Ryanair to sue disruptive passenger.

Its not often I agree with Ryanair but fair play to them.

Since COVID there has been a huge rise in disruptive and abusive behaviour not only on airlines but everywhere.

I've always said that everyone should work with the public at some stage in their lives. Even if it was just a summer job working in a supermarket or fast food place. You'll never trott out that "The customer is always right" sh1te or give dogs abuse to somebody just doing their job for minimum wage because you made a mistake. The public are scum.

It's about time these people realise there are consequences for their actions. Behave like an animal and f*CK up hundreds of people's day? Pay the price. Oh I'm sure this case will be "Oh I apologise, this was completely out of character. Not normally like this"... Suuuuuure

Edit:Typo

Excellent move here by Ryanair.

I'm guessing that when the plane diverted to Porto, the flight crew then ran out of hours for another take off - landing to the intend end destination, thus stinging Ryanair with hotel costs for the remaining passengers..

Hope they win, and hope it sends a message (but it won't, because a drunken lout is a drunken lout and no amount of precedents will make a drunken lout not be a drunken lout).

If this gets as far as court there will be a sob story about meds and alcohol to help with flying anxiety and a difficult home life etc…

Fair play to Ryanair. Trying to attach consequences to actions - for some people this will be a first.

The report doesn't actually say that drink or drunkeness was a factor in this case, or give any details of the behaviour concerned, beyond saying that it was "unruly", "inexcusable" and "completely unacceptable".

I, too, would be very glad to see airlines take measures against passengers guilty of antisocial behaviour. But, apart from the lack of detail about the behaviour in question, one thing that leaps out here is that the claim is for only €15,000. That's supposed to "cover the cost of overnight accommodation and other expenses it had to pay for people onboard the flight"? Really? That's some very cheap overnight accommodation for 160 people.

The signifance of the €15,000 figure is, I suspect, that it's the maximum amount you can claim in civil proceedings in the District Court. If you're looking for any more than that, you need to start your proceedings in a higher court. The report says that these proceedings are to be taken in the Circuit Court, where Ryanair could claim up to €75,000. So why aren't they claiming that amount?

The lack of detail in the report, and the hard-to-explain aspects of the little bit of detail that is given, lead me to the unworthy suspicion that this is just another Ryanair attention-seeking thought-bubble, like the proposal to charge for toilet use or offer cheap "standing room" tickets. It's one more thing that will get people talking about Ryanair, but that will never actually happen. Which would be a shame.

As a side point, I wonder do airlines not have insurance against this sort of business interruption ? Then the insurance company would be the one pursuing the culprit for damages.

Surely if you were unlucky and had a lot of these incidents it could actually bankrupt an airline.

Lacks all details.

Exactly!

My point is that they say they're going in the Circuit Court, but they're only seeking 15k. I entirely understand why they would want to limit their exposure to costs here, but if they're happy to seek only 15k, why not go in the District Court, which would be the lowest-cost option for them? On the other hand, if they have decided to go in the Circuit Court, why not seek 75k? Once you go in the Circuit Court, you don't save on court fees or other costs by limiting your claim to 15k. (And, in fact, should you win your case, you'll only get an order for costs from the loser on the District Court scale on the basis that a claim for 15k could — and should — have been brought in the District Court.)

This is the kind of thing that suggests to me that the idea is only half-baked. They've tossed it around, noted that there's a decision to be made about what court to sue in that has implications for how much damages you can claim, and haven't actually decided which way they'll jump on that. They've just fired out a press release saying they're going to sue, when the evidence suggests they haven't done the basic groundwork you would need to do if you were actually making a decision to really sue.

The point of this, to my regret, is not to sue anybody. it's to get people talking about Ryanair. (And it has worked.)

I'd imagine it's based on what the disruptive individuals are generally able to pay, ability to get the case turned around and dealt with and to act as a deterrence for others.

The goal isn't to right the finances involved from a single disruptive event.

I wonder could other disrupted passengers also sue the individual involved?

Ryanair is probably not in a position to know what disruptive individuals are generally able to pay. It knows very little about its passengers; it's not as though they have a long and extensive trading relationship.

I could see merit in a policy of issuing District Court proceedings against offending passengers in cases where liablity wasn't in doubt. Regardless of the means of the passenger the airline wouldn't recover anything like the true cost of the diversion, but the point would not really be cost recovery; it would be deterrence.

For the airline, the cost-benefit analysis would be "what does it cost us to mount these proceedings, on the assumption that we will actually recover little or nothing, and what would the likely deterrent effect be, if people thought they might end up in court (and in the newspapers!) as a result of their drunken antics?"

But the fact that airlines don't often bring proceedings of this kind suggest that, on the whole, they reckon the cost and trouble involved is not likely to be worth it for whatever deterrence would result.

Of course, people who are disruptive on aircraft are at risk of criminal proceedings. It's a matter for the prosecution authorities in (usually) the country where the plane lands, but the airlines are probably not without influence and probably do like to see these cases prosecuted. Prosecutions do happen from time to time and are reported in the newspapers. So the question the airlines will ask themselves is whether taking civil proceedings as well will add any further deterrent effect.

just a thought:

If those individuals purchased travel insurance from Ryanair, would that cover a civil case?

Regarding District versus Circuit, I suppose it's a matter of Cost vs Gain (I won't say "Reward"). I suppose they are not there to get EVERYTHING back but as much as possible as quick and "easy" as possible and to make an example. Could possibly bang out 3 or 4 of Districts a year instead of 1 over two or three years that they could lose.

All facts being present, these should almost be routine: Flight diverted/interrupted? Verifiable, accountable costs incurred (Passenger compensation, accommodation, fees etc.)? Arrested off plane? Charges pressed? All provable, officially accounted and documented. Summary judgement of minimum 10K plus minimum of 2 year No-Fly. I would assume that these would all need to be meticulously documented as per international airline requirements.

There may be genuine disruptions that would not be due to unruly/bad behaviour but these would not result in arrest/charges - of course medical but also people having genuine panic attacks etc so of course they would not meet the criteria for summary fines

I say bring it on.

Why would insurance cover someone being disruptive?

They would I am sure cover if it was diverted for a medical emergency.

Ryanair is probably not in a position to know what disruptive individuals are generally able to pay. It knows very little about its passengers; it's not as though they have a long and extensive trading relationship.

private investigator could quickly figure out if someone is worth suing. Ryanair seem to be using this as a test case, so the money isn't the main issue.

😁

Great idea! Keep them out altogether!

I've never had a flight disrupted/diverted/delayed by an unruly passenger. Closest I got was when I was going on a long haul to Asia. Was flying to Amsterdam to connect and there was a bunch of early 20s lads. One was pretty loud about his ears popping and annoying. A bit on the tipsy side. Was a short flight but something he said made me think briefly that they were going to be on my MUCH longer flight and I thought "Oh great!" (They weren't). But after 30 mins or so he calmed down and they were fine. Just a bunch of lads off to Amsterdam and they were just a bit excited and loud. They were all loud but nothing major. Just them being excited about going to Amsterdam and me being grumpy me.

Another time on a transatlantic flight, we all get on and see this couple on with a VERY young baby. Everyone groans as they go past to their seat expecting 6 or 7 hours of crying…. Not a single whimper. Baby awake and playful and not doped up the whole flight. Laughing and making cute baby noises. Every passenger getting off the plane to the couple: "Best. Baby. EVER!"

But yeah, if I had paid good money for a flight and accommodation and lost a day of holidays or was late for a meeting etc then I'd be rightly p*ssed because someone CHOSE not to behave themself. Screw 'em.

While I welcome this action, I do find some Ryan Air staff particularly grumpy and abrupt - I always feel they’re just waiting for you to have a go at them so they can get you banned from the flight.

To be honest I read more stories about disabled people having to crawl off flights because the facilities weren't forth coming or airline staff abusing customers then I have of passengers being unruly.

I have also witnessed staff from multiple airlines serve alcohol to people who are drunk, me on several occasions.

Ryanair getting a boat of advertising for 15k?

Micko probably reckons e15,000 is the most he can extract from the passengers(or maybe he empathises,haa).After all,once costs ton both sides are added it'll be a lot more than 15 thou.

That amount seems very low for a diversion and a sandwich/bed/transfer coaches for every passenger.

Possibly a loss of a house or other coming the passenger's way.

Werent some of the airlines (or maybe just Ryanair) looking for a 2 drink limit in the departures area bars of the airport a while back? Citing safety issues.. as in don't give us steaming drunk passengers to have to manage in a confined space for a few hours…

So it's clear that this is something Ryanair have been looking to deal with for a while now… and fair play to them as it'll only benefit the rest of us.

If Ryanair wins this case, (and I really hope that they do), I wonder could each of the other 159 passengers on that flight subsequently sue Johnny Gobshite* for compensation, due to his having ruined the first day of their holidays.

• Mods please note that this isn't his real name.

Has the passenger been named?

Yes could the other passengers sue them also or would they have taken a case against Ryanair directly, it might frighten other abusive drunk drug etc., passengers but I do think airlines should limit the alcohol passengers can have

Been on a flight with an unruly passenger. We were diverted to some airport in Denmark and she was taken off by the Danish police. She was absolutely pished and had her kids with her…

My guess is Ryanair won’t end up getting a penny from the passenger as it will probably turn out to be some scumbag on benefits with no care or consideration for rules/people and no assets to their name.

Good on Ryanair for pursuing though. If anything gives publicity to others there can be consequences.

It was also,pointed on Boards that Ryanair(just Ryanair)might want to load up their own passengers with expensive drinks.Never put anything past Micko.