Ryanair Strike implications re Cancellations NO INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS POSTS

LXFlyer

You are entitled to be repaid any out of pocket accommodation expenses, plus meals as long as you keep the receipts. That’s covered by the airline’s duty of care to you.

Compensation on the other hand means being paid an additional lump sum aside from the out of pocket expenses due to the delay - that only applies where the delay is within the control of the airline.

smurfjed

you can't just stay in a 5* hotel and comp that

Why not? If thats the usual standard of hotel that I book (4 or 5), then why should i downgrade it to satisfy an airline?

JCX BXC

smurfjed wrote: »

Why not? If thats the usual standard of hotel that I book (4 or 5), then why should i downgrade it to satisfy an airline?

It's considered an unreasonable expense, hence not covered by EU261.

A 3* hotel is better than the airport floor in most cases!

smurfjed

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF
@JCX BXC, Is there a more recent version of this as I cant find any reference to expenses, reasonable or otherwise

L1011

JCX BXC wrote: »

It's considered an unreasonable expense, hence not covered by EU261.

A 3* hotel is better than the airport floor in most cases!

I could see a very interesting court case for when someone who is *already staying* in a higher grade hotel extends their stay due to a flight delay. Sheraton regulars might have the cash and desire to take such a case.

Locker10a

L1011 wrote: »

JCX BXC wrote: »

It's considered an unreasonable expense, hence not covered by EU261.

A 3* hotel is better than the airport floor in most cases!

I could see a very interesting court case for when someone who is *already staying* in a higher grade hotel extends their stay due to a flight delay. Sheraton regulars might have the cash and desire to take such a case.

Than the airline with reimburse to what they consider a reasonable cost, so if you choose to spend an extra €500 on a hotel and expense it they may just reimburse €280 or €310 or what ever limit is considered reasonable, other wise people would take the absolute piss!

L1011

Locker10a wrote: »

Than the airline with reimburse to what they consider a reasonable cost, so if you choose to spend an extra €500 on a hotel and expense it they may just reimburse €280 or €310 or what ever limit is considered reasonable, other wise people would take the absolute piss!

That's my point - if I stay in 5* (I don't - but I do stay in 4*, a specific brand if possible at that) I would not consider slumming it because an airline deems it as "not reasonable" - its entirely reasonable. Its particularly problematic when someone is already in the dear hotel and wants to extend.

If someone decides to stay in the Shelbourne after a week of Airbnb'ing a spare room somewhere, sure.

Courts are going to have to decide this. I suspect the airlines won't win on their definition.

Fattes

L1011 wrote: »

That's my point - if I stay in 5* (I don't - but I do stay in 4*, a specific brand if possible at that) I would not consider slumming it because an airline deems it as "not reasonable" - its entirely reasonable. Its particularly problematic when someone is already in the dear hotel and wants to extend.

If someone decides to stay in the Shelbourne after a week of Airbnb'ing a spare room somewhere, sure.

Courts are going to have to decide this. I suspect the airlines won't win on their definition.

Under the EU regultions 5* are not considered a Reasonable expenses regardless, of where you had been staying or normally stay. It is designed to get you a bed in an emergency or when flights are cancelled.
Reasonable is considered 3* or 4* of you can show no alternatives. Simple way to compare is the flight compensation! If your compensation is )250 a reasonable hotel expense is not a €500 a night 5*

L1011

Fattes wrote: »

Under the EU regultions 5* are not considered a Reasonable expenses regardless, of where you had been staying or normally stay. It is designed to get you a bed in an emergency or when flights are cancelled.
Reasonable is considered 3* or 4* of you can show no alternatives. Simple way to compare is the flight compensation! If your compensation is )250 a reasonable hotel expense is not a €500 a night 5*

Where in the regs does it define reasonable, precisely?

Fattes

L1011 wrote: »

Where in the regs does it define reasonable, precisely?

It doesn't The Regulation also does not explicitly state that an airline has to reimburse you if they fail to provide food or accommodation, and you purchase it and make a claim later.
However, it would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the Regulation for the airline to refuse to reimburse reasonable expenditure for items it should have provided under the Regulation. Also there is the fact that the "Reasonable Person" principle Is applied to cases involving a "duty of care" or a "standard of care"

A reasonable person, presented with a set of facts, illustrating circumstances outside of a parties control, would not expect a duty of care to extend to a 5* hotel for an airline ticket that cost less than an average 5* room. Or for an airline to be exposed to a huge liability in providing emergency accommodation to 300 passengers at €550 a night.

Also a "reasonable person" Could apply to providing accommodation as close to the airport as possible in a convenient location to return to the airport.

The test is common place in French, Portuguese, irish, German and other EU juristriction is both Tort and Commercial law. So although not explicitly outlined in the regulations it is implied via legal principals, case law.

L1011

Fattes wrote: »

A reasonable person, presented with a set of facts, illustrating circumstances outside of a parties control, would not expect a duty of care to extend to a 5* hotel for an airline ticket that cost less than an average 5* room. Or for an airline to be exposed to a huge liability in providing emergency accommodation to 300 passengers at €550 a night.

The duty of care exists to reasonable costs even on 99c fares, as O'Leary found out to his horror despite making similar claims during the unspellable Icelandic volcano incidents. Cost of fare has no relation to duty of care under 261.

If I'm already staying in a hotel and an airline delays my return I cannot see any situation where they can claim it is unreasonable for me to continue to stay in that hotel. I'm absolutely confident that the customer would win in such a case.

Letting an airline decide what is "reasonable" is in itself unreasonable, illogical and absolutely biased in favour of the airline. Airlines have the option of not providing international travel if they find the requirements of 261 onerous.

Fattes

L1011 wrote: »

Cost of fare has no relation to duty of care under 261.

If I'm already staying in a hotel and an airline delays my return I cannot see any situation where they can claim it is unreasonable for me to continue to stay in that hotel. I'm absolutely confident that the customer would win in such a case.

Actually you would not be staying in the hotel, unless you had already paid for it as U261, provides customer responsibilities, including checking in on time for the flight and being at the airport.

Secondly the airline does not decide what is reasonable the "reasonable Person" is a legal construct, a basis used by most European courts to determine what is reasonable in various circumstances.

Again EU261 does not state that airlines must refund customers for hotels and reasonable food expenses, but courts have upheld that they should based on the spirit of the law and existing case law and legal principles. You can not accept this and then believe that a court will turn all legal principals on its head for another section of the same legislation

A consumer would have to find a judge who would turn over a few hundred years of Case, Commercial and Tort law to get a 5* hotel paid in a case outside of the airlines control, in relation to a duty of care.

You don't seem to understand that any judgment is not just based on EU261. The DUTY OF CARE is the important wording, it does not say it should make customers whole or thy customers should be treated to the stndards they want. It simply states the need to provide accommodation, transport to and from, and food.

There is absolutely zero chance any case applying for compensation for a 5* hotel would work. A judge would perhaps award a cash amount of an average 3* that same night or if the airline provided a hotel to others a cash equivelant of the same

L1011

Fattes wrote: »

There is absolutely zero chance any case applying for compensation for a 5* hotel would work. A judge would perhaps award a cash amount of an average 3* that same night or if the airline provided a hotel to others a cash equivelant of the same

I'm pretty confident you'll eventually be found wrong here. Have you a single case, anywhere in Europe will do to be honest, to use as precedent here? Specifically relating to 261, not something else.

The idea of there being a notional value is clearly pointless, as is mentioning anything about an airline having to pay for high values x number of passengers - if you need 300 rooms in Dublin in peak summer at zero notice you're going to be paying hundreds per bed even if you manage to convince people to stay in a B&B.

Fattes

L1011 wrote: »

I'm pretty confident you'll eventually be found wrong here. Have you a single case, anywhere in Europe will do to be honest, to use as precedent here? Specifically relating to 261, not something else.

The idea of there being a notional value is clearly pointless, as is mentioning anything about an airline having to pay for high values x number of passengers - if you need 300 rooms in Dublin in peak summer at zero notice you're going to be paying hundreds per bed even if you manage to convince people to stay in a B&B.

Let's try this another way as you appear to not understand the facts and how established principles of law impact on Eu261. Show me where in EU 261 that it says that an airline should reimburse you or that as you are sure you are entitled to it? It doesn't nowhere in the regulation does it state it as an entitlement, however airlines honour it as based on the reasonable person principle it is assumed it is implied.

The same works for the type of claim you make is it reasonable to expect reimbursement for a 5 course 3* Michelin resteraunt meal for a 6 hour delay? No and it won't be honoured same as a 5* hotel. Nobody has brought a test cast on it and if they can find a Legal team dumb enough to try it fair play to them

L1011

You've no test cases and keep making irrelevant references to the cost of the ticket that we know for a fact has no bearing on the airlines duties

Its not worth arguing until you can provide a test case

Fattes

L1011 wrote: »

You've no test cases and keep making irrelevant references to the cost of the ticket that we know for a fact has no bearing on the airlines duties

Its not worth arguing until you can provide a test case

I have mentioned cost of tickets once, as it is already built in to the legislation. The legislation limits airlines liabilities in the event of cancellation, the same principle that drives reasonable expenses.

I have repeatedly mentioned the legal principal of "Reasonable person" or Clapham Omnibus Health care home Lyd V Common services, jochaim (Germany) or Willie E I. The USA an principal that is already applied to The legislation in relation to claiming expenses back from the airline. Something which you appear to be ignoring which is odd, as it is a principal legal pillar in cases of this nature.

I have no test case because there is none, equally you have no case to support your hypothetical argument.. You don't seem to understand the relevance of CASE LAW when no TEST CASE EXISTS, what I have given you is case law and legal precedent via the importance of the "Reasonable Person" test for Jusges and juries in contract law disputes or where a DUTY OF CARE is present.

Now please answer this PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE EU 261 states a carrier Must refund you reasonable expenses? You are 100% sure they should so show me the relevant case or passage in the law?

You can't because neither exist! But you are certain you are entitled to them, why is that? The basis for this is the expected interpretation of a court based on the spirit of the legislation. The same applies to the standard of accommodation. But the next time you are delayed and book 5* let us know how you get on

Even the EU owns website in relation to the legislation emphasises "Reasonable" expenses!

L1011

Calm down.

never_mind

Thanks for the comments and for answering my original question.



Mods feel free to close this hijacked thread.

Fattes

L1011 wrote: »

Calm down.

Perfectly calm, just explaining how the law works in relation to this particular legislation, what the relevant legal precedents, judgments and principals that apply to the interpretation of the Law. Compared to someone making wildly inaccurate statements about what duty of care the airlines have to passengers

Loueln

Has Ryanair started paying the EU261 compensations yet?
Applied 5 weeks and no reply from Ryanair

Jamie2k9

http://www.thejournal.ie/ryanair-rostering-3662994-Oct2017/

Ryanair tells pilots they will likely have to take all their annual leave in first three months of next year

Loueln

Our flights were one of the first wave cancelled by ryanair in September.
Cancelled with less than 48 hours notice.
Flight refunds were recieved and goodwill vouchers recieved.
Applied via Ryanairs online EU261 compensation form and notified the application was recieved.
Nothing since in 5 weeks
Anybody get the EU261 compensation yet?

joeysoap

You'd hope they would have the cop on to let the pilots have the majority of leave in Jan- Mar and Oct -Nov with one week in April -May or September. none in June-August or December. All of it in Jan-Mar is a receipt for trouble.

Blut2

joeysoap wrote: »

You'd hope they would have the cop on to let the pilots have the majority of leave in Jan- Mar and Oct -Nov with one week in April -May or September. none in June-August or December. All of it in Jan-Mar is a receipt for trouble.

They're probably trying to get the pilots to be on as low a number as possible of flight hours in their rolling 365 day limit coming up to next summer. Better in that regard to have them take all leave Jan-Mar.

Whether the Ryanair system will be able to cope with all the pilots on leave at the same time in Jan-Mar is the next question.

basill

Another threat from FR. Gets a bit tiring after a while. Fatigue management will come into play and they wont be able to do it once the letters from IFALPA, BALPA, IALPA etc start hitting the IAA. Recipe for disaster working crews with limited experience that hard during a summer schedule with no annual leave.

__..__

I don't feel comfortable flying on a plane piloted by someone who hasn't had leave in a long time, never mind being treated like sh1t by their employer. This is getting scary.

joeysoap

I've never worked anywhere that staff didn't plan a holiday around a family occasion i.e. Weddings etc. And pilots not having ANY holidays when their children are on school holidays is not good for anyone.

Hands up those who have never looked at a roster and wondered if they had any holidays left to take?

Comhrá

Whatever about the safety aspect of having aircrew flying for extended periods of time without the normal balance of work/leave, I would be wary of Ryanair needing all hands on deck for the peak season in 2018.

It all sounds like they're resorting to contingency planning and anticipating further pilot shortages next year. Hard to see this all being alright on the night.

Bob24

Possible threat to their contracting model in the UK: https://www.ft.com/content/1759879c-b996-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589 Mod Note, PAY LINK, so don't bother if you don't want to subscribe

For now everything is still more or less under control. But it seems like things are boiling all over the place which could start becoming a concern about the sustainability of their business model.

aaronm13

Need to go to Belgium the first weekend in February and worried about booking with Ryanair. Their flights are only €100 for two whereas Aer Lingus are €230. Is the Brussels flights affected much or is it luck of the draw? Slightly leaning towards Aer Lingus for piece of mind but I could do wit, how the extra €130 in my pocket for the weekend.