If you miss it by a small margin (up to an hour), you can make use of the missed departure fee of €100.

https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/useful...lp-centre/fees

Though it's normally cheaper than a new ticket on the same day, it's still worth checking.

This is interesting.
So A-B + B-C is different to A-B-C, even when the flights are exactly the same?
If so, how can the airline be allowed to dismiss liability for the second flight when it is unobtainable solely due to the airline?

Because that is how point-to-point operators work.

And no airline - even full-service carriers - will offer you A-B-C tickets for EVERY possible A, B and C. Try getting Qantas/Emirates to sell you an ADL-DXB-PER flight [I know that would be a ridiculous routing, but it at least shows that there are potential routings - even more "normal" ones - that airlines will not sell you].

If an airline will not or cannot sell you an A-C flight, they will not then offer you those sort of guarantees when you put together your own A-B-C routing by buying separate tickets.


It doesn't apply to Ryanair as they don't currently offer connecting itineraries, but, to answer your question about separate A-B and B-C tockets, versus a single A-C ticket: in this hypothetical case, the customer has decided to conclude two separate contracts (maybe even with two separate companies) rather than concluding just one contract. The first contract requires that they be conveyed from A to B; the second, entirely unrelated contract, requires that they be conveyed from B to C. By doing this, the passenger takes it upon themselves to present themselves for travel at the appointed time for both flights - at A and again later at B [rather than only having to present themselves at A]. In the former, the passenger loses their right to travel from B to C if they do not present themselves in time at B. If they wish to gamble with their likelihood of turning up on B on time - for instance by arranging to only fly in to B with just hours or minutes to spare and failing to anticipate schedule changes, delays, disruptions, diversions, etc - then that is their prerogative and their right. However, failing to allow for delays or disruptions while foregoing the "safety net" of a protected connection, or without "padding" the connection time, was entirely their choice. Whether or not they were aware of the fact, by buying separate tickets they assume all consequences of the loss of subsequent tickets/plans should any of their self-made connections prove untenable.

And YES - it sucks for the traveller that there is no direct A-C flight (or maybe there is...but they found that A-B-C is cheaper) or that the airlines won't offer an A-C ticket (or maybe some other airline offers an A-Z-C ticket...but they found that A-B followed by B-C on another carrier is cheaper). Nonetheless, these are things the traveller must weigh up before deciding what ticket to buy. Sometimes, saving a few dollars in the upfront costs can end up costing you far, far more...

In the question not based entirely on Ryanair, how can the airline be allowed to dismiss liability for the B-C flight when it is unobtainable solely due to the same airline not delivering the pax to B?
I'll add the same question to a related circumstance where the A-B-C flight is a published fare for a particular airline and that a pax may have the same exact same flights as separate tickets.

It is extremely simple: If one has a B-C ticket (s)he has to board the plane or loose her/his ticket. Punkt-aus, true for both LCCs and expensive companies!!! The fact that the missed boarding may have been due to a late arrival from A, with the same or another company, or that the passenger was busy shopping at the duty-free, or any other explanation, perhaps, other than a medical emergency, simply cannot be used as an excuse. This is the way it is and one has to accept it the same way like apples usually fall down and not up!

Why?

Lets add the same question to another circumstance where the same airline used for A-B and B-C, on separate tickets, where connection is possible, and between the same airline, when that airline cancels the A-B flight?

Because pigs don't fly

It is still the same, if one would book an A-B-C with the airline, and the airline would have cancelled A-B, he would either be re-booked to get to C, or refunded his A-B-C ticket.

But if one booked it on separate tickets, assuming the airline cannot deliver him to B anymore before his B-C flight departs, they will probably refund him for A-B (or the might rebook him on the next flight(s) that gets him to B, and pay EC261 if it comes to that), but they will have no responsibility whatsoever to the fact that he couldn't show up to his B-C flight in time.

This is not an answer.

You appear to be reporting what is already known and not the reasoning for why it exists.
I'll return to my original question, "how can an airline be allowed to dismiss liability for a connecting flight when that flight is unobtainable due to the same airline not delivering the pax to the connection point?"

A guide to possible answers:
Separate tickets (contracts) appears not a valid reason if it is true that the fulfilment of the second contract is impeded if the first is voided. I can't see why the airline is only responsible for the first contract, especially when a combined contract is possible.

But then why would the airline have not sold an A-C ticket?

Your hypothetical question is gone far, far away from the OP's point here. In your hypothetical example, it seems that the passenger has decided to buy A-B and B-C separately, when the airline who you say is operating both flights apparently didn't want to sell them a single A-B-C ticket. This could only be because the airline themselves felt that a connection at B on these flights was likely to be missed. What, exactly, do you mean by "unobtainable"? An airline will make a connecting flight "unobtainable" when it is all but certain that the flight can't be caught. Would you be happy to buy an ADL-MEL-LST flight, where your MEL-LST flight departs 5 minutes after the scheduled arrival time of your ADL-MEL flight? I can guarantee you that no airline would sell you both flights on a single ticket because it is 99% certain you cannot travel as booked.

Why would they then do anything to help a passenger who bought what appears, with each refinement of your question, to clearly be what the airline refused to sell due to its being an illegal connection? When buying separate tickets, the customer has to realise that if they don't allow enough time to connect, they will miss their flight and lose their money. Airlines only sell connections that they think will work out in the vast majority of cases, but they will see you right even in those cases where they don't work out. Given that it effectively "costs nothing" for the airlines to put you on a later flight - why would the passenger, who is less able to absorb the "loss" if a flight is missed, then go and book the type of connecting ticket that not even the airline themselves are willing to take a chance on?

So now you say a legal connection is possible. But you are still restricting the airline from selling an A-C ticket. Why? This is not normal airline behaviour - if there are seats available, and if there are no travel rights restrictions [and this is unlikely - it is usually the "short" hops that have such restrictions, i.e. Qantas's JFK-LAX-SYD is NOT allowed to carry passengers solely between LAX and JFK only in either direction], then there is no good reason why this airline would NOT sell an A-C ticket.

However, let's sidestep that question and assume that a passenger who really wants to travel A-C has instead bought a separate ticket A-B followed by a separate ticket B-C. Perhaps they did this for a valid reason - in order to drop off 2 suitcases at city B where their child has just started at University - and in order to offload luggage at what otherwise would be a connection point - and therefore where they don't have access to luggage - then they would instead need to buy a separate ticket showing that they wish to disembark at "B".

And yes, if the first flight is delayed to the extent that B-C cannot be flown, then the airline is not at fault. An airline's obligations to you ends when they successfully deliver you to your ticketed destination. An airline's obligation to you ends if the flight you are booked on has closed and departed without you. Your hypothetical passenger booked "separate" tickets, so there is no obligation from ticket 1 influencing ticket 2 here, or vice versa. Ticket 1 and Ticket 2 are two separate, unrelated contracts. You have to realise that Ticket 2 places a very strict requirement on you to be at "B" in time to check in and board. If you miss "B", it is your fault alone.The passenger, instead of asking the airline to simply transport them from A-C, instead asked to be brought from A-B and separately from B-C. The airline successfully discharged their obligation to the passenger by delivering them (late) to B. However, the passenger did not allow enough contingencies in their plan to allow themselves to take up their second ticket. The contract for travel from B-C becomes void, as the passenger did not materialise in time to travel. That is the passenger's fault - they did not allow enough time to overcome potential disruption to their plans. It doesn't matter that the same airline is the "cause" for preventing them from making check-in at B. If their rental car broke down, Hertz isn't going to be responsible for rebooking their B-C. If their child is taken ill and instead the passenger has to stay at B to look after them, that child isn't going to be responsible for rebooking their B-C. If the passenger chose to book a tight connection with no wiggle-room for delays, then that passenger MUST be responsible for rebooking their B-C. They could, after all, have flown in earlier that day, or even the night before, and enhanced their chances.

Booking separate tickets is all about minimising your risks. Instead of minimising connection times, you are advised to maximise the connection times.

I self-connect on most of my long haul trips. My last three trips to Australia have seen me re-position to Dublin, to obtain the cheaper fares available from there. My last several trips to the US have seen me reposition to Oslo, to obtain some really cheap tickets from there. My next trip to the States will see me resposition to Dublin again.
On all occasions, I travel to my "B" the night before.

Nice post. I hope my response is not viewed as critical.

"But then why would the airline have not sold an A-C ticket?"
N/A, as shown in hypothetical below.

"Your hypothetical question is gone far, far away from the OP's point here."
Yes, but that doesn't invalidate it.

"In your hypothetical example, it seems that the passenger has decided to buy A-B and B-C separately, when the airline who you say is operating both flights apparently didn't want to sell them a single A-B-C ticket."
The hypothetical could arise where a nonrefundable A-B is purchased, then later, C is the required destination, where A-B-C is linear.

"What, exactly, do you mean by "unobtainable"?"
Not able to be obtained.

"An airline will make a connecting flight "unobtainable" when it is all but certain that the flight can't be caught. Would you be happy to buy an ADL-MEL-LST flight, where your MEL-LST flight departs 5 minutes after the scheduled arrival time of your ADL-MEL flight? I can guarantee you that no airline would sell you both flights on a single ticket because it is 99% certain you cannot travel as booked."
N/A in the circumstance where the A-B-C flight in question is a published fare, rendering the rest of this part of the post moot.

"So now you say a legal connection is possible."
This was done to clarify the question, as would adding the condition that no checked luggage is involved.

"But you are still restricting the airline from selling an A-C ticket."
Not in context of the cost-effective hypothetical as outline above, rendering the rest of this part of the post moot.

You post an example where deliberately purchasing 2 tickets is advantageous to the pax, yet creates risk, for which the airline should not be held responsible. I can understand that, given the scenario you outlay, but the circumstances are immaterial, in that they don't even have to take you to B for the airline not to be liable for the missed B-C. The aberration I see here is emphasized in the hypothetical below.

I too am flying to DUB more than a day before I utilize a very cheap, departing DUB-dependent J flight to New York for Christmas, even thought the connecting airlines are both OW members. So its not that I don't understand why such a risk-reducing strategy is advisable.

New hypothetical:
An aircraft's capacity of passengers are attending a meeting at B and all buy nonrefundable A-B tickets with airline X. The meeting is changed to C, which is 500 miles from B and 1000 miles from A, where the best option is to mimic airline X's published fare for A-B-C using an add-on booking. In this scenario, the execution of these 2 separate contracts is to be performed by 1 entity, airline X. This creates a possible benefit for airline X not to conform to the A-B contract, where the airline reassigns the aircraft used for A-B for another, last-minute, "unforseen" purpose, resulting in the impossibility for the passengers to get to B in time for the B-C flight. This then allows the airline to also reassign the aircraft designated for the B-C flight, because the airline is not liable for the B-C contracts.
I know the crux of the carry through of this hypothetical centers on "unforseen", however, I want to demonstrate how the lack of said liability can manifest such an impetus when the said contracts are with the same airline.

In a less severe synopsis, the airline is charging significant sums to remove a risk that the airline need not impose.

U2 sold me a LTN-GLA and a GLA -LTN two days later on the same PNR

The LTN-GLA was cancelled because of snow, as were all their flights that day ro GLA. This made the trip not worthwhile so I did not travel

U2 refunded the LTN-GLA as that flight was cancelledh

U2 did not refund me the GLA-LTN ticket as that flight was not cancelled

Carriers don't "dismiss liability," passengers choose to enter contracts based on terms & conditions.

An essential term of air carrier contracts is that carriers will not assume liability for consequential damages of an untimely (or cancelled) arrival. You, as a consumer, have to agree to that if you want a ticket. If it is not a contract provision which interests you much, don't plan on doing business with any known commercial air carrier. But, it is the consumer's choice.

Thus, if you purchase a ticket from A-B and are delayed and miss a meeting and lose GBP 1 Million in sales, you will not be able to successfully sue the carrier for the GBP 1 Million. If you purchase a ticket from A-B and are delayed and miss the departure on another ticket from B-C, you will not be able to successfully sue the carrier for the value of the B-C ticket. Why? Because you will find that most consumers do not want to share in the risk, through higher ticket prices of insuring the incalculable risks associated with late and cancelled arrivals.

Now, if you want to have a debate about the underlying policy of whether governments ought to interfere in a decision made by consumers to purchase point-to-point rather than through (connection) tickets, generally to save money, perhaps you ought to start a thread on OMNI. But, at least you now have an answer as to why it is that consumers who choose to save money and assume some risk in the process do so.

Again, this only specifies the consequences of separate tickets being separate contracts, which is already established. This is not a debate about whether governments should interfere in a decision made by consumers. Rather, its about, I think, the implied duty of “good faith” in contract law. It is irrelevant to introduce ancillary losses, since my question relates to a direct relationship between the fulfilment of one contract and the inability to execute another contract due to the actions of one of the parties, when these contracts are with the same parties. Yes, the pax can wonder off during the connection, or any other action that is obviously the fault of the pax, resulting in an uncomplicated assessment of duty by the airline, but my hypothetical portrays to situation where it is in the airline's best interest to arrive late, or even cancel flight A-B.
My question is why is it always, in the said instance, categorically in the airlines favor?
If this cannot be answered without redundancy, I doubt a separate thread will help. I therefore stop here.

Pleaaaase, no separate thread, this one was enough! I'm not going to add any arguments but only say that hundreds of thousands of flyers have been through that kind of problem, tens of thousands have gone to court in several countries, and they all lost their case. There must be a logical reason behind this, which you simply fail to see...

PS That comes from a Ryanair hater ;)
PS2 If you think I exaggerated, divide by numbers by 10, they still explain my point

Exactly, though the use of "simply" suggests the reasoning behind the logic is simple. If so, why hasn't anyone, including yourself, been able to to present it?