|
Originally Posted by ajs123
(Post 22390451)
I was wondering whether the EC261/2004 should not be limited to tickets above, say, 100 euros (including taxes and fees). While it's terrible for the affected pacs to be stranded like this at STN, opting to fly (ultra)-LCC should come with the understanding being treating like cattle… In any case, I am more than happy that the last flight I took with FR is almost a decade ago and never again.
But I don't actually think this would work. Imagine the scenario we saw here... a planeload of angry passengers, all tired, hungry and thirsty... even if the FAs were somehow able to determine who paid how much for their ticket, can you really see a situation where they would hand out water to some of the passengers but not to the rest? And in any case... airlines can easily factor the cost of 261/2004 into the price of their tickets, and it probably won't come to more than a few pennies per passenger. |
I don't fly FR as a first choice - but it is an airline I will consider and do fly from time to time. When they fly to where I want to go, it is frankly difficult to justify paying 4-5 times the price to fly BA AND have the hassle of a longer journey with connection at LHR.
I wouldn't say it's a pleasant experience, but if you are properly prepared for their business model, and are big enough and ugly enough to look after yourself in the case of IRROPS, then it's fine. I've never personally had a problem whilst travelling with FR. I have seen others encounter problems - but these have largely been, as noted by others, people who have not read the rules on the size / weight / number of bags, need for self-printed boarding passes, etc. |
Originally Posted by Showbizguru
(Post 22386415)
And there's the rub.
All these so called horror stories about Ryanair basically stem from the fact that some numpties are still unable to access their website,follow the clearly stated T & C's,print off a boarding card,pack hand luggage within the clearly defined limits and present themselves at the check-in desk. Even this one? I mean, are you saying that because they have been unable to access Ryanair website, because they did not follow the clearly stated T&Cs, because they did not print off their boarding card, because they did not pack the hand luggage within the clearly defined limits and because they did not present themselves at the check-in desk, they ALL (in this case yes) boarded a plane left stranded on the tarmac at STN on purpose? WOW! Impressive. Ulxima |
Ryanair have released a statement about this flight:
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryana...-february-2014 Due to strong winds across the South of England (14 Feb) over 20 airlines were forced to divert into Stansted from Heathrow and Gatwick airports which significantly disrupted handling and fuelling operations at Stansted. This Ryanair flight from London Stansted to Porto was delayed by the weather disruption and a subsequent fuelling delay at the airport. After approximately two hours waiting for fuellers, the Captain requested the handling company (Swissport) to allow the passengers into the terminal which was locked. The Captain switched on the aircraft’s air conditioning while waiting for Swissport staff to arrive and the cabin crew provided water to passengers. When Swissport failed to arrive the Captain requested the police to let the passengers into the locked terminal. The police subsequently arrived and allowed the passengers into the terminal. Passengers were then provided with refreshment vouchers on Ryanair’s instructions. The aircraft departed the following morning at 7.50am. Ryanair sincerely apologises to all passengers on this flight who were affected by this delay. Ryanair wishes to correct several false claims in relation to this incident; The claim that passengers had to call the police is untrue – the Captain called the police. The claim that the air conditioning was not switched on is false – the Captain switched on the air conditioning. The claim that passengers were held by Ryanair against their will is false – the Captain made every effort, first with the handling agent (Swissport) and then with the police, to arrange for passengers to be allowed into the terminal which was locked. The claim that passengers were not provided with refreshment vouchers or water is untrue – Ryanair crew provided water to passengers on board and refreshment vouchers were issued to passengers following disembarkation. I wonder - would there have been anywhere open in the terminal for them to spend those vouchers (not until around 0500, I'd imagine). |
Originally Posted by teflon
(Post 22393161)
Ryanair have released a statement about this flight:
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryana...-february-2014 there's also a similar statement from Swissport on the above page. I wonder - would there have been anywhere open in the terminal for them to spend those vouchers (not until around 0500, I'd imagine). |
IIRC the supermarket is landside.
|
Originally Posted by Alsacienne
(Post 22395191)
IIRC the supermarket is landside.
|
Passengers subject to this kind of treatment should express their displeasure in the strongest possible terms by writing to [email protected].
|
I've boarded Ba planes where refueling was still happening, but to board a plane before the fuel truck even arrives?
I wined how much if the decision was based on 1) not wanted to pay for 150 hotel rooms 2) not wanting to have the plane out of position the next morning |
Shouldn't this string be moved to the 'Budget European Airlines' forum http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/budge...-airlines-727/ and join all the other 'I hate Ryanair' strings?
(And yes, I do hate Ryanair; and no I would never use them unless they were the only option!) |
Originally Posted by teflon
(Post 22393161)
Ryanair have released a statement about this flight:
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryana...-february-2014 there's also a similar statement from Swissport on the above page. I wonder - would there have been anywhere open in the terminal for them to spend those vouchers (not until around 0500, I'd imagine). |
Originally Posted by lwildernorva
(Post 22384269)
In the US, Southwest had this reputation as well for many years (and, in fact, still is no favorite of the bloggers).
|
Originally Posted by zerolife
(Post 22396811)
is Ryan Air trying to say that they don't have any operations and ground handling staff at their hub and is completely dependent on a third party to unlock the door to their own gates?
|
Originally Posted by Aviatrix
(Post 22396846)
I don't know of any LCCs that that do their own handling
|
Originally Posted by Aviatrix
(Post 22396846)
Correct, they don't. But that's fairly much the norm. Legacy carriers usually have their own staff at their main hubs, but I don't know of any LCCs that that do their own handling - and neither do I know of any airlines that have their own staff at STN. KLMuk used to, but that's a long time ago.
Also I'm questioning why this Ryan Air plane appears to be the only plane Swissport wasn't capable of handling. They claim they have over 30 diverted planes, but why prioritize those diverted plane over a scheduled plane. I assume they are under contractual obligation to handle the scheduled plane unlike the diverted planes. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.