Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 10,607
- Location
- Sussex, UK
What is Lib Dem?
Is it a new case or summit?
Is it a new case or summit?
We're Ryanair, we got our business model wrong, you MUST bail us out!
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,565
- Location
- Warwickshire
Ryanair are paying up now it seems, if it hasn't already been mentioned.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8636461.stm.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8636461.stm.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It has as it happens but no harm in mentioning it again
I suspect that the relevant regulatory body politely requested that Mr O'Rly return his license to operate an airline since he no longer wished to accept the rules
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,565
- Location
- Warwickshire
It has as it happens but no harm in mentioning it again
CBA to wade through all the spam
.I suspect that the relevant regulatory body politely requested that Mr O'Rly return his license to operate an airline since he no longer wished to accept the rules
I think he was just trying to make a point. I doubt it got that far?
By the way you are insane.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
It's a man's job, but somebody has to do it
Last edited:
VOTE UUP, OR SOME OVER RETIRED TERRORISTS!
Yep, my choices suck.
TUV?
Ok ill get my coat....
Da **** you lookin' at?!
Last edited:
It's a man's job, but somebody has to do it
Vote Lib-Dem - choose change!
Did you miss Burnsy's post or are you just ignoring him?
I would suggest leaving it where it is and putting his commentary in his sig, so we can turn that off.
anyone else think this is a trap?
Stock doesn't want the lib dems to win and knows this is the equivalent of magick siding with Cameron under the "fighting the evil reptilians" banner.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Let O'Leary eat ash; he can't pick and choose which laws apply to him
Well actually he can.
It seems the law doesn't apply, the current govt thought it did, so they told people to get home and claim it from the airlines.
The airlines will now pay out.
The airlines will now take the govt to court over the govt issued advised and the taxpayers will end up footing the bill.
Once again our politicans jumped the gun making sttaements they didn't have the correct laws passed to make, and we the taxpayer will end up footing the bill.
I don't see why Buying a ticket for £9 entitles me to recover hotel fees of £800 when the airline have done nothing at all wrong. They were flyign as soon as they were allowed to, and it now even appears the ban could have been lifted earlier if the CAA had bothered to keep closer tabs on exatcly what the manufacterers had been guffing people for the past 25 years.
They didn't fulfil their contractual obligations to you. It's not like it's the passengers fault either, why should they pay £800?
There, fixed that for you.
We've established that it wasn't the passenger's fault, or the airlines fault. Perhaps the responsibility for the decision should therefore lie elsewhere?
The is no blame to lie at anyones doorstep exactly. The Airline have a contractual obligation to the ticket holder to make sure he/she reaches their destination. The Authorities have an obligation to put the safety of the public first regardless of the financial impact.
The point is that the Airlines had the opportunity to insure against such natural disasters, that they did not means they must foot the financial consequences of fulfilling their contractual obligation. They had a choice, they choose not to insure so they must deal with that.
We've established no such thing - the airline made a promise to their customers in a legally binding contract. They could not fulfil that obligation and therefore owe compensation to their customers in accordance with the law.
Whatever agreement exists between the airlines and the regulatory framework does not change the fact that the airline has failed to deliver on their promises. Perhaps the airlines should review that agreement for similar events in future however it does not change the fact that their customers are entitled to have their costs paid, in the same way that if a supplier fails to deliver to their customers, they incur extra costs suffered by their customer in accordance with the law.
The authorities should also have the obligation to act proportionately, which they did not do in this case. There is no scientific evidence to back up the total closure of airspace as being the only solution.
And in most cases, I'd see exactly where you are coming from, however the action taken in this case is not actually balanced by the evidence of risk. There were other approaches that could have given the same results (and indeed are actually what they have now done, the problem has not gone away) without the total closure.
I don't think it has been established whether the authorities acted proportionately or not. Until an inquiry is held we should not make assumptions.
In the case of air-passenger safety, it really is better to err on the side of caution.
Approaches that were not apparent immediately. The level of risk was not known, only in hindsight can we say other remedies might have been better.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 1,124
...
They got it wrong - Ryanair should be compelled to pay - it's not as if they are *ankers, is it?
fully star out? ban.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 26,303