AnOther Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 I do hope so ....[:)][:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted April 23, 2010 Author Share Posted April 23, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anton Redman II Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 As I read it the insurance companies are seeking to claim the eruption is an Act of God and therefore excluded from their liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceni Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoop Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 And travellers lose the option of cheap air travel. Fair enough, if that's what they want - which I rather doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 [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 [:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Théière Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 Took the words right out of my mouth RHAs 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Zoff Posted April 24, 2010 Share Posted April 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnOther Posted April 24, 2010 Author Share Posted April 24, 2010 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 byexceptional circumstances hindering the performance of the transportservice, which could not have been avoided even if all reasonablemeasures had been taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.