Airline gets fined

[tim123]

Good points. But safety and cancellations are not quite the same. Safety is definitely inside the "minimum that a company must deliver": reliability might be; but generosity when it goes wrong is definitely something the customer might be prepared to trade on, because it is really only a form of insurance. If I'm quite prepared to accept that a cancelled flight means no help out from the airline at all, is this not a deal that they and I should be free to make if we want?).

So, is this not a deal that you should be free to make with the seller of a Video? Yes?

But the state doesn't let you. It insists that when you buy a Video you are entitled to a guarantee that it works to a minimum standard.

As I said, these rules have come about, not because the nanny state interfered in the market of its own volition, but because after years of being ripped off by being sold duff electronic goods, consumers demanded it.

The state is just geting in early with insisting on 'travel guarentees'

But that's the cruel world, Ryanair didn't invent that;

This isn't a reason for not attempting to legislate a fairer world.

and if you in effect want me to pay more for my flights in order to cover those who might suffer more, that's arguable but at least admit that you're advocating Socialism, not minimum allowable behaviour from companies.

I refer to this as 'fairness'. You can call it what you like. It doesn't change the fact that I think that some things in the world should be fairer. This is a simple 'purchase' we are talking about, not wealth re-distribution. I don't think that you can infer my views on the latter, from my views on the former!

The outward/return bit doesn't always apply though: with Ryanair and Easyjet, and now also with many low-price fares on regular airlines, you can book eacj leg separately, so there is no out and return. I do that anyway, more because it's usually easier to cancel/change before the travel unit has begun (whether the travel unit is a single or a return).

From an insurance pov you are always making one outbound and one return trip (from the country you permanently reside in back to the county you permanently reside in). (You may make some other trips in between) You cannot get insurance that covers you for the consequential costs of failure of the return flight.

tim

[expat]

Currently Ryan Air (and some times even some of the big players) have been cancelling flights that have not had enough people on them to make them profitable.

Good point. No, I wouldn't say that's reasonable. I'd say in such a case they should be obliged to compensate those with whom they have broken a deal, for what it actually costs those people and not just for the cost of the unused ticket.

That would of course alter the arithmetic and they might decide that it wasn't worth cancelling it after all.

[Mailman]

If cost is your only concern Expat then perhaps you should consider this then.

Currently Ryan Air (and some times even some of the big players) have been cancelling flights that have not had enough people on them to make them profitable.

Now, whether you paid full fair or cut price it makes no difference. Your flight has still been cancelled because Ryan Air knows the plane doesnt have enough people on it to recoup costs.

There is absolutely no reason why the paying customer should suffer because Ryan Air cancelled this flight. You cannot argue that this is a reasonable thing to do because quite simply it is not!

If Ryan Air doesnt want to lose money then why schedule the flight in the first place? Surely they have enough people to work out which flights are statistically at risk from not making enough money to cover costs to be able to remove those flights from the flight schedule now, not 20 minutes before departure.

Yes there should be government regulations to control this kind of behaviour and no regulating this kind of behaviour is NOT going to increase the cost of my flight because if the route is really losing money for the airline then sooner or later they will axe it.

Mailman

[expat]

The way I see it is that this is just part of the 'minimum' contract terms that a company must deliver in order to trade. The fact that it pushes up costs is no more of a reason not to have this type of rule than to have minimum safety requirements or minimum wage rules (both of which push up costs).And don't think that you can say to people who don't want this "chose a better airline", cos the way things are going there won't be any airlines offering better service at higher cost. There will only be airlines operating the Ryanair model.
...
And lastly, you will find, if you look, that you *cannot* get an insurance policy that covers your out of pocket costs if an airline delays your return flight (only one that covers an outbound delay). And even if you could, it certainly won't cover your lost wages whilst you are sitting around twiddling your thumbs waiting to fly back.

tim

Good points. But safety and cancellations are not quite the same. Safety is definitely inside the "minimum that a company must deliver": reliability might be; but generosity when it goes wrong is definitely something the customer might be prepared to trade on, because it is really only a form of insurance. If I'm quite prepared to accept that a cancelled flight means no help out from the airline at all, is this not a deal that they and I should be free to make if we want?

I will admit it's OK for me to say: only myself to worry about, and able to self-insure (i.e. take the consequences if it goes wrong). And it is true that those who can least afford the damage are those most likely to take the cheap option and then suffer it. But that's the cruel world, Ryanair didn't invent that; and if you in effect want me to pay more for my flights in order to cover those who might suffer more, that's arguable but at least admit that you're advocating Socialism, not minimum allowable behaviour from companies.

The outward/return bit doesn't always apply though: with Ryanair and Easyjet, and now also with many low-price fares on regular airlines, you can book eacj leg separately, so there is no out and return. I do that anyway, more because it's usually easier to cancel/change before the travel unit has begun (whether the travel unit is a single or a return).

[tim123]

The way I see it is that this is just part of the 'minimum' contract terms that a company must deliver in order to trade. The fact that it pushes up costs is no more of a reason not to have this type of rule than to have minimum safety requirements or minimum wage rules (both of which push up costs).

When you don't have rules about minimum contract terms, companies engage in a race to the bottom, to deliver the shoddiest products at the lowest price just walking away when something is wrong. This is exactly what happened to consumer goods in the 50s&60s. Some consumers got a good deal, others got ripped off. Consumers got fed up with this and more importantly Governments got fed up with consumers complaining so we got consumer protection laws.

Up until recently airlines have not (for whatever reason) engaged in a race to the bottom, they sold a reasonable quality product at a high price and whilst not everyone was happy, there was stability.

And then along came Ryanair and the race to the bottom started. Knowing what will happen if they don't legislate, government have attempted to avoid the mistakes of before by getting in early.

I really don't think that once we reach (or even get close to) the bottom that anyone will be happy with the blood bath that results. You may think now that you are happy to pay Ryanair's prices and risk them canceling your flight. If this is the outbound flight of a spring weekend away then the cost to you is small. But it is equally likely to be the return half of a fortnight's holiday in a busy island resort with no empty flights for a week Think about it, you're standing at the airport with suitcases full of dirty clothes, tired screaming kids and all the hotels are full. What do you do then?

And don't think that you can say to people who don't want this "chose a better airline", cos the way things are going there won't be any airlines offering better service at higher cost. There will only be airlines operating the Ryanair model.

And lastly, you will find, if you look, that you *cannot* get an insurance policy that covers your out of pocket costs if an airline delays your return flight (only one that covers an outbound delay). And even if you could, it certainly won't cover your lost wages whilst you are sitting around twiddling your thumbs waiting to fly back.

tim

[expat]

if you have no problems what so ever with Ryan Air using dodgy as hell business practices ...

Hmm, did I say that?

[Mailman]

No. But the fact remains, if protection is included compulsorily, the price will go up to cover it. Ryanair is cheap because of how they run their business. If you'd like to use a business that is run in a way that you like more, but costs more, there are plenty.

The prices dont need to go up...all Ryan Air has to do is ensure its planes get off the ground ontime.

If these people are allowed to cancel flights without reason then thats not good for the punter.

Mind you...I take it if you have no problems what so ever with Ryan Air using dodgy as hell business practices then I assume you also have no problems with Agents using dodgy as hell business practices...after all, they are both companies out to make profit

Mailman

[Hart-floot]

What p**** me about Ryanair is the damage they are doing to the reputation and image of all Irish companies.

Let alone all the dodgy lobbying of the Irish Government (and the Irish MEP's) , getting regional governments to subsidies their operations, abusing their staff and customers, lobbying against the imposition of VAT on aircraft fuel etc etc etc etc etc etc

[expat]

I like competition and choice too. However what I dont like is being told my flight has been cancelled because of "technical difficulties" but only to find the aircraft they mentioned wasnt even in the country at the time!

Mailman

No. But the fact remains, if protection is included compulsorily, the price will go up to cover it. Ryanair is cheap because of how they run their business. If you'd like to use a business that is run in a way that you like more, but costs more, there are plenty.

[Mailman]

I like competition and choice too. However what I dont like is being told my flight has been cancelled because of "technical difficulties" but only to find the aircraft they mentioned wasnt even in the country at the time!

Mailman

[expat]

Anyone see a couple weeks ago one of the airlines (think it was Ryan Air) became the first to be fined under the new euro regs for delayed flights.

What I found funniest though was the reason given was technical difficulties BUT when the senior engineer was quizzed at the hearing the aircraft in question WASNT EVEN THE ONE THAT WAS FLYING!

The aircraft that had "technical difficulties" was in a different part of the country for fecks sake! The airline then tried to counter that because a flight leaving from Manchester had the same flight number then this meant the original flight wasnt cancelled...but merely delayed! The judge disagreed with them (as he should) and said it makes absolutely no difference if a flight the next day had the same flight number!

So the upshot was this geezer got £800 out of the feckers. Now if only everyone else had done the same thing from that flight, cowboys like Ryan Air wouldbe out of the airline business (but probably move in as employment agents! ).

Mailman

Personally I don't like this. When I fly on a cheap airline, I'm well aware that I 'm self-insuring against cancellation. Add in compulsory compensation and the price will go up. Without the choice that I currently have (to buy insurance or to take the risk myself).

I don't like flying Ryanair myself, but I don't run off knocking it just because of that. And if it wasn't for them (and the late Freddie Laker), my flights on "real" airlines would all have nice "old-fashioned" pricing, 800 or so per trip.

I like competition, and choice.

[Mailman]

Anyone see a couple weeks ago one of the airlines (think it was Ryan Air) became the first to be fined under the new euro regs for delayed flights.

What I found funniest though was the reason given was technical difficulties BUT when the senior engineer was quizzed at the hearing the aircraft in question WASNT EVEN THE ONE THAT WAS FLYING!

The aircraft that had "technical difficulties" was in a different part of the country for fecks sake! The airline then tried to counter that because a flight leaving from Manchester had the same flight number then this meant the original flight wasnt cancelled...but merely delayed! The judge disagreed with them (as he should) and said it makes absolutely no difference if a flight the next day had the same flight number!

So the upshot was this geezer got £800 out of the feckers. Now if only everyone else had done the same thing from that flight, cowboys like Ryan Air wouldbe out of the airline business (but probably move in as employment agents! ).

Mailman