Much to the dismay of some Guardian readers, Michael O'Leary is refusing to stump up compensation for hotels, steaks and San Miguels for stranded Ryanair passengers. The EU regulations couldn't be clearer about the fact he should cough up though. They also provide that:
"The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive."
'Equalityforall' over on CIF seems to think so too:
"If they refuse to comply with pertinent legislation, their license should be revoked. I hope the EU bankrupts them and their boss should be jailed."
Well, Mr O'Leary has challenged the Irish regulators to do just that, hasn't he? Then let's hope they've implemented a more "effective" sanction than the UK has. If the Civil Aviation Authority have a crack over here, the maxiumum fine Ryanair can expect is a very "dissuasive" £5,000. The Guardian quotes O'Leary as saying: "...why exactly are the airlines expected to be reimbursing people's hotels, meals and everything else when the governments are the ones who made a balls of this?"
Quite.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
What would you do if you were he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Oh, the Righteous are learning not to put their faith in BigGov at last, are they?
*chuckle*
SL, are you sure you've linked to the right regulations?
And why is the Graun sticking up for these chavs taking 'non-essential flights' and causing 'catastrophic climate change'?
Hmmm, Govt can a) fine him millions and put him out of business, thereby putting thousands more on the dole or b) give him a slap on the wrists and be glad he's not suing them for keeping his airline grounded when it was obviously safe to fly.
I think in the depth of a recession they may choose the latter course.
Was it "governments" or some arm of that octopus Eurotwats?
MW, they are the right ones. Ireland will have their own way of implementing them though.
Sobers, the point is, the maximum the UK courts can fine an airline for not coughing up is £5,000 per offence - not millions. Not coughing up is a summary only offence.
(Although the CAA may have other ways of twisting their arms)
"And why is the Graun sticking up for these chavs taking 'non-essential flights' and causing 'catastrophic climate change'?"
If you follow along the "victimhood poker" line, you eventually cross over into "enemy poker". Michael O'Leary trumps chavs because despite stamping on Gaia's heart, he's also rich.
The ultimate player at "enemy poker" is George Bush. He's white, American, lacks dinner party values, rich, was involved in the oil business, started a couple of wars, is Republican and Christian.
SL, aha 'level 5 on standard scale' means £5,000 in old money.
But...
1. The underlying EU reg's 261/2004 says "An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay
compensation [to the passenger of a few hundred EUR] in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances
which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable
measures had been taken." so that's them firmly off the hook, but
2. OTOH, who's to say that the £5,000 isn't per unsatisfied passenger? That's about £1 million per flight.
MW, the 'extraordinary circumstances' rule is about statutory compensation, not expenses. Airline cancels flight = airline coughs up for expenses.
And yes, the CAA could theoretcially prosecute an airline refusing to cough up for one offence per customer. It would be completely unprecidented for a bench of Magistrates to levy a multi-million pound fine however.
Short of needing to get a witness statement from every customer (impossible), you would need to seize all the inventories, prove how many customers had their flights cancelled and prove none of the customers had been compensated I guess. The summons would run into thousands of pages - also unprecidented.
The threat of a Mags prosecution is a serious deterent to small businesses, but not big businesses. They usually just play the game as opposed to saying 'No' publically, it could get interesting. I expect however, that O'Leary will make his point then back down.
SL, I withdraw my point 1. I can't find the actual reg's this time I googled them, but Wiki's crash coyurse in cancellations says:
"Where applicable, passengers are also entitled to refreshments, communication and accommodation as described below... the entitlement to refreshments, etc., apply to all cancellations, regardless of whether the circumstances are extraordinary or not."
But I'm standing firm on my point 2. If somebody is out of pocket by thousands of pounds, it must be worth his while claiming a reimbursement, and if it were only one passenger, the penalty for not reimbursing is clearly max. £5,000.
But what happens if some ambulance chaser starts a group action? Would the Court just say OK, it's ten thousand fines of 1p each?* Or could they say it's ten thousand fines of £5,000 each?
* How would a 1p fine be "effective proportionate and dissuasive"?
I expect however, that O'Leary will make his point then back down.
Already happened, it seems.
Yes it probably would be worth suing for a even a few hundred in the small claims track. Civil courts would just award compo though. not levy a fine.
Thanks to www, lots of consumers ganging up to make individual small claims is potentially a bigger headache than one big class action for a firm. Think of all the paperwork - look at the bank charges, moneysavingexpert and a load of other sites were providing downloadable 'sue the b***ards' kits.
The gvt is proposing a 'Consumer Advocate' to take class actions in future on behalf of agrieved consumers and big business seems to largely agree with this policy.
Because the customers will come back to you if you give them credit.
And I quote:
"P&O (or whoever) have treated as brilliantly, food, drink, updates, everythinig.We'll be using the again won;t we love? "
I like the idea of a world were people like each other rather than the opposite
Post a Comment