has a known business model, you know how he behaves.

I do. I don't think that he should be allowed to do so (and so does the
law. Unfortunately the penalties aren't sever enough to encourage him to
comply).

tim

On 08/01/2010 11:29 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
JohnT writes:

If you wish me to give you Legal advice then I must insist on a
mmonetary deposit from you as evidence of good faith. I suggest that EUR
¤1000 is an appropriate initial sum.

If you wish me to believe what you say, you're going to have to be a lot more
specific than just a pointer to a Web site.

It is a matter of total indifference to me whether or not you believe
anything.
--
JohnT

"tim...." wrote in message
...


There are multiple cases of Ryanair being sued in the UK courts using UK
law, the one about wheelchairs for example.

Your ticket is bought from an Irish registered company. If the contract
was under Irish law then it
is to an Irish court you go to sort it.

The disability act is UK law and applied to any act within the UK.




and Ryan Air does not have a budget to cover additional unforeseen
expenses.

that's its problem, not mine

In as far as they dont have a budget, so you wont get anything.
If you consult your solicitor he will advise you of two things before
going to court.
1, Do you have a case?
2, If you win will the other side pay up?




He does not employ staff where he can avoid it, so there is really an
available 'Ryan Air' employee outside of the aircraft. Which by the time
you have cleared immigration have left the airport to the next
destination.

In the particular case stated there was a safe and available method of
getting to the final destination.

It demonstrably wasn't "safe".

Of course getting a bus was safe. The bus to Edinburgh is 3 times an
hour, is very clearly marked at the exit and drops off by the central train
station off Princess Street.


They appear to have done nothing except say "there's a local bus over
there go and catch it. Arguably this isn't enough.

What else? They could not fly there and the guy was entitled to a free bus
pass.

Ryan Air has a known business model, you know how he behaves.

I do. I don't think that he should be allowed to do so (and so does the
law. Unfortunately the penalties aren't sever enough to encourage him to
comply).


He appears to have done what was required. The diversion was ourside Ryan
Airs control and a number of passengers ended up at Edinburgh.
The flight had originated in Scotland so it was reasonable to assume that
all passengers were familiur with Scotland. There was somewhere warm and
safe to go in the airport itself.
The quickest way of getting to the final destination was by public
transport which was available. It would have taken longer to locate and
contract a bus company to take people back to Prestwich, and many passengers
may not have wanted to go there. The staff had advised him of the most
suitable method. Ryan Air have a customer service number he could have
called.

In this particular case it would appear that the gentleman was not capable
of unescorted travel. Maybe he was escorted to the departure lounge and
expected to be picked up at
at arrivals. When this failed he could not cope. I am not sure one can
expect an airline to be care assistance workers.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 10:42:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

I agree. They should let the plane land in a field instead. Crash into
the field if the fuel runs out first.

Or even (if fuel is available) circle for ages.

For those who didn't travel to the airport by car, landing somewhere
vaguely nearby is likely to be a better option, even if the airline
don't sort anything out. For me, for instance, if I landed at any
South East or Midlands airport (so long as it wasn't 3am) it'd be
easier for me to get the train home and forget about it.

If you're in the air, that option doesn't exist.

Neil

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

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 17:19:22 -0000, "Buddenbrooks"
wrote:

It does, better staff demand better wages.

OOI, does anyone know the difference between EZY and FR cabin crew
wages? The former's cabin crew are rarely anything other than polite,
cheerful and helpful (and normally give the impression they enjoy
their jobs), and on the rare occasion they're not I think it could
fairly be put down to a bad day. The latter are rather more variable.

EZY, of course, charge more than FR in general, I'd say, so I'd think
there would be a difference. But I wonder how great the wage
difference actually is.

Neil

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