O'Leary backs down

[AnOther]

I would like to have been fly on the wall when MoL retreated from his bellicose proclamation then nobody would get a penny out of him but later conceded that he would cough up as required by EU diktat.

I wonder what the clincher was 'pay up or you don't fly' maybe ?

[Russethouse]

 I do hope so ....[:)][:)]

[Théière]

Note the airlines are going to lobby for the change to equal other forms of transport and they want the tax payer to bale them out, makes me think the airlines didn't have any insurance to claim on

[AnOther]

You do have to sympathise to an extent, it is a rather sweeping and somewhat unfair directive and I don't think anyone ever envisaged the present situation.

Are ferry, train, or bus operators responsible for the indefinite feeding and accommodating of their passengers if they can't sail or move for bad weather, strikes etc., I think not, so why should the airlines be singled out.

If it is to be made so then we could potentially see a levy on all forms of EU transport to establish a contingency fund, something along the lines of ABTA perhaps.

[Théière]

I do sympathise to an extent, it does sound unfair when the airlines generally fly people a lot further than the other forms of transport do, but baled out by the government! who do they think they are Banks!

They should have an insurance policy or if the airlines win through the customer will need much better travel insurance than the current polices.

What happened in 1973 when Iceland had a volcano erupt?

[Anton Redman II]

As I read it the insurance companies are seeking to claim the eruption is an Act of God and therefore excluded from their liability.

[AnOther]

I think the demand for the government compesation may be based on the fact that in other circumstances UK citizens in trouble abroad can call on the local embassy or consulate for assistance. Whether they would have got it or not, and what they would have got, are different matters of course and reports do seem to indicate that they have fallen into the chocolate teapot category in this particular instance but then again what organisation could possibly have coped with an incident of this nature or magnitude ?

Look at the time for lag even for professional aid agencies to mobilise in response to real life and death disasters.

[Will]

[quote user="AnOther"]You do have to sympathise to an extent, it is a rather sweeping and somewhat unfair directive and I don't think anyone ever envisaged the present situation.

Are ferry, train, or bus operators responsible for the indefinite feeding and accommodating of their passengers if they can't sail or move for bad weather, strikes etc., I think not, so why should the airlines be singled out.

If it is to be made so then we could potentially see a levy on all forms of EU transport to establish a contingency fund, something along the lines of ABTA perhaps.

[/quote]

You may like to plough through this document

[Baz]

Whilst on the surface it may initial seem unfair that the so called low cost airlines will have to pay large compensation claims, they will surely reclaim this cost by just finding another item to add to their extra charges. So it will be the future travellers who will repay the money outlayed by O'Leary and co.

Baz

[Iceni]

It is unfair as the airlines were not responsible for planes not being where they should have been.

In most circumstances individuals are expected to mitigate their losses and it will be interesting to see how the cheapies define "reasonable". Spending €5000 on a chauffeur driven car is patently not so and I hope such claims will be rejected. Unless RA et al are successful in suing the Govt (yes I know that means the taxpayers) as their agents made the decision to ground everything Baz is right, us passengers will in future pay more to cover the refunds.

John

[Shoop]

Must agree its in all our intrests to keep budget airlines viable, especially RA £3 each way to Carcassonne friday/moday for a long weekend, tell me thats not value for money .............. happy days

[Alan Zoff]

We are back to the "Life should be risk-free" requirement. It isn't.

As in most things, we all want the best of all worlds, including the cheapest possible travel costs. How someone is supposed to provide rock bottom prices for a budget airline and then be held responsible for this type of expenditure is beyond me.

[Russethouse]

 Surely MOL founded his business model fully aware of the regulations ?

He has no obligation to stick to cheap fares if they don't work for him and maybe he wont.

[Alan Zoff]

And travellers lose the option of cheap air travel. Fair enough, if that's what they want - which I rather doubt.

[Théière]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

 Surely MOL founded his business model fully aware of the regulations ?

He has no obligation to stick to cheap fares if they don't work for him and maybe he wont.

[/quote]

I agree RH, but then there is the banking world, they knew the risks and even small investors (gamblers) who invested in the railways and when they failed to make an easy profit they too were compensated by our ever wishing to please government so who can blame the airlines for trying [:)]

[Russethouse]

They can try but in these cash strapped times I suspect that ail airlines will have to recoup losses by changing their fare structure, lets face it MOL has shown time and again he is not interested in keeping any non profitable service going.

Additionally if the government pays out this time and this volcano or another rumbles on intermittently for year or more the tax payer (who may never travel abroad) would be left with the tab, how is that fair ?

[Théière]

Took the words right out of my mouth RH

As the Icelandic banks didn't hand back the money invested with them and it's their volcano (and rotten frozen food) They should be called into account.

(that bit is tonque in cheek)

[Alan Zoff]

I don't feel governments should bail out passengers either. If travellers hadn't got/couldn't get insurance cover against a volcano spoiling their plans, they took the chance and lost. Life's a risk.

[AnOther]

Will, that document deals specifically with the rights of passengers when travelling by sea and inland waterway but the salient point in the context of this particular discussion seems to be Amendment 14:

4. This Article shall not apply where the delay or cancellation is caused not by the carrier's own fault but by

exceptional circumstances hindering the performance of the transport

service, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable

measures had been taken.