Ryan to sue Government

[Hoddy]

I wonder what you all think of this ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5261908.stm

Sitting here in france and not really knowing what's going on at the airports I have no real way of judging.

Hoddy

[Owens88]

So. A passenger facing a Ryanair cancellation will not get compensation as it is 'force majeure' but Ryan wants to sue the taxpayers for extra costs being suffered through security checks following a known real threat. HMMM.

Cake and eat it too ?

[Russethouse]

I suspect it makes good publicity - is it, or was it ever really likely that a RyanAir flight would be blown up ?In my (limited) view, probably not, so it is a big inconvenience for them.

[Llwyncelyn]

For Ryan read Virgin its absolute good publicity and nothing else.  Until we know something to the contrary and provided and only provided (that is the legal test) that HMG acted reasonable rationally and logically and in view of the facts before them then Ryan goes nowhere.

Set your diary perhaps for six years before this comes before the court (and it will not)

He (Ryan) was on the TV at lunchtime and the fact that he was on TV added substantially to his organisation (and cost him nothing in publicity and which otherwise would have cost hundreds of thousands)

He is what he is.

Your opinion of him is the only one that matters mine does not.

[Deimos]

Without passing any judgements, I saw the guy on TV the other day and he actually had some quite good sounding arguments about how some of the government restrictions were neither logical nor consistent with the stated security aims.

My understanding is not that they are anti the security but that some of the regulations (particularly when they were first starting to be relaxed) made things equally difficult for the airlines, more confusing for the passengers and would not have helped security.

I am no security expert and thus cannot comment on the rights and wrongs of his arguments, other than to say when he went through some they did seem to be sensible comments and ones I think the UK government will have difficulty answering (other than by saying only "National Security" and "Its all secret but trust us").

I can actually see why such low cost carriers are anti the EU compensation scheme and dishing out refunds to everybody when they are outside their control and terms and conditions. When you have people paying £1 for a ticket, your profit margin is naturally going to be low and you need to keep your planes working hard to make a profit. It is their niche in the market. If a plane is held up for some reason, of course they cannot afford to start handing out sums of money many times the price people have paid for their tickets. Similarly, when they need to cancel flights because airports fail in their plane loading commitments, etc. because of regulations implemented by the government (and thus nothing to do with Ryanair and other budget airlines) then why should they dish out money to add to their already large losses. Travellers should have their own insurance and if they were concerned should have ensured such terms and conditions covered their concerns.

Also, I find it quite surprising that I'm posting defending these airlines as I would normally be one of the first to be critical of them (as I do not agree with this as a form of transport - though must confess to having used them).

Ian

[Gardian]

It's a Michael O'Leary wind-up of course, but with more than a hint of seriousness in it.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the "It was all over-reaction and why were there all these extra restrictions" brigade.

However: there was a major security risk a week ago (or we've all been conn'd, which I doubt), something had to be done in the short term (which it was), but now things have to quickly return to near normal (with such additional measures as may be necessary).

Some of the airports were less prepared and / or less able to react quickly to the circumstances than others. Fact.

Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead were the obvious examples of that - no surprise (because of their size and destinations served, in the case of the first 2).

In my opinion, Ryanair et al have a legitimate case: however difficult it may be / have been to for BAA to 'turn on a sixpence', the airlines have a right to expect the airport(s) to provide a service (i.e. takeoff / landing slots, servicing, security, etc). However, I think that the debate is with BAA, not the government. 

[Sprogster]

There is a broader aspect to this in the UK governments current efforts to bring into line other European governments in making the current handbage restrictions a permanent measure across Europe. This poses a significant threat to the bottom line of low cost carriers such as Ryanair who operate on a 25 minute turnaround.

If flying becomes too much trouble over the longer term through such measures as the current inability of female passengers to even take a lipstick on board, longer waits, more delays and cancellations passenger numbers will fall and the cost of flying will increase substantively. 

[Quillan]

The airlines do not run the airports they just use them. They have contracts with the airport for which they pay a lot of money. The airlines build their services around the facilities that the airports offer. I can see the point these people are making which is that BAA or whoever the airlines have contracts with are not giving the service they were contracted to do. If I was in the airlines shoes I would sue for breach of contract which is what I thing Ryanair are doing or at least something near that. The fact that it is not really BAA's fault is a minor thing as it is they the airlines have the contracts with. If BAA then in turn wants to sue the government then thats down to them.

It's not in the governments interest to 'screw' the airlines including Ryanair because of the money they get in tax and the money they raise for third world. Not only do all people leaving the UK pay £2.50 towards helping poverty in the third world but as of next month all people landing in France will also have to pay a minor charge which will go directly to the United Nations. My point is that if the conditions make it not worth budget airlines to operate it would effect more than just the people wanting to fly and in a way the terrorists would have won.

[irnbru]

Michael O'Leary has a great penchant for any publicity opportunity but

why did he have the Winston Churchill look-alike?  It took 

something away from the serious points he did have to make.  

Pretty good look-alike, though.

By the way,  doesn't Mr O'L look as if he has a leprachaun in his ancestry?

[Owens88]

[quote user="Ian Horn"]In my opinion, Ryanair et al have a legitimate case: however difficult it may be / have been to for BAA to 'turn on a sixpence', the airlines have a right to expect the airport(s) to provide a service (i.e. takeoff / landing slots, servicing, security, etc). However, I think that the debate is with BAA, not the government. [/quote]

So. A passenger facing a Ryanair cancellation will not get compensation as it is 'force majeure' but Ryan wants to sue ( the taxpayers, the airports ? ) for extra costs being suffered through security checks following a known and anomalous real threat.

Cake and eat it too ?

 

Sorry for the repetition but I thought the arguments were well matched. No offence intended.

[Deimos]

When you book a ticket with Ryanair there are terms and conditions. You agree to these when you book your ticket. Apparently these mean that you will not get a refund under certain cancellation conditions. Whatever the rights and wrongs of these conditions you have agreed to them. Having agreed to them you cannot really complain too much about them. If you were not happy about them or thought they were unfair, etc. then you should not have agreed to them (there are other ways to get to places).

However, when Ryanair are stopped from flying they have a load of costs just keeping the aircraft on the ground. they still have to pay for the aircraft (through leasing or capital interest or whatever), still have to pay their staff, still have to pay BAA for the airport space, still have to pay insurance, etc., etc. thus they suddenly go to a fast loss making situation and its all because people are failing to provide the services they are contracted to provide (allegedly). Thus is it no surprise that they are seeking redress in this regard.

Ian

[Russethouse]

No, it isn't a surprise especially considering that most short haul carriers would like to get us to travel with only cabin luggage and now those plans are in tatters. Hard to justify extra charges on hold luggage in the circumstances.

However, many conditions change in various industries and successful enterprises are those that can quickly adapt. Lets see what Mr Ryan comes up with.

[Sprogster]

Ryanair's response today has been to increase their charges for checked in luggage!

Potential light at the end of the tunnel in that the UK Minister of Transport has just announced that he is now reviewing the current hand luggage restrictions and a further relaxation is likely within days.  Appears the reduced size implementation was the decision of an underling!?

Expect a continuing ban on travelling with liquids, but size restrictions will be probably increased back to the internationally agreed standard. If not Heathrow risks losing lucrative American transit passengers to Charles de Gaulle and Schipol, as it looks unlikely that Europe will follow the UK's lead in reducing the size of permissable hand luggage.

Interestingly the USA whilst banning liquids did not reduce the hand luggage size limit nor will it. Therefore, can you imagine American travellers transiting Heathrow to European destinations having their hand luggage taken from them, when alternatively they can transit through Charles de Gaulle without comparable restrictions. Paris Airports must have been rubbing their hands with glee!

[Clarkkent]

Interesting "filler" programme on Radio 4 at 17.40 tonight about Michael O'Leary and Ryanair.

You should find it on the Radio 4 website where you can listen to it for the next week or so.

[Russethouse]

 I read today that Mr O' Leary is denying that he said that each time he appears on TV complaining about the restrictions, he gets a 'spike' in booking figures.....hmmm

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Don't know what he's complaining about. Ryanair and all the others

already receive considerable advantage financially from the fact that

duty is not charged on jet fuel. Road users not only have to fork out

road fund licence and tolls but also, what, 60p a litre in the UK in

duty? Soooo....on the back of the envelope, 3000 litres of jet to move

100 people from Stansted to A Place In France = effective subsidy from

the public purse of £18 per head. Some of these figures may not be

exactly right, but you get the idea. OK, air passengers have to fork

out for airport taxes and so forth, but air travel is a luxury. Why

should it be subsidised in this manner?

(Dons helmet and slides behind the barricade)

[Tony F Dordogne]

I just wish that another line would open on the Bergerac Stanstead route so we didn't have to use Ryanair.

For a company that does so well, O'Leary reminds me of Sir Clive Woodward - a whinging twat - and I object to putting money, directly or indirectly, into his and his fellow director's pockets.