Industrial Action

cycleoin

We have seen the Airline Pilots Association declare a strike and then call it off in the past few days. On foot of their notice of strike Aer Lingus sent text messages to passengers asking them to make alternative arrangements. Passengers amy then have made alternative arrangements forking out large sums of money to get back from their destinations only to find that the strike was called off.

This leads to a peculiar situation whereby travel insurers won't cough up because there was no strike and aerlingus aren't liable because they provided the service sold. Who should have to pick up the bill for the extra flights booked? Is this a case of caveat emptor and a case whereby the consumer is going to be the big loser?

Tom Young

Basic principles of Contract Law: Offer +Acceptance = Agreement. Agreement + Consideration = Legally Enforceable Contract.

Aer Lingus should be made to rebate the costs of the initial flights. In McGuill v. Aer Lingus and United Airlines (unreported October 3 1983 at 13-14):

“The event must be an unexpected event. If one party anticipated or should have anticipated the possibility of the event which is alleged to cause the frustration and did not incorporated (sic) a clause into the contract to deal with it, he should not be permitted to rely on the happening of the event as causing frustration.”

In McGuill the defendant claimed that a strike by its employees amounted to a frustrating event; this claim was rejected since they were “aware of the threat or possibility of a strike... [and] took the risk of entering into the contract without including a provision to safeguard its position.” (at 15)

This is somewhat simplistic. Did you read the terms and conditions?

cycleoin

It didn't affect me in the least, but I've heard of other people being screwd! I thought that there was a european directive governing this area but I can't find it. If basic contract principles apply, what grounds would a prospective plaintiff have for issuing proceedings? I mean they have entered into two contracts which are enforceable, if Aerlingus fulfilled their contractual obligations insofar as the strike was called off and the flight went ahead as scheduled then they have not breached their contract? Would it be more applicable to sue under tort or is this an area whereby the courts would not provide for pure economic loss?

Tom Young

This one: EC 261/2004. Its about as useful as a chocolate tea pot if the airline claims technical faults. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/passenger_rights/doc/2007/com_2007_0168_en.pdf

I've been mulling over the initial post. As there was an intervening communique that may act to superceed the contractual terms.

I have successfully relied upon the EU directive now 7 times (I travel a lot).

Recently the Aviation Authority will deal and handle complaints in a more efficient and thorough fashion.

I'd letter Aer Lingus with your costs, initially and accrued in addition, date and time of SMS (If unsolicited state your objection), booking reference and your issue. Give them 21 working days to reply, and then send to Aviation Authority. www.aviationreg.ie

With regard to the question of proceedings. Chances are it would fall into the category of small claims in the first instance. Misrepresentation and frustration of contract would be the hooks to hang a claim on. I'd go the non-proceedings route first.

cycleoin

Salmon of Knowledge!

Victor

Tom Young wrote:

date and time of SMS (If unsolicited state your objection),

Airlines seek your phone number and e-mail address specificly for the purpose of notifying you of (potential) disruption.