Hi,

I was on a Friday night sleeper from Euston to Inverness that brought
down power cables at Preston and got stuck. Given that this was also
the train I would be returning on on Sunday, and there was no guarentee
that it would make it to inverness I returned to London. Scotrail have
refunded me the cost of the rail tickets (with vouchers...)

However, I also had hotel accomodation and car hire booked which I was
billed for due to having to cancel at such short notice. Scotrail say
they are not liable for any losses suffered as a result of the problems
- is this reasonable of them ? The staff on the train said I would be
compensated for hotels etc and suggested I would be better off
returning rather than continuing on to inverness as they had no idea
how long it would take nor how I would return on the Sunday.

Thanks,
Ian.

wrote in message
news:1126212399.985923.39290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> Hi,
>
> I was on a Friday night sleeper from Euston to Inverness that brought
> down power cables at Preston and got stuck. Given that this was also
> the train I would be returning on on Sunday, and there was no guarentee
> that it would make it to inverness I returned to London. Scotrail have
> refunded me the cost of the rail tickets (with vouchers...)
>
> However, I also had hotel accomodation and car hire booked which I was
> billed for due to having to cancel at such short notice. Scotrail say
> they are not liable for any losses suffered as a result of the problems
> - is this reasonable of them ? The staff on the train said I would be
> compensated for hotels etc and suggested I would be better off
> returning rather than continuing on to inverness as they had no idea
> how long it would take nor how I would return on the Sunday.
>

I don't think you have any right to compensation for 'consequential loss',
either through the National Conditions of Carriage or general law. In view
of the advice you were given by staff on the train, however, it might be
worth a further letter to Scotrail (with evidence, e.g. receipts, for the
costs you had to incur) and see if they will be more generous - though it
would be on an ex gratia basis.

Peter

Peter Masson wrote:

>  wrote in message
> news:1126212399.985923.39290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was on a Friday night sleeper from Euston to Inverness that brought
> > down power cables at Preston and got stuck. Given that this was also
> > the train I would be returning on on Sunday, and there was no guarentee
> > that it would make it to inverness I returned to London. Scotrail have
> > refunded me the cost of the rail tickets (with vouchers...)
> >
> > However, I also had hotel accomodation and car hire booked which I was
> > billed for due to having to cancel at such short notice. Scotrail say
> > they are not liable for any losses suffered as a result of the problems
> > - is this reasonable of them ? The staff on the train said I would be
> > compensated for hotels etc and suggested I would be better off
> > returning rather than continuing on to inverness as they had no idea
> > how long it would take nor how I would return on the Sunday.
> >
> I don't think you have any right to compensation for 'consequential loss',
> either through the National Conditions of Carriage or general law. In view
> of the advice you were given by staff on the train, however, it might be
> worth a further letter to Scotrail (with evidence, e.g. receipts, for the
> costs you had to incur) and see if they will be more generous - though it
> would be on an ex gratia basis.



It's lucky it was the railways.  Unlike some, at least they lose money
through this sort of thing, rather than taking the opportunity to
fleece you.

If it was Ryanair, they might refund the amount paid for the original
ticket (probably small), but they would not only refuse to refund
consequential losses*, they would charge an extortionate rate for your
last-minute booking of a different train back to London.

So it could be worse.

*And the insurance they sell wouldn't cover it either.

"MIG"  wrote in
news:1126215821.552970.81880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: 


> If it was Ryanair, they might refund the amount paid for the original
> ticket (probably small), but they would not only refuse to refund
> consequential losses*, they would charge an extortionate rate for your
> last-minute booking of a different train back to London.


True enough, but you get what you pay for. The Liverpool - Venice (well, 
OK, Treviso) and return flights I've booked for next month cost a grand 
total of UKP 25.43, so I don't expect silver service. A Blackpool - 
Stansted flight I was on last winter was a cool six hours late, with no 
compensation, no free refreshments, precious little information, and tough 
s*** for anyone with onward connections. As I said, with Ryanair, you get 
what you pay for.

Rick.

"Rick Hughes"  wrote in message
news:Xns96CBEB8716C59rjhtalk21com@217.158.240.23...

> "MIG"  wrote in
> news:1126215821.552970.81880@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> > If it was Ryanair, they might refund the amount paid for the original
> > ticket (probably small), but they would not only refuse to refund
> > consequential losses*, they would charge an extortionate rate for your
> > last-minute booking of a different train back to London.
>
> True enough, but you get what you pay for. The Liverpool - Venice (well,
> OK, Treviso) and return flights I've booked for next month cost a grand
> total of UKP 25.43, so I don't expect silver service. A Blackpool -
> Stansted flight I was on last winter was a cool six hours late, with no
> compensation, no free refreshments, precious little information, and tough
> s*** for anyone with onward connections. As I said, with Ryanair, you get
> what you pay for.
>
> Rick.


Then there is getting to and from the obscure airports they use.  Liverpool
earlier this year was hell.  Going the bus service turned up on time at the
station but we then had a tour around the building site that Liverpool
appears to be just now. Coming back there was a bus missing from the half
hourly service so it was hourly.  Great way to end a holiday, we will not be
using Liverpool again.

Paul

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ePyQ9ljFrotY@localhost: 

 

> If an EasyJet flight is four hours late, they refund your fare and fly
> you anyway. Provided you have left a minimum time, which I think is 
> two hours, for an Easyjet-Easyjet connection, they put you on the next
> available flight to your final destination at no extra charge.


I didn't know that, although I've used Easyjet too. To be fair, the 
example I mentioned was the only seriously late flight I've had, out of 
20 or more return trips  with budget airlines.


> Ryanair get away with their appalling customer service because they 
> are perceived as cheap: book with less than two weeks to go, though, 
> and they are often substantially more expensive than the full service 
> airlines.


Undoubtedly. But I'm both flexible and a cheapskate, so I pick and 
choose.

I have a sneaking admiration for Ryanair's Michael O'Leary, who's often 
telephoned by R4's Today programme to defend some action of his company. 
Whereas bosses of other companies in the same situation squirm and mutter 
platitudes about how sorry they are, and determined not to let it happen 
again, O'Leary just says, "What don't these people understand about the 
concept of budget airlines?"

Rick.

"Paul Stevenson"  wrote in
news:dfredc$kph$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk: 

 

> Then there is getting to and from the obscure airports they use. 
> Liverpool earlier this year was hell.  Going the bus service turned up
> on time at the station but we then had a tour around the building site
> that Liverpool appears to be just now. Coming back there was a bus
> missing from the half hourly service so it was hourly.  Great way to
> end a holiday, we will not be using Liverpool again.


Obscure airports are half the fun! Mind you, I'm not sure that Liverpool 
airport could be called the back of beyond. It's closer to the city centre 
than some major airports are to other cities.  There are plenty of buses, 
whether to Garston / Hunts Cross for Merseyrail, or direct to the city 
centre. A rail link would be better, but is probably not justified for the 
traffic levels.

Rick

From: "Ian Johnston" 
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: Compensation for cancelled journey
Date: 9 Sep 2005 12:57:29 GMT
Organization: Home
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-l1FuGwx9bNkk@localhost>
References:  <dfq93n$dbb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>   <cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-ePyQ9ljFrotY@localhost> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net yQecCl2E9wHhoIFHjAe1WQbM2QbGsZDsLSE5aFv+CLmkgBcsMA
User-Agent: ProNews/2 V1.54.cp093
Path: News.100ProofNews.com!in.100proofnews.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
Xref: OS30 uk.railway:131590

"Peter Masson"  wrote in message 
news:dfq93n$dbb$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...

>
>  wrote in message
> news:1126212399.985923.39290@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was on a Friday night sleeper from Euston to Inverness that brought
>> down power cables at Preston and got stuck. Given that this was also
>> the train I would be returning on on Sunday, and there was no guarentee
>> that it would make it to inverness I returned to London. Scotrail have
>> refunded me the cost of the rail tickets (with vouchers...)
>>
>> However, I also had hotel accomodation and car hire booked which I was
>> billed for due to having to cancel at such short notice. Scotrail say
>> they are not liable for any losses suffered as a result of the problems
>> - is this reasonable of them ? The staff on the train said I would be
>> compensated for hotels etc and suggested I would be better off
>> returning rather than continuing on to inverness as they had no idea
>> how long it would take nor how I would return on the Sunday.
>>
> I don't think you have any right to compensation for 'consequential loss',
> either through the National Conditions of Carriage or general law.


You certainly have such a right under general law.

You mave have had that right taken away because of something
that is specific to railway operations.

tim

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:42:36 +0100, "Paul Stevenson"
 wrote:


>Then there is getting to and from the obscure airports they use.  Liverpool
>earlier this year was hell. 


Liverpool Airport is hardly "obscure".


> Going the bus service turned up on time at the
>station but we then had a tour around the building site that Liverpool
>appears to be just now.


How else do you propose the bus gets to the airport other than driving
through, umm, Liverpool?  Anyhow, there will be improvements - the new
Allerton station will have a dedicated Airport shuttle/


> Coming back there was a bus missing from the half
>hourly service so it was hourly.  Great way to end a holiday, we will not be
>using Liverpool again.


One cancelled bus and a half-hour delay is hardly the end of the
world.  Unpleasant, yes, but it's unwise to rely on an air journey (or
a road journey to an airport) where you've got so little slack you
can't cope with that.  Just go off and have a coffee or something.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:37:58 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>You mave have had that right taken away because of something
>that is specific to railway operations.


To be fair, I understand why consequential loss is normally excepted
from these things.  Can you imagine the railway being responsible for
a loss of a million pounds when a delay causes a lucrative customer
contract not to be signed?  You'd really be getting into the realm of
having to pay different amounts to insure each ticket depending on the
possible consequential losses.  You might even find the railway
refusing passengers because their journey is too high risk!

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:43220b14.2412779@news.tesco.net...

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:37:58 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>  wrote:
>
>>You mave have had that right taken away because of something
>>that is specific to railway operations.
>
> To be fair, I understand why consequential loss is normally excepted
> from these things.  Can you imagine the railway being responsible for
> a loss of a million pounds when a delay causes a lucrative customer
> contract not to be signed?


The courts will not accept a claim for such a loss.

Apart from the fact that you will be unlikely to be able to prove
that the late arrival was the sole reason for the loss, a company
(person) would be expected to make more robust plans for an
item of this value and would have contributed to their loss
by not doing so.
The loss of a hotel booking does not fall into this category,
it is a normal everyday risk that anybody might take.

tim

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 08:58:57 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>The loss of a hotel booking does not fall into this category,
>it is a normal everyday risk that anybody might take.


Travel insurance?

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 11:23:03 on Sat, 10 Sep
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>The loss of a hotel booking does not fall into this category,
>>it is a normal everyday risk that anybody might take.
>
>Travel insurance?


Insurance often seeks to exclude things we intuitively expect to be
covered for :-(

For example, I just did a quick scan of the Direct Line travel insurance
(picked somewhat at random as a famous name):

The risk which has been described seems to be "curtailment"

        We will pay [up to 3000] for your part of the costs of the
        journey or one-way trip for unused personal accommodation,
        transport charges and other pre-paid charges which have been
        paid or where there is a contract to pay before your journey or
        one-way trip begins, which cannot be recovered from anywhere
        else.

Unfortunately, dodgy transport isn't one of the allowable reasons for
curtailment, and the only sections where dodgy transport apply ("missed
departure" and "abandonment") aren't valid for trips "wholly in the UK".

-- 
Roland Perry

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 22:21:33, wensleydale@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil
Williams) wrote:

>>
>>Then there is getting to and from the obscure airports they use.  Liverpool
>>earlier this year was hell. 
>
>Liverpool Airport is hardly "obscure".


Well, certainly not since it was renamed Liverpool John Lennon
Airport!

Paul Harley

-- 
Remove "eeek" to contact me!

Ian Johnston wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 12:55:51 UTC, Rick Hughes  wrote:
>
> : Whereas bosses of other companies in the same situation squirm and mutter
> : platitudes about how sorry they are, and determined not to let it happen
> : again, O'Leary just says, "What don't these people understand about the
> : concept of budget airlines?"
>
> Which is all very well when he is selling cheap tickets, but slightly
> less impressive when the price is through the roof. And ignores the
> fact that EasyJet are much more flexible (they'll give you a full
> refund if you decide not to take a two hour late flight: Ryanair never
> refund.)




It's even less impressive when the airline makes money out of things
going wrong, whether they deliberately make them go wrong or not.  If
Ryanair traps you somewhere with a cancelled flight, you get your £20
back, but Ryanair may be the only way out of there at an extremely high
price.

There are stories of people being delayed by Ryanair on spurious
security grounds, and then being told it's OK after all, after their
flight home has gone, leaving them to forced to pay a high price for
the next flight.

Michael O'Leary is not just a loveable rogue or sharp businessman.  He
is a crook.  The railways are much better than this.  They may not
compensate you for everything, but they certainly don't earn money out
of your misfortune.

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:38:05 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Unfortunately, dodgy transport isn't one of the allowable reasons for
>curtailment, and the only sections where dodgy transport apply ("missed
>departure" and "abandonment") aren't valid for trips "wholly in the UK".


Direct Line, being the original "low cost" insurance company, have a
habit of excluding things that you'd reasonably expect were included.
All the more reason to read an insurance policy in full before
agreeing to it...

Then again, perhaps "dodgy transport" in the UK is an uninsurable risk
because of its frequency :(

All that aside, because the railway cannot know the possible
consequential losses attributable to a given journey, I don't think it
is reasonable for it to be required to effectively provide insurance
for passengers to cover it.  If passengers desire insurance, it's up
to them to find it (if they require it). 

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On 10 Sep 2005 08:58:03 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:


>Michael O'Leary is not just a loveable rogue or sharp businessman.  He
>is a crook.  The railways are much better than this.


As, to be fair, are EasyJet.  The two tend to get lumped together, but
from what I can see they are *very* different operations indeed - and
the fare levels tend to show this as well if you look at similar
destinations on the two websites at the same time.

And, yes, I share your dislike for O'Leary, personally.  Him and his
airline represent to me many things that are wrong with the
cost-cutting obsession (as distinct from profit maximisation by other
means) and irresponsibility that appears to have grown in business of
late.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

In message , at 17:03:31 on Sat, 10 Sep 
2005, Neil Williams  remarked:

>>Unfortunately, dodgy transport isn't one of the allowable reasons for
>>curtailment, and the only sections where dodgy transport apply ("missed
>>departure" and "abandonment") aren't valid for trips "wholly in the UK".
>
>Direct Line, being the original "low cost" insurance company, have a
>habit of excluding things that you'd reasonably expect were included.
>All the more reason to read an insurance policy in full before
>agreeing to it...


If you can find a competitor's with better terms I'd be glad to hear 
about it. Their exclusions make a lot of sense, if your market is 
primarily people flying off for a week's holiday abroad. The mistake is 
expecting them (or indeed anyone else) to have a policy for people 
spending a weekend in the UK.
-- 
Roland Perry

Neil Williams wrote:


> As, to be fair, are EasyJet.  The two tend to get lumped together, but
> from what I can see they are *very* different operations indeed - and
> the fare levels tend to show this as well if you look at similar
> destinations on the two websites at the same time.


Sorry to continue OT, but I agree that they are very different
operations - EasyJet having a far more professional appearance and
operation in just about every way (despite what some of the people on
the Airline TV programme try to make out).

It's not always the case that the difference in price is that great
though - for a wet Wednesday in November, for London to Berlin day
return flights, the cost would be £27.35 with Ryanair (from Stansted)
or £30.98 with EasyJet (from Luton). Prices are what you would
actually pay using a credit card to book. Given those prices, I would
go with EasyJet everytime.

The difference between the two on price is IMHO that Ryanair are ready
to cut or increase prices willy-nilly, whereas EasyJet will generally
follow a steady and reasonably predictable increase in price according
to demand.

I've looked at Ryanair short flights before, some months before travel
date, that would cost around £80 return - a similar cost to BA, and
50% more than EasyJet, both for similar flights. The Ryanair flights
came down to £36 when I rechecked three or four weeks later, as they
were having one of their regular 'seat sales'.

Ryanair's pricing policy reminds me of the now departed Eisenegger
clothing chain - seemingly always advertising sales, but you always got
the feeling that no-one would have ever paid full price for the
clothes.

wrote in message 
news:1126389090.175103.47080@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Neil Williams wrote:




>Ryanair's pricing policy reminds me of the now departed Eisenegger
>clothing chain - seemingly always advertising sales, but you always got
>the feeling that no-one would have ever paid full price for the
>clothes.


Except that with FR, some people do.  They must be really
desperate to travel.

tim

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:28:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


> The mistake is 
>expecting them (or indeed anyone else) to have a policy for people 
>spending a weekend in the UK.


If there is a market for insurance for travel within the UK, someone
will I'm sure offer it.  The mistake is probably (as you say)
expecting them (or anyone else) to cover it in a policy primarily
intended for foreign travel.  That's down to reading the small print.

None of which changes my opinion that it's not reasonable to expect
the railway, or National Express, or a taxi company, or whatever, to
provide said insurance themselves.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

Neil Williams wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 22:28:00 +0100, Roland Perry 
> wrote:
>
> > The mistake is
> >expecting them (or indeed anyone else) to have a policy for people
> >spending a weekend in the UK.
>
> If there is a market for insurance for travel within the UK, someone
> will I'm sure offer it.  The mistake is probably (as you say)
> expecting them (or anyone else) to cover it in a policy primarily
> intended for foreign travel.  That's down to reading the small print.
>
> None of which changes my opinion that it's not reasonable to expect
> the railway, or National Express, or a taxi company, or whatever, to
> provide said insurance themselves.




There's always TheTrainline which charges you to insure eg a day return
from London to Basildon if you don't spot the tick box.  Don't know
what it covers, since I always untick it.

"Ian Johnston"  wrote in
news:cCUlhtvFIYkV-pn2-l1FuGwx9bNkk@localhost: 

 

> Which is all very well when he is selling cheap tickets, but slightly 
> less impressive when the price is through the roof. And ignores the 
> fact that EasyJet are much more flexible (they'll give you a full 
> refund if you decide not to take a two hour late flight: Ryanair never
> refund.)


I think Ryanair /has/ to refund, under the new EU compensation rules. 
Though I don't doubt that they'll try and wriggle out of their obligations 
whenever they think they can get away with it. Might be a good idea to 
print out the regs to take with me, just in case ...

The airlines have been trying to overturn the new rules in court, but
this report in the Sunday Telegraph

http://tinyurl.com/cufcy

suggests they are out of luck.

Rick.

"MIG"  wrote in
news:1126367883.748048.313710@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: 


> Michael O'Leary is not just a loveable rogue or sharp businessman.  He
> is a crook.  


I didn't say he was a loveable rogue, but he is a sharp businessman. That's 
why his airline is a success, and many of his rivals have gone bang. He 
makes money out of his deals with the travelling public, and, like any 
businessman, will try to get the better deal. You can view this as crooked, 
it's a free country.


> The railways are much better than this.  They may not
> compensate you for everything, but they certainly don't earn money out
> of your misfortune.


It's my misfortune to pay income tax, a substantial chunk of which does go 
to the railways (which I don't mind, if spent wisely), and to their 
shareholders (which I'm less keen on.)  O'Leary, Branson - is there much 
difference?

Rick.

"tim \(moved to sweden\)"  wrote in 
news:3oh5m3F5uk9dU1@individual.net:

 

> Except that with FR, some people do.  They must be really
> desperate to travel.


If I knew what 'FR' was, I might know whether or not this is a dig at me. 
And I didn't even use any Latin ...

I don't see it as desperation, more a simple equation: cheap flights = more 
holidays. 

Rick.

"Rick Hughes"  wrote in message 
news:Xns96CECCF4447EFrjhtalk21com@195.245.201.150...

> "tim \(moved to sweden\)"  wrote in
> news:3oh5m3F5uk9dU1@individual.net:
>
>
>> Except that with FR, some people do.  They must be really
>> desperate to travel.
>
> If I knew what 'FR' was,


It's the code for Ryanair.


> I might know whether or not this is a dig at me.
> And I didn't even use any Latin ...
>
> I don't see it as desperation, more a simple equation: cheap flights = 
> more
> holidays.


The people who pay the full fare must be desperate .

Booked today, the fare for me to go home this coming
Friday is 180 quid plus tax, one way.

Some people must pay this, I bet that by Wednesday
the flight will be full.

(I usually book on 8 weeks notice and pay 40-60 quid
return, all in)

tim


>
> Rick.
> 

"tim \(moved to sweden\)"  wrote in 
news:3ojisfF6biegU1@individual.net:


>> If I knew what 'FR' was,
> 
> It's the code for Ryanair.


Of course it is ... all I could think of was Ffestiniog Railway!

Rick.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:37:35 +0200, tim (moved to sweden) wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[Ryanair]

> The people who pay the full fare must be desperate .
> 
> Booked today, the fare for me to go home this coming
> Friday is 180 quid plus tax, one way.
> 
> Some people must pay this, I bet that by Wednesday
> the flight will be full.


Ouch.

I've just booked Luton - Krakow - Dortmund and Geneva - East Midlands
with EasyJet for under GBP 65 including all taxes, although admittedly
that's for the end of next month - and I was in two minds about paying
that...

Here's a strange one, though: I was looking at Prague rather than
Krakow at first, and EasyJet's quote for Prague - Dortmund was 0 CZK
(zero!) plus tax - but GBP 1.36 if you wanted to pay in Sterling (or
if you added the flight to a leg ex Britain).

-- 
Ross, a.k.a.
Prof. E. Scrooge, CT, 153 & bar, Doctor of Cynicism (U. Life)
Hon. Pres., National Soc. for the Encouragement for Cruelty to Dogboxes
Proud to be the target of various trolls, sock puppets and other idiots

>It's my misfortune to pay income tax, a substantial chunk of which does go
>to the railways (which I don't mind, if spent wisely), and to their
>shareholders (which I'm less keen on.)  O'Leary, Branson - is there much
>difference?



If you book an APEX return from London to Scotland, and your scheduled
return train is cancelled, will Branson refund half of your APEX price
and then charge you the full First Class open single price to get home
on the next train?

That's the equivalent of what Ryanair does if they screw up.  I don't
think Branson earns money out of delays and cancellations.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1126525857.094027.195330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >It's my misfortune to pay income tax, a substantial chunk of which does 
> >go
>>to the railways (which I don't mind, if spent wisely), and to their
>>shareholders (which I'm less keen on.)  O'Leary, Branson - is there much
>>difference?
>
>
> If you book an APEX return from London to Scotland, and your scheduled
> return train is cancelled, will Branson refund half of your APEX price
> and then charge you the full First Class open single price to get home
> on the next train?
>
> That's the equivalent of what Ryanair does if they screw up.


I find this very hard to believe.

I know that they have this cavalier approach to compensation,
but I really can't believe that, if they cancel the flight (for whatever
reason) and you *do* transfer to the next available flight that
this doesn't happen at no cost to you. [1]

The problem with FR is that they run full flights and often the next
available flight is quite likely to be several days (or weeks) away.
Most people won't accept the offered date and then end up paying
the full fare to *another* airline.  In theory, this extra bill ought to be
picked up by FR, but of course it isn't (unless you sue - case law,
such as it is[2], is that you should win)

[1] Having just read the T&C they do indeed suggest that
you will be transfered at no cost.
[2] It's a case on the small claims track.  It isn't binding
on future cases.

tim

> I find this very hard to believe.
>
> I know that they have this cavalier approach to compensation,
> but I really can't believe that, if they cancel the flight (for whatever
> reason) and you *do* transfer to the next available flight that
> this doesn't happen at no cost to you. [1]
>
> The problem with FR is that they run full flights and often the next
> available flight is quite likely to be several days (or weeks) away.
> Most people won't accept the offered date and then end up paying
> the full fare to *another* airline.  In theory, this extra bill ought to be
> picked up by FR, but of course it isn't (unless you sue - case law,
> such as it is[2], is that you should win)
>
> [1] Having just read the T&C they do indeed suggest that
> you will be transfered at no cost.
> [2] It's a case on the small claims track.  It isn't binding
> on future cases.




Ryanair states

"If flights are cancelled by Ryanair and no suitable alternative flight
is available, we will, upon application, refund all monies paid in
respect of the cancelled flight, without further liability."

This doesn't define what a suitable alternative is, and bear in mind
that a lot of places Ryanair flies to aren't served by any alternative
airlines.  The original question was about the difference between
O'Leary and Branson.  Not a fan of either, the the latter does a little
better than this.

Bear in mind also that Ryanair can (and reportedly does) close checkins
early, resell your seat before you arrive (on time) and refuse to let
you get on flights on dubious security grounds.

In Ryanair's case (but not reputable airlines, which at least get you
home late) this can earn Ryanair a large amount of money from people
desperate to get home.  Again, Branson doesn't do anything like this.

"MIG"  wrote in
news:1126525857.094027.195330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: 


> If you book an APEX return from London to Scotland, and your scheduled
> return train is cancelled, will Branson refund half of your APEX price
> and then charge you the full First Class open single price to get home
> on the next train?


Branson will of course provide whatever compensation he is obliged to do 
under the Passengers' Charter, which all TOCS are compelled to adhere to. 
But I never stated that the railways' compensation was in any way 
inferior to the airlines'; my original point was that if you pay peanuts 
for a flight, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the cracks in the 
customer service become apparent. Ryanair has an appalling, and well 
known, record on customer care, so I don't think we're at odds on that 
point. FWIW, for my trip next month, Ryanair was the third airline I 
checked, after Easyjet and Jet2. Both these wanted around triple the 
total fare I was quoted by Ryanair. I'm on a budget; the choice was made 
for me. I'll take the risk that all goes well.

I said I admire O'Leary's bluntness, which I find refreshing. Some may 
prefer the Bible-thumping homophobia of a Souter, or the avuncular, 
jumper-wearing matiness of a Branson as their ideal in a businessman, but 
I believe the only quality that really counts in any successful 
businessman is ruthlessness, whatever their public image suggests. You 
called O'Leary a crook, I don't think he is, or no more so than any other 
businessman.


> That's the equivalent of what Ryanair does if they screw up.  I don't
> think Branson earns money out of delays and cancellations.


Branson doesn't need to; he's discovered his own private money pit. I'm a 
contributor.

Rick.

"Rick Hughes"  wrote in message 
news:Xns96CFC35EAB555rjhtalk21com@195.8.68.222...

> "MIG"  wrote in
> news:1126525857.094027.195330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> If you book an APEX return from London to Scotland, and your scheduled
>> return train is cancelled, will Branson refund half of your APEX price
>> and then charge you the full First Class open single price to get home
>> on the next train?
>
> Branson will of course provide whatever compensation he is obliged to do
> under the Passengers' Charter, which all TOCS are compelled to adhere to.
> But I never stated that the railways' compensation was in any way
> inferior to the airlines'; my original point was that if you pay peanuts
> for a flight, it shouldn't come as a surprise when the cracks in the
> customer service become apparent.


But it needn't be this way.

I was rather hoping that the EU compensation directive would
fix the major problems, but the perceived loopholes have made
it useless (for now).

But how many flights does Molly cancel - one in a few hundred?
How much does it cost to compensate pax properly when it
does happen?  I'd guess a couple of quid per pax per flight.

Instead of going on one of his rampages and complaing to the
European Court about the law, he could have just added it to
the cost of the flight like his 'wheelchair' tax.

So just stick at the bottom of the taxes "compensation fund fee:
2 quid".  Who's going to complain about that?
Surely everyone's happy?

tim

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1126547768.877173.131760@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

>> I find this very hard to believe.
>>
>> I know that they have this cavalier approach to compensation,
>> but I really can't believe that, if they cancel the flight (for whatever
>> reason) and you *do* transfer to the next available flight that
>> this doesn't happen at no cost to you. [1]
>>
>> The problem with FR is that they run full flights and often the next
>> available flight is quite likely to be several days (or weeks) away.
>> Most people won't accept the offered date and then end up paying
>> the full fare to *another* airline.  In theory, this extra bill ought to 
>> be
>> picked up by FR, but of course it isn't (unless you sue - case law,
>> such as it is[2], is that you should win)
>>
>> [1] Having just read the T&C they do indeed suggest that
>> you will be transfered at no cost.
>> [2] It's a case on the small claims track.  It isn't binding
>> on future cases.
>
>
>
> Ryanair states
>
> "If flights are cancelled by Ryanair and no suitable alternative flight
> is available, we will, upon application, refund all monies paid in
> respect of the cancelled flight, without further liability."
>
> This doesn't define what a suitable alternative is, and bear in mind
> that a lot of places Ryanair flies to aren't served by any alternative
> airlines.  The original question was about the difference between
> O'Leary and Branson.


I wasn't answering the question.  I was answering the claim
that for a cancelled a flight they gave you your money back
and then charged you the current price for the next flight.

They don't, they try and move you to another flight which could
be in lots of days time. Yes, I know that's not idea but is *isn't*
what was claimed.


> Bear in mind also that Ryanair can


Where in the T&C's does it say that they are contractually
allowed to do this?


> (and reportedly does) close checkins
> early, resell your seat before you arrive (on time) and refuse to let
> you get on flights on dubious security grounds.


I don't believe you.

I know that it's not conclusive, but I've seen on the telly
(that other airline) the attempts of pax who turn up late to
prove that they are not actually late.


> In Ryanair's case (but not reputable airlines, which at least get you
> home late) this can earn Ryanair a large amount of money from people
> desperate to get home.


It can earn FR a couple of hundred quid.  Sorry, Molly Malone
may be king of sharp practice, but this looks far too sharp a trick
even for him.

tim

"tim \(moved to sweden\)"  wrote in
news:3om2eiF6hrigU1@individual.net: 

 

> But how many flights does Molly cancel - one in a few hundred?
> How much does it cost to compensate pax properly when it
> does happen?  I'd guess a couple of quid per pax per flight.


If that. Ryanair likes to crow about its punctuality and cancellation 
statistics. If it regularly beats its competitors, as it frequently claims, 
then logically it would cost it less than those competitors to offer proper 
compensation. 

Rick.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:15:32 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>So just stick at the bottom of the taxes "compensation fund fee:
>2 quid".  Who's going to complain about that?


Me, because the whole "plus taxes" crap put over by the "budget"
airlines is downright misleading.  The price stated should be the
price paid, as it is in just about[1] all retail.

What's a fuel surcharge?  It's a *fare increase*.  The reason is
irrelevant.

[1] IT mail-order has always been fond of plus VAT.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

>It can earn FR a couple of hundred quid.  Sorry, Molly Malone
>may be king of sharp practice, but this looks far too sharp a trick
>even for him.



You don't believe it because you are a reasonable person, while I am
inclined to think, from what I have experienced, that the other
reported experiences are true.  Normal human decency does not apply.

If they are true, it would answer the question about the difference
between O'Leary and Branson; I think we'd agree about that.

>If that. Ryanair likes to crow about its punctuality and cancellation
>statistics. If it regularly beats its competitors, as it frequently claims,
>then logically it would cost it less than those competitors to offer proper
>compensation.



They also crow about their low level of customer complaints.  But then,
they don't publish email addresses or answer the phone (and if you do
get held in a phone queue while trying to complain, or anything else,
you are likely to be charged at premium rates).

Personally, I agree with Ryanair that huge rates of compensation when
people haven't paid much don't make sense.  I'd be happy to accept that
there was no compensation for a delay, as long as they got me home.

The problem for me isn't the compensation, it's having to pay extra
once they've stuck me somewhere and I've got no other way home.

In message , at 
18:11:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, MIG  
remarked:

>The problem for me isn't the compensation, it's having to pay extra
>once they've stuck me somewhere and I've got no other way home.


If the next flight they can put you on is in three day's time, who pays 
for the hotel and meals?
-- 
Roland Perry

On 12 Sep 2005 10:56:08 -0700, "MIG" 
wrote:




>
>Bear in mind also that Ryanair can (and reportedly does) close checkins
>early, resell your seat before you arrive (on time) and refuse to let
>you get on flights on dubious security grounds.
>
>In Ryanair's case (but not reputable airlines, which at least get you
>home late) this can earn Ryanair a large amount of money from people
>desperate to get home.  Again, Branson doesn't do anything like this.


There was a case in the recent past where a "reputable airline",  I
think KLM, was found to be selling more tickets than seats on the
plane for a flight from Cape Town to Europe - several people got home
up to a week late. IIRC the defence put up by KLM was something like
"there are always no-shows" but unfortunately for them on this
occasion everyone turned up........

A friend is an airline captain - according to him if they arrive the
same day they are on time!

G

In message 
          Gavin Hamilton <gavin@hamilton.powernet.co.ukremovethis> wrote:


> On 12 Sep 2005 10:56:08 -0700, "MIG" 
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >Bear in mind also that Ryanair can (and reportedly does) close checkins
> >early, resell your seat before you arrive (on time) and refuse to let
> >you get on flights on dubious security grounds.
> >
> >In Ryanair's case (but not reputable airlines, which at least get you
> >home late) this can earn Ryanair a large amount of money from people
> >desperate to get home.  Again, Branson doesn't do anything like this.
> 
> There was a case in the recent past where a "reputable airline",  I
> think KLM, was found to be selling more tickets than seats on the
> plane for a flight from Cape Town to Europe - several people got home
> up to a week late. IIRC the defence put up by KLM was something like
> "there are always no-shows" but unfortunately for them on this
> occasion everyone turned up........


Standard pracrice with all scheduled airlines.  Happened to me coming back
from Trondheim a few years ago, they put out a tannoy for volunteers to take
a later and nore roundabout route and I got 100 quid cash in hand as
compensation, which was great as I was travelling on business and hadn't paid
for the ticket in the forst place.


> 
> A friend is an airline captain - according to him if they arrive the
> same day they are on time!
> 


Workd for BA does he?

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall wrote:


> Standard pracrice with all scheduled airlines.  Happened to me 
> coming back from Trondheim a few years ago, they put out a tannoy 
> for volunteers to take a later and nore roundabout route and I got 
> 100 quid cash in hand as compensation, which was great as I was 
> travelling on business and hadn't paid for the ticket in the forst 
> place.


Quite often when I had to travel Gla-LHR on the first British Midland 
flight of a weekday (yawn...), they would be calling for volunteers to 
be bumped to a later flight in return for cash in hand.  Haven't been 
in that situation for a while now, though.  And, sadly, as I had a 
meeting to meet (which was why I was there so early in the first 
place), I was never able to take the offer.

In message , at 
10:00:32 on Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Alan J. Flavell  
remarked:

>Quite often when I had to travel Gla-LHR on the first British Midland
>flight of a weekday (yawn...), they would be calling for volunteers to
>be bumped to a later flight in return for cash in hand.  Haven't been
>in that situation for a while now, though.  And, sadly, as I had a
>meeting to meet (which was why I was there so early in the first
>place), I was never able to take the offer.


Used to happen frequently on American Airlines internal flights (less so 
on Transatlantic). Sadly, the one time I was in a position to take up an 
offer of $500, I wasn't one of the volunteers who was chosen.

More recently (but nevertheless a few years ago) I've seen it on KLM-UK 
on a Friday evening from Amsterdam to Stansted. I don't think they fly 
that route any more.
-- 
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at
> 18:11:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, MIG 
> remarked:
> >The problem for me isn't the compensation, it's having to pay extra
> >once they've stuck me somewhere and I've got no other way home.
>
> If the next flight they can put you on is in three day's time, who pays
> for the hotel and meals?
> --
> Roland Perry



That might possibly be coverable by insurance.  I would be inclined to
get a train to an airport with a real airline, the cost of which (and
flight) wouldn't be coverable by insurance.

But that, as people have pointed out, is the predictable risk of flying
with a "budget" airline (ie where you have to budget to get yourself
out of trouble).  But at least Ryanair would not then be making extra
money out of you for a problem they were responsible for.

But I realised a while ago that I can't afford to buy cheap.

In message 
          "Alan J. Flavell"  wrote:


> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall wrote:
> 
> > Standard pracrice with all scheduled airlines.  Happened to me 
> > coming back from Trondheim a few years ago, they put out a tannoy 
> > for volunteers to take a later and nore roundabout route and I got 
> > 100 quid cash in hand as compensation, which was great as I was 
> > travelling on business and hadn't paid for the ticket in the forst 
> > place.
> 
> Quite often when I had to travel Gla-LHR on the first British Midland 
> flight of a weekday (yawn...), they would be calling for volunteers to 
> be bumped to a later flight in return for cash in hand.  Haven't been 
> in that situation for a while now, though.  And, sadly, as I had a 
> meeting to meet (which was why I was there so early in the first 
> place), I was never able to take the offer.


I was lucky, I was returning from a job, had all day to get home.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509130955090.26350@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...

> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Graeme Wall wrote:
>
>> Standard pracrice with all scheduled airlines.  Happened to me
>> coming back from Trondheim a few years ago, they put out a tannoy
>> for volunteers to take a later and nore roundabout route and I got
>> 100 quid cash in hand as compensation, which was great as I was
>> travelling on business and hadn't paid for the ticket in the forst
>> place.
>
> Quite often when I had to travel Gla-LHR on the first British Midland
> flight of a weekday (yawn...), they would be calling for volunteers to
> be bumped to a later flight in return for cash in hand.  Haven't been
> in that situation for a while now, though.  And, sadly, as I had a
> meeting to meet (which was why I was there so early in the first
> place), I was never able to take the offer.


I volunteered once (I think 400 USD was on offer) for a
trans-american flight.
But as I had a FF card they upgraded me to first instead.
The only time I have ever slept on a plane and woken up
not feeling worse than if I hadn't slept at all.

Tim

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1126606462.547558.43040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message , at
>> 18:11:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, MIG 
>> remarked:
>> >The problem for me isn't the compensation, it's having to pay extra
>> >once they've stuck me somewhere and I've got no other way home.
>>
>> If the next flight they can put you on is in three day's time, who pays
>> for the hotel and meals?
>> --
>> Roland Perry
>
>
> That might possibly be coverable by insurance.


Who's yours or the airline's?

You'll probably be suprised to learn that for the return part
of a journey, basic insurance doesn't cover it (the airline
are expected to pick up the tab).


>  I would be inclined to
> get a train to an airport with a real airline, the cost of which (and
> flight) wouldn't be coverable by insurance.


Again, the airline should be picking up the tab.


> But that, as people have pointed out, is the predictable risk of flying
> with a "budget" airline (ie where you have to budget to get yourself
> out of trouble).


No it's not predictable, that's the point.  It happens to one in
a thousand people - *randomly*, and the cost for being that
one in a thousand can be as much as 100 times the saving
that you made flying with the cheepie airline.  Isn't it so
much better if the airline is *forced* to pick up the tab and
everyone's fare goes up by 2 quid?


>  But at least Ryanair would not then be making extra
> money out of you for a problem they were responsible for.


Why do you persist in suggesting tha FR charge you more for
the alternative flight.


> But I realised a while ago that I can't afford to buy cheap.


Why not.  Consumer Contract law is the same for every one,
personally I see no reason why Molloy Malone should be
allowed to opt out.

"Neil Williams"  wrote in message 
news:432609fd.974681@news.tesco.net...

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 21:15:32 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
>  wrote:
>
>>So just stick at the bottom of the taxes "compensation fund fee:
>>2 quid".  Who's going to complain about that?
>
> Me, because the whole "plus taxes" crap put over by the "budget"
> airlines is downright misleading.


This is a different arguement.  I also think FR's headline pricing
shouldn't be allowed.  But I'm not going to cut off my nose to
spite my face.  With FR, a  round trip from UK-Europe
consistently costs me 40-60 quid.  I'm not going to not
book it, because his advertising sucks.

Anyway, back to the question, would you complain if the
fare became 45-65 because it included some real delay
compensation?

tim

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1126573381.111274.64550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

> >It can earn FR a couple of hundred quid.  Sorry, Molly Malone
>>may be king of sharp practice, but this looks far too sharp a trick
>>even for him.
>
>
> You don't believe it because you are a reasonable person, while I am
> inclined to think, from what I have experienced, that the other
> reported experiences are true.


What reported experiences.  Some third hand chinese whispers?

tim



>  Normal human decency does not apply.
>
> If they are true, it would answer the question about the difference
> between O'Leary and Branson; I think we'd agree about that.
> 

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 08:47:58 +0100, Gavin Hamilton
<gavin@hamilton.powernet.co.ukremovethis> wrote:


>There was a case in the recent past where a "reputable airline",  I
>think KLM, was found to be selling more tickets than seats on the
>plane for a flight from Cape Town to Europe - several people got home
>up to a week late. IIRC the defence put up by KLM was something like
>"there are always no-shows" but unfortunately for them on this
>occasion everyone turned up........


All the so-called reputable airlines do this, and it is disgraceful.

EasyJet, OTOH, do not, and I believe nor do Ryanair, to their (rare)
credit.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:38:03 +0200, "tim \(moved to sweden\)"
 wrote:


>Anyway, back to the question, would you complain if the
>fare became 45-65 because it included some real delay
>compensation?


No, though I'd likely avoid them anyway as I feel uncomfortable about
the idea of cutting costs to the bone in a means of transport like
flying.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:43:59 +0100, Graeme Wall
 wrote:



>
>> 
>> A friend is an airline captain - according to him if they arrive the
>> same day they are on time!
>> 
>
>Workd for BA does he?


Nope........... 

G

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

> "MIG"  wrote in message
> news:1126606462.547558.43040@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Roland Perry wrote:
> >> In message , at
> >> 18:11:33 on Mon, 12 Sep 2005, MIG 
> >> remarked:
> >> >The problem for me isn't the compensation, it's having to pay extra
> >> >once they've stuck me somewhere and I've got no other way home.
> >>
> >> If the next flight they can put you on is in three day's time, who pays
> >> for the hotel and meals?
> >> --
> >> Roland Perry
> >
> >
> > That might possibly be coverable by insurance.
>
> Who's yours or the airline's?
>
> You'll probably be suprised to learn that for the return part
> of a journey, basic insurance doesn't cover it (the airline
> are expected to pick up the tab).
>
> >  I would be inclined to
> > get a train to an airport with a real airline, the cost of which (and
> > flight) wouldn't be coverable by insurance.
>
> Again, the airline should be picking up the tab.
>
> > But that, as people have pointed out, is the predictable risk of flying
> > with a "budget" airline (ie where you have to budget to get yourself
> > out of trouble).
>
> No it's not predictable, that's the point.  It happens to one in
> a thousand people - *randomly*, and the cost for being that
> one in a thousand can be as much as 100 times the saving
> that you made flying with the cheepie airline.  Isn't it so
> much better if the airline is *forced* to pick up the tab and
> everyone's fare goes up by 2 quid?
>
> >  But at least Ryanair would not then be making extra
> > money out of you for a problem they were responsible for.
>
> Why do you persist in suggesting tha FR charge you more for
> the alternative flight.
>
> > But I realised a while ago that I can't afford to buy cheap.
>
> Why not.  Consumer Contract law is the same for every one,
> personally I see no reason why Molloy Malone should be
> allowed to opt out.




I agree in general, my position is that it's a bit like trying to fly
(no pun intended) before you can crawl.  There are huge improvements
that could be made before reaching the Utopia of Ryanair providing
compensation.

Bear in mind that Ryanair very specifically does NOT sell return
tickets.  Everything is a single journey, so anything you mention about
return journeys doesn't apply (even though by any reasonable
definition, people generally are doing return journeys).

If Ryanair screws up such that your plans are ruined, they won't
cooperate with finding a reasonable way out of the situation, they deem
you to have "chosen" to change your flight (or whatever) and charge you
the full whack.  I know that from direct experience, and remember, it's
never a "return" flight by their definition.

There are probably different kinds of insurance available.  What
Ryanair flogs might cover the cost of a toothbrush while you wait for
them to get round to helping you, but it won't cover any decisions you
make to get yourself out of the situation in a reasonable way.  It
mainly seems to deal with medical problems on holiday.

"MIG"  writes:


> Bear in mind that Ryanair very specifically does NOT sell return
> tickets.  Everything is a single journey, so anything you mention about
> return journeys doesn't apply (even though by any reasonable
> definition, people generally are doing return journeys).


But in the case of a consumer claiming compensation for the expenses
of the delayed 'return' leg, would their definition be accepted by a
court? Or would the court decide that they are just trying to avoid
their responsibilities and rule that the 2 tickets sold together do
constitute a return ticket?

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

> "MIG"  wrote in message
> news:1126694850.503334.323330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> >> > But I realised a while ago that I can't afford to buy cheap.
> >>
> >> Why not.  Consumer Contract law is the same for every one,
> >> personally I see no reason why Molloy Malone should be
> >> allowed to opt out.
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree in general, my position is that it's a bit like trying to fly
> > (no pun intended) before you can crawl.  There are huge improvements
> > that could be made before reaching the Utopia of Ryanair providing
> > compensation.
> >
> > Bear in mind that Ryanair very specifically does NOT sell return
> > tickets.
>
> Yes they do.  I buy both legs together charged for in one charge.
> This makes it a return ticket whatever the T&Cs may say.
> (The legal basis of this statement is "if it looks like a duck,
> walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....").
> They would be laughed at if they tried to claim in court that
> what they have sold is not a return
>
> If FR want to claim that they only sell single tickets then they will
> have to sell them that way.  My guess is that would have far fewer
> customers if you had to commit to an outboud before finding out
> that your required return is full
>
> >  Everything is a single journey, so anything you mention about
> > return journeys doesn't apply (even though by any reasonable
> > definition, people generally are doing return journeys).
> >
> > If Ryanair screws up such that your plans are ruined, they won't
> > cooperate with finding a reasonable way out of the situation, they deem
> > you to have "chosen" to change your flight (or whatever)
>
> How can *you* have 'chosen' to change it, if you arrive at the
> airport in time for the flight and it isn't there to take you.
>
> > and charge you
> > the full whack.  I know that from direct experience, and remember, it's
> > never a "return" flight by their definition.
>
> It's a return flight
>
> > There are probably different kinds of insurance available.  What
> > Ryanair flogs might cover the cost of a toothbrush while you wait for
> > them to get round to helping you, but it won't cover any decisions you
> > make to get yourself out of the situation in a reasonable way.  It
> > mainly seems to deal with medical problems on holiday.
>
> I've no idea what their insurance gives you.  I can't read the one
> that I am allowed to buy.




I really can't answer any questions about what a judge would do if
anyone took Ryanair to court.  I'm not a judge and don't know what
pressures might be put on them, but it's bleedin obvious that most
people don't try going to court and/or can't afford to.

It's also evident that Ryanair, having studied the law in setting up
their various scams, thinks it can get away with its definition of
single journeys, or they wouldn't bother.

So they've tried very hard to get away with things that reasonable
people wouldn't think were reasonable.  That's why I think they are
crooks.

As for the previous question about sources of stories, logically, if
you believe that the people accused are crooks, you don't reveal
sources if you want them to keep their kneecaps.

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1126910361.288112.268550@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> tim (moved to sweden) wrote:
>> "MIG"  wrote in message
>> news:1126694850.503334.323330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>>

>> > Bear in mind that Ryanair very specifically does NOT sell return
>> > tickets.
>>
>> Yes they do.  I buy both legs together charged for in one charge.
>> This makes it a return ticket whatever the T&Cs may say.
>> (The legal basis of this statement is "if it looks like a duck,
>> walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....").
>> They would be laughed at if they tried to claim in court that
>> what they have sold is not a return
>>

> I really can't answer any questions about what a judge would do if
> anyone took Ryanair to court.  I'm not a judge and don't know what
> pressures might be put on them, but it's bleedin obvious that most
> people don't try going to court and/or can't afford to.


Some do (and have won), but should FR try to enforce a policy
of 'single' flights to the extreme, such that where they cancel the
outbound flight they give you a refund and then keep the fare for
the now unusable return, then (in the UK) a complaint to the OFT
would be enough.  The OFT have the power to take action against
the company for this IMHO 'unfair contract term'.  I doubt very
much that, if FR did have this policy, it would be very long before
it were tested in court.
(All EU countries have the same mechanism for rule enforcement
and some have already used these powers to change FR's terms
in their juristriction)


> It's also evident that Ryanair, having studied the law in setting up
> their various scams, thinks it can get away with its definition of
> single journeys, or they wouldn't bother.


Rubbish.  This phantom unenforcable contract term is standard
big company practice used by virtually every company that sells
to consumers.  Lots of unenforcable terms are included in the
contract, so that when someone complains the company can wave
the contract in the complainant's face telling them that they are out
of  luck and hope that the person goes away.  But should the
complainant persist and threaten legal action the company backs
down because they *know* that the term is unenforcable and if it
the matter is tested in court the result will be that they have to
remove the clause from their contract so that they can't bully anyone
else with it.  Standard big company trick


> So they've tried very hard to get away with things that reasonable
> people wouldn't think were reasonable.  That's why I think they are
> crooks.


I agree with the basis of what you are saying.  I just don't accept
some of the claimed abuses actually happened.


> As for the previous question about sources of stories, logically, if
> you believe that the people accused are crooks, you don't reveal
> sources if you want them to keep their kneecaps.


What a lot of twaddle.  I'm supposed to believe:  "I'm not going to
complain to the authorities that Mr Malone ripped me off because
he might break my kneecaps"  You're having a larf!

tim

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, tim (moved to sweden) wrote:


> What a lot of twaddle.  I'm supposed to believe:  "I'm not going to 
> complain to the authorities that Mr Malone ripped me off because he 
> might break my kneecaps"  You're having a larf!


I'm not commenting on the specific company, but it's not unknown for a 
trader who's had problems with a particular customer to refuse to do 
any more business with them in future.  Of course it cuts both ways - 
maybe the customer has no wish to trade with them either, after 
unfortunate experiences, or (as with a certain TOC here) after reading 
their barefaced refusal to honour their own contract with another
customer.

"Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message 
news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509171325530.14459@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, tim (moved to sweden) wrote:
>
>> What a lot of twaddle.  I'm supposed to believe:  "I'm not going to
>> complain to the authorities that Mr Malone ripped me off because he
>> might break my kneecaps"  You're having a larf!
>
> I'm not commenting on the specific company, but it's not unknown for a
> trader who's had problems with a particular customer to refuse to do
> any more business with them in future.  Of course it cuts both ways -
> maybe the customer has no wish to trade with them either, after
> unfortunate experiences, or (as with a certain TOC here) after reading
> their barefaced refusal to honour their own contract with another
> customer.


Well yes, I can accept this.

But, there are numerous reports in the public domain of
"Ryanair left us stranded", there are none, that I know of,
of "Ryanair cancelled our flight (etc) and then charged us
extra".

It beggars belief that a reasonable percentage of the first
are prepared to complain and none of the second are.

tim

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1127001666.534880.281560@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> tim (moved to sweden) wrote:
>> "Alan J. Flavell"  wrote in message
>> news:Pine.LNX.4.62.0509171325530.14459@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
>> > On Sat, 17 Sep 2005, tim (moved to sweden) wrote:
>> >
>> >> What a lot of twaddle.  I'm supposed to believe:  "I'm not going to
>> >> complain to the authorities that Mr Malone ripped me off because he
>> >> might break my kneecaps"  You're having a larf!
>> >
>
>
> You either believe that he's a crook or you don't.  It would be
> illogical and dishonest to state that one thought that he was a crook,
> but then behave as if he would play fair in safeguarding his interests.
>
>
>> > I'm not commenting on the specific company, but it's not unknown for a
>> > trader who's had problems with a particular customer to refuse to do
>> > any more business with them in future.  Of course it cuts both ways -
>> > maybe the customer has no wish to trade with them either, after
>> > unfortunate experiences, or (as with a certain TOC here) after reading
>> > their barefaced refusal to honour their own contract with another
>> > customer.
>>
>> Well yes, I can accept this.
>>
>> But, there are numerous reports in the public domain of
>> "Ryanair left us stranded", there are none, that I know of,
>> of "Ryanair cancelled our flight (etc) and then charged us
>> extra".
>
>
> Yes there are, but you haven't seen them (or looked for them).


I've been (implicitly) asking for the proof since I started
contributing to this tread and the justification for my not
getting any is the statement at the top of the post.

Either their is some proof and the stratement at the top is the
rubbish that I suggested it was (which you deny) or there
isn't any proof, becausae of the reason above.

you can't have it both ways.

tim

tim (moved to sweden) wrote:

> I've been (implicitly) asking for the proof since I started
> contributing to this tread and the justification for my not
> getting any is the statement at the top of the post.
>
> Either their is some proof and the stratement at the top is the
> rubbish that I suggested it was (which you deny) or there
> isn't any proof, becausae of the reason above.
>
> you can't have it both ways.
>
> tim




It would be an interesting universe if nothing became true until there
was proof of it (to whose satisfaction? can they prove they exist?).

I don't think there's much point in going on about this.  We mostly
don't like Ryanair and prefer railways (but I can't prove that).

"MIG"  wrote in message 
news:1126694850.503334.323330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>

>> > But I realised a while ago that I can't afford to buy cheap.
>>
>> Why not.  Consumer Contract law is the same for every one,
>> personally I see no reason why Molloy Malone should be
>> allowed to opt out.
>
>
>
> I agree in general, my position is that it's a bit like trying to fly
> (no pun intended) before you can crawl.  There are huge improvements
> that could be made before reaching the Utopia of Ryanair providing
> compensation.
>
> Bear in mind that Ryanair very specifically does NOT sell return
> tickets.


Yes they do.  I buy both legs together charged for in one charge.
This makes it a return ticket whatever the T&Cs may say.
(The legal basis of this statement is "if it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....").
They would be laughed at if they tried to claim in court that
what they have sold is not a return

If FR want to claim that they only sell single tickets then they will
have to sell them that way.  My guess is that would have far fewer
customers if you had to commit to an outboud before finding out
that your required return is full


>  Everything is a single journey, so anything you mention about
> return journeys doesn't apply (even though by any reasonable
> definition, people generally are doing return journeys).
>
> If Ryanair screws up such that your plans are ruined, they won't
> cooperate with finding a reasonable way out of the situation, they deem
> you to have "chosen" to change your flight (or whatever)


How can *you* have 'chosen' to change it, if you arrive at the
airport in time for the flight and it isn't there to take you.


> and charge you
> the full whack.  I know that from direct experience, and remember, it's
> never a "return" flight by their definition.


It's a return flight


> There are probably different kinds of insurance available.  What
> Ryanair flogs might cover the cost of a toothbrush while you wait for
> them to get round to helping you, but it won't cover any decisions you
> make to get yourself out of the situation in a reasonable way.  It
> mainly seems to deal with medical problems on holiday.


I've no idea what their insurance gives you.  I can't read the one
that I am allowed to buy.

tim