Metropol

Jovis wrote:

DVB Cornwall wrote:If by doing this Ryanair and the other budget carriers lose their alleged competitive advantage so be it.

But isn't that the choice the consumer makes? If you go for the cheapest of the cheap, in doing so you cut costs by not having the 'extras' (the things other than the actual flight).

Not if the costs being cut are legal requirements, no.

If the law was changed, would you agree with me? Do you think the law is correct?

If the law was changed agreed, but the desirability of changing the law to me is zero. It's a bit like saying that you could be able to buy a TV without any form of Guarantee. Everything needs a fitness for purpose element. A travel ticket should mean that within a reasonable timeframe you get from A to B without additional expense intervening.

If you can afford to swan off to St. Moritz or Cancun, then you can afford to spend a few nights in a low budget hostel until flights are resumed.

So I think ideally the compensation ought to be means tested, although obviously that would be ridiculously complicated in a scenario like this.

As we know, everyone flying Ryanair is well-to-do and owns at least three Bentleys.

Well Ryanair has now backed down and will agree to pay food and accomodation costs of stranded passengers. Wouldn't surprise me if Michael O'Leary was intending the very public announcement to act as a testing of the waters to see what the EU would let them get away with.

Isonstine wrote:Well Ryanair has now backed down and will agree to pay food and accommodation costs of stranded passengers. Wouldn't surprise me if Michael O'Leary was intending the very public announcement to act as a testing of the waters to see what the EU would let them get away with.

Indeed - and you can bet all the other carriers were watching closely to see if they would get away without making certain payments too.

If the law was changed agreed, but the desirability of changing the law to me is zero. It's a bit like saying that you could be able to buy a TV without any form of Guarantee. Everything needs a fitness for purpose element. A travel ticket should mean that within a reasonable timeframe you get from A to B without additional expense intervening.

I agree that if a product you've bought is not fit for purpose then the party who sold that product to you should be liable for the unfit product they have sold. However all warranties have limitations.

To use your example, if you buy a TV and it fails under warranty then it will be repaired, replaced or refunded. But the retailer/manufactuer won't entertain any claim of compensation against the programmes you missed by not having the set.

Equally, if you buy a memory card for your digital camera and it zaps all your precious holiday snaps, then the memory card will be replaced or your money refunded, but you won't be paid any compensation for the loss of the photos.

And as harsh as it sounds, I don't agree that airlines should be forced to foot the expenses bill of stranded passengers. Yes they have failed in providing the service paid for within a reasonable timeframe, and so they should provide full refunds for the tickets. Whilst it would be jolly decent of them to cover other expenses (and I would expect the better airlines to do so) I simply do not see why they should be forced to.

If you can't afford to cover unexpected expenses whilst abroad then you should have taken out insurance for that purpose - travelling to another country on a shoestring budget with no money left over for a plan B is IMO madness anyway. And with regards to Ryanair specifically, you have bought a budget ticket from a budget airline with a proven record for crap customer service - but that's why it was so cheap. Their attitude surely cannot be a surprise. If you wanted a better service and an airline more ready to help you, then you should have gone elsewhere - that's why others cost more.

It is also quite funny to hear about people who were quite happy to fly to Spain in Ryanair's vinyl seats and take up a cheap last minute package but once stranded there and expenses talk came about suddenly decided that only a 5 star hotel would do - if they had that money available up front then they could have used it to travel back by another means rather than try and get a free extension to their holiday under the guise of being 'stranded' in a country where it is viable to get back without using air travel.

No-frills airline Ryanair today backed down on plans to break EU rules by limiting payouts to customers caught up in this week's flight chaos.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/ap ... gers-costs