Pisa-Charleroi: Ryanair drops 200 pax

[LX-LGX]

On Friday, Ryanair has cancelled a flight Pisa-Charleroi, apparently due to extreme weather conditions. Passengers were advised to go to hell (tirez votre plan, trek uw plan maar, sorry - help yourself). A Ryanair's spokesman told VRT-Radio Friday morning that pax will have to wait till the next opportunity, as it's usual by "European habits". Ryanair says that they are not obliged to assist the passengers in case of "extraordanary circumstances". Finally, Ryanair says that a hotel would cost them more then the ticket price.

For those pax, stuck in Pisa:

Ryanair doesn't like European legislation, specially not when Charleroi is involved (but that's another 4 mio euro story...). The "European habits", to which Ryanair is referring, actually is a European Regulation = a European law. This Regulation 261/2004, which should be announced at the entry of Pisa-airport, primo doens't gives Ryanair the right to drop you, and b) the "extraordanary circumstances" only exclude Ryanair from offering you a financial compensation. Not from assistance and rerouting/reimboursement.

English text of EU-Regulation 261/2004:
http://tinyurl.com/3ctzhn
Texte Francais du EU-Règlement 261/2004:
http://tinyurl.com/36329f
Nederlandse tekst van EU-Verordening 261/2004:
http://tinyurl.com/2vfder
Italiano:
http://tinyurl.com/36sjqk

Notes LX-LGX:

Article 5.1.(a) says that, when a flight is cancelled, Article 8 applies. That Article 8 starts with "...passengers shall be offered the choice between..." It's thus not Ryanair who has to say what will happen: you have the choice.

Article 5.1.(b) says that, when a flight is cancelled, Article 9.1(a) and 9(2) apply. This is outmost important for you, as Article 9.1(a) obliges Ryanair to pay for your meals and hotels.

Article 5: Cancellation

1. In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall:

(a) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8; and

(b) be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 9(1)(a) and 9(2), as well as, in event of re-routing when the reasonably expected time of departure of the new flight is at least the day after the departure as it was planned for the cancelled flight, the assistance specified in Article 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(c); and

(c) have the right to compensation by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 7, unless:

(i) they are informed of the cancellation at least two weeks before the scheduled time of departure; or

(ii) they are informed of the cancellation between two weeks and seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than two hours before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than four hours after the scheduled time of arrival; or

(iii) they are informed of the cancellation less than seven days before the scheduled time of departure and are offered re-routing, allowing them to depart no more than one hour before the scheduled time of departure and to reach their final destination less than two hours after the scheduled time of arrival.

2. When passengers are informed of the cancellation, an explanation shall be given concerning possible alternative transport.

3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation 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.

4. The burden of proof concerning the questions as to whether and when the passenger has been informed of the cancellation of the flight shall rest with the operating air carrier.

- - -

Article 8: Right to reimbursement or re-routing

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered the choice between:

(a) - reimbursement within seven days, by the means provided for in Article 7(3), of the full cost of the ticket at the price at which it was bought, for the part or parts of the journey not made, and for the part or parts already made if the flight is no longer serving any purpose in relation to the passenger's original travel plan, together with, when relevant,

- a return flight to the first point of departure, at the earliest opportunity;

(b) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at the earliest opportunity; or

(c) re-routing, under comparable transport conditions, to their final destination at a later date at the passenger's convenience, subject to availability of seats.

2. Paragraph 1(a) shall also apply to passengers whose flights form part of a package, except for the right to reimbursement where such right arises under Directive 90/314/EEC.

3. When, in the case where a town, city or region is served by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring the passenger from that alternative airport either to that for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger.

Article 9 : Right to care

1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:

(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;

(b) hotel accommodation in cases

- where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or

- where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;

(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).

2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.


- - -

The only Article that is not applicable to you, is Article 7 = financial compensation: if indeed the weather at Pisa was too bad to operate the flight, Ryanair doesn't have to pay you a financial indemnity, like they would have to do if the flight was cancelled because there was no crew available. But once again: extraordanary circumstances only excludes Ryanair from Article 7, not from Article 8 and not from Article 9.

- - -

When stuck in Pisa, try to contact other passengers, and ask their contact details for common legal action when you are back in Belgium.

[vueling]

When a flight is cancelled for extraordinary circunstances the obligation of the carrier is waived. See 'considerant" 14 of the European rule :

"(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."

In addition if you consider the basic contractual law, this case will be considered as a "casus" : an event that waived any contractual obligation from the carrier.

[LX-LGX]

Pax have been refused assistance, a violation of the basic principle of EU-Regulation.

[vueling]

Ryanair is not obliged to offer any assistance when there is exeptional circonstances. The EU regulation exlude any obligation from the carrier in such case.

Same thing apply when there is strike : it is an exeptional circonstances and carrier are waived from any obligation.

[LX-LGX]

When a flight is cancelled for extraordinary circunstances the obligation of the carrier is waived. See 'considerant" 14 of the European rule :

"(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."

In addition if you consider the basic contractual law, this case will be considered as a "casus" : an event that waived any contractual obligation from the carrier.

I understand that Low Cost Carriers don't like 261/2004, because their special rates are that cheap that they don't allow any financial assistance. However, the EU-Regulation is applicable to all airlines - and thus also for LCC's.

The Clarification (14) you're mentioning says "limited or excluded", but Ryanair violates the very first paragraph of Article 5, dealing for cancellations: "In case of cancellation of a flight, the passengers concerned shall be offered assistance by the operating air carrier in accordance with Article 8".

It's obvious Ryanair has not done so. One cannot apply Clarification (14), and at the same time ignore (violate) Article 8.

261/2004 is a consumer protection Legislation, which gives the advantage in case of doubt to the passengers.

- - -

Perhaps somebody else can translate this unbelievable arrogance from Ryanair, as noted by Belgian (Flemish) television VRT, online on Teletekst page 105 on Saturday 04 August 2007, 10h32. If I would translate it, some will say it's impossible that Ryanair has said that.

"VERGELIJK VLIEGTUIG MET AUTOBUS”

In Pisa zitten nog steeds Belgische reizigers vast nadat hun vlucht van Ryanair naar Charleroi werd geschrapt. Het vliegtuig moest vrijdagmiddag vertrekken, maar dat lukte niet door het slechte weer. Passagiers moeten nog het hele weekend wachten vooraleer er een nieuwe vlucht is, tenzij ze zelf een nieuw ticket kopen of naar een andere luchthaven gaan.De passagiers klagen dat ze zelf moeten opdraaien voor overnachtingskosten, maar Ryanair zegt dat de maatschappij de Europese standaardprocedure volgt. “Vergelijk onze vliegtuigen met een autobus. Als je die mist, wordt er ook geen overnachting betaald", klinkt het.

[airazurxtror]

Now, whoever books on Ryanair knows perfectly well what happens if the flight is canceled, and accept it. No need to play the amazed one !
If the evening flight from Pisa is canceled, there are a lot of other possibilities on the day after : with Ryanair (if your car is at CRL), from Pisa, Ciampino or Bergamo. If you are in a hurry : with Brussels from Firenze, Fiumicino or Bergamo - or with Alitalia, and so on.
There are a lot of possibilities for a traveller a little bit awake...

[eu01]

whoever books on Ryanair knows perfectly well what happens if the flight is canceled, and accept it...

Not necessarily. But I'm sure that after the media shows like this one many more will know it for sure. And it's how the opinion about FR is being shaped. I wish them well (as I also chose to travel with FR on some occasions if convenient), but there is no point in MOL's squawking about the "softness in the market". By creating such an image of a company, they are loosing at least those undecided ones, many of the potential customers who could otherwise participate in the "hardening" of the travel market. Such episodes cost potentially much more than caring for passengers in these circumstances.

[airazurxtror]

According to the TV news (yesterday evening), the flight CRL-PSA was forced to land at Genoa because of a violent storm at Pisa.
60 passengers returned to CRL via STN, on the day after, I guess.
And : as far as I know, the maximum capacity of a Ryanair B737-800 is 189 passengers - not 200 ...

[JAFflyer]

you get what you've paid for...
Doesn't mean that I agree with these kind of situations ofcourse!

[sean1982]

LX-LGX,

Don't you think Ryanairs lawyers have looked at these law very closely before they set their policy. you really think the are willingly breaking the law? Complying is cheaper then breaking it. And article 14 says clearly meteorological conditions. They offered assistance by the way .... a re-fund or a re-routing or re-booking on the next available flight

About the 4mi EUro CRL stiry, let us the just shut up then about the Belgium government who kept SABENA alive for 85 years, when it only returned profites for 1 year. A bit more then 4 million I think.

[airazurxtror]

Ryanair doesn't like European legislation, specially not when Charleroi is involved (but that's another 4 mio euro story...).

Ryanair has complied with the European Commission demands and is now fully in order.
Others are blatantly trampling the rules of subsidies and get away with it - a few examples : Air France, Olympic and, best of all, Alitalia. And it's much more than 4 mio euros...

[LX-LGX]

LX-LGX,

Don't you think Ryanairs lawyers have looked at these law very closely before they set their policy. You really think the are willingly breaking the law? Complying is cheaper then breaking it. And article 14 says clearly meteorological conditions. They offered assistance by the way .... a re-fund or a re-routing or re-booking on the next available flight..

Indeed, I do think Ryanair does not respect EU-Regulation 261/2004. And yes, I do think that Ryanair lawyers know it better then the cabin of their planes. And they've advised their staff that complaining pax have to be sent into the desert = pax have to be advised they have to send a complain letter to Dublin, or take Ryanair to court in Dublin. I can look for 10 letters to the editor in Flemish newspapers about this if you want. EU-Regulation says that complaints have to be handled at the (arriving or departing) airport. Not through mail to a foreign head office.

Here is another clear proof that Ryanair does not respect the EU-Regulation: David Gering (spokesman Ryanair) told VRT-Radio last Saturday: "may I please remind you that the average ticket price last year with us was 41 euro, taxes included? We cannot afford to pay for an expensive fourstar or fivestar hotel at these rates". Gering also said: "if a coach (bus) doesn't show up, you also don't ask the coach company for a hotel, do you?"
Interview (in Dutch): http://www.vrtnieuws.net/cm/vrtnieuws.n ... Ryanairbus#

EU-Regulation 261/2004 is applicable for all flights from, to or through a EU-airport. For American first class passengers, for b-flex and b-light pax, and for passengers who have bought their ticket for 1 euro (plus taxes).

- - -

Article 14 doens't says that in case of weather conditions, an airline may do whatever they want. It says "responsability is limited or excluded". But then again, the Ryanair-lawyers have decided months ago it will be excluded in all cases. Once again, this is against 261/2004 which is a Consumer Right Law/Legislation. The next avaliable flight? That was Friday, some hours later, after Pisa was open for traffic again. Or at the latest on Saturday, or Sunday. Through Amsterdam, whatever. But not on Monday, when they had plenty of availability. Pisa wasn't closed for days, for a snow storm: it was temporary closed for bad weather. Ryanair told these passengers in Pisa on a Friday noon "have a nice weekend, and come back on Monday". I don't call this "assistance".

About the 4mi EUro CRL stiry, let us the just shut up then about the Belgium government who kept SABENA alive for 85 years, when it only returned profites for 1 year. A bit more then 4 million I think.

I haven't mentionned the money the Belgian tax payer (not the government) has put into Sabena, as I don't see the relevance of it now. Sabena is gone since 2001, and the EU-decision on Charleroi dates from (?) 2 years ago. So I've only said that Ryanair is not happy with the EU-decision on Charleroi. By the way, Sabena and/or the Belgian government have never broke a EU-Rule or not respected a EU-guideline on the support.

- - -

Last Friday, Ryanair had to operate the flight to Charleroi as soon as Pisa was open for traffic again. But then, this would indeed mean that other flights would have the same delay. So they've dropped the CRL-pax. That's the main issue here, and I feel sorry that almost nobody here defends these Belgian tourists.

[regi]

Yes, some passengers who book through the internet know that they have a chance to be very unlucky and that they would have to help themselves. But there are also many passengers who do not realize what it really means to get stuck somewhere abroad untill the moment of disaster. I know people of 65+ who were helped by their children to visit them abroad . The flight was cancelled. Those elderly people had no clue what to do.
Secondly, even if you agree with a kind of contract made by the supplier, if there is legislation from a higher level, the supplier loses.
The only thing that Ryanair really wants in case of problems is that people do go to court. If the case is accepted - very unlikely because it goes about minimal value - it will take many years to end.
But... there are also laws that go about organised crime. If a company makes a system of it , they can be sentenced for organised crime. And all concerned could get sentenced.
Time for a lawyer to get deeper into it.

Personnally I took Ryanair 1 time for business and decided never to use them for business again, because of a 4 hour delay with the result I lost a business meeting.

I did also use them 1 time for a private trip, and that was OK.

[sean1982]

Responsibility is limited or EXCLUDED!! What does that word mean ???
As I am ryanair crew for 4 years already you're just telling me something new that I have to advise pax to contact dublin by letter ?? That's not true. I have to tell them to contact the ryanair customer service desk in the airport where the following will be done . a. a refund b. a re-routing c. a re-booking on the next available flight d in case of ryanair being responsible for the delay meal vouchers and a hotel. I still can't see the problem. It's not ryanairs fault that a ticket only costs an average of 40 EURO.

I can honestly say I had a delay with thomas cook a year ago where I had to wait 8 hours, never saw a hotel, a meal voucher of 5!! EURO, and NO information.

[airazurxtror]

Yes, some passengers who book through the internet know that they have a chance to be very unlucky and that they would have to help themselves. But there are also many passengers who do not realize what it really means to get stuck somewhere abroad untill the moment of disaster. I know people of 65+ who were helped by their children to visit them abroad . The flight was cancelled. Those elderly people had no clue what to do.

Most Ryanair passengers book through internet; and all of them should know what happens when a flight is cancelled - Michaël O'Leary has never tried to hide it, quite on the contrary, he has always made it very clear.
Ryanair doesn't cancel flights for pleasure; and it very very rarely does it : personnaly, I have at this moment boarded exactly 118 FR flights, without any cancellation, knock on wood !

A cancellation at the last moment is always annoying, I agree.
But if it happens at your home airport, you don't have to try and find an accomodation : you go back home.
If it happens at a foreign airport, it gets more exciting as you have to manage the situation, and find a solution, the best possible one. You have to show some ingenuousness, and remain cool. That's where one can discriminate between the real travelers and the crying children.

Another remark : at 65+, most normal people are not totally helpless and unable to take care of oneself, quite on the contrary, they usually have much experience and endurence. Some are vulnerable - but then, some people are helpless during their whole life.

Another thing : there are a lot of flight cancellations and appalling delays at the moment at BRU : on the TV, the victims don't look very happy of the help they get from the company - and it's not Ryanair !

http://www.rtlinfo.be/news/article/2115 ... +Charleroi

[LX-LGX]

Responsibility is limited or EXCLUDED!! What does that word mean ??? As I am ryanair crew for 4 years already you're just telling me something new that I have to advise pax to contact dublin by letter ?? That's not true. I have to tell them to contact the ryanair customer service desk in the airport where the following will be done . a. a refund b. a re-routing c. a re-booking on the next available flight d in case of ryanair being responsible for the delay meal vouchers and a hotel. I still can't see the problem. It's not ryanairs fault that a ticket only costs an average of 40 EURO.

Sean, don't take it personally - it's about the Ryanair-policy:

The customer service desks only deal with "normal" refunds, not with complaints like "I was on time queing here, but I was too late at the check-in". If the pax from last Friday's Pisa-flight arrive in CRL on Monday (or Tuesday) and ask for a financial indemnity, what will then happen? Will Charleroi solve this out, or Dublin?

Ryanair indeed rerouts or rebooks, but only in case it's an own error: overbooking or an own computer booking error. If the client has booked f.e. a wrong date or no passport, it's not service desk anymore, but sales desk. Pax will have to pay.

David Gering told VRT-radio it's impossible for Ryanair to respect the EU-Regulation because of the cheap ticket price. That's totally irrelevant and even indecent. This EU-Legislation is a Law, and it's about time Mr O'Leary, mr Gering, all Ryanair-staff and all those here who also think that Ryanair has the right to abondon pax because Ryanair told them this could happen, start to understand that no single airline (and thus no LCC) is above the law. Actually, the EU-Regulation has a special article about this:

Article 15 : Exclusion of waiver

1. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage.

2. If, nevertheless, such a derogation or restrictive clause is applied in respect of a passenger, or if the passenger is not correctly informed of his rights and for that reason has accepted compensation which is inferior to that provided for in this Regulation, the passenger shall still be entitled to take the necessary proceedings before the competent courts or bodies in order to obtain additional compensation.

- - -

If it's impossible to respect the law with ticket prices from 1 euro, then try 2 euro and build up a margin in case EU-Legislation 261/2004 forces you to pay for hotel accommodation or financial indemnity.

[stefanel]

Let's try to sum things up.

It's a case of force majeure, therefore, the only obligation is
-refund
-rerouting (Ryanair would only do it on their own flights, maybe unlike other carriers)
-transfer to next flights

I understand this has been done, so why all this fuss ?

Who said they had to wait until Monday ?

I experienced the same thing once in Charleroi, cancelled flight due to fog (CFM, too), I was offered a refund of a transfer onto the next flight.

The only thing I wonder is how they chose the lucky 60 ones ?

Gering's interview was pitiful of course. He doesn't know his job. The ticket price has nothing to do. It's a case of force majeure, he had to insist on that! And that all flights are packed full in the summer. I would fire him for giving such a negative image of Ryanair, but well, MoL does the same so they must be good friends LOL

What I hate though is that flights take off empty from the diverted airport, instead of waiting for the passengers to come by bus. It happened so many times in Charleroi when the planes were in Liège and took off empty, and it's just an hour ride by bus. I would definitely choose the 2hour delay option over flying on time but empty.

What I hate also is that the media always pick on Ryanair and LCC, even when it's about a charter flight (like the stuck passengers in Antalya this WE). There is no relations btn LCC and charter flight at all. The price is not everything! Compare LCC with regular carriers, not with charters!

And buying on the Internet or not is also irrelevant.

[earthman]

Let's try to sum things up.

It's a case of force majeure, therefore, the only obligation is
-refund
-rerouting (Ryanair would only do it on their own flights, maybe unlike other carriers)
-transfer to next flights

I understand this has been done, so why all this fuss ?

The fuss is about whether the EU regulations can all be ignored in case of force majeure, since in the text of the regulation itself it is clearly stated that only the financial compensation does not apply in case of force majeure, not a word that the obligation to care (hotel, food) doesn't apply.

The considerant 14 isn't really part of the regulation, is it? It seems like it's there to explain why airlines don't have to pay compensation in case of extreme circumstances. Then again, I am not a lawyer trained to screw people over.

What I hate though is that flights take off empty from the diverted airport, instead of waiting for the passengers to come by bus. It happened so many times in Charleroi when the planes were in Liège and took off empty, and it's just an hour ride by bus. I would definitely choose the 2hour delay option over flying on time but empty.

That 2 hour delay for the plane would mean a 2 hour delay for that plane for the rest of the day, probably including the necessity to find a new crew because of working time limits.

[LX-LGX]

Let's try to sum things up. It's a case of force majeure, therefore, the only obligation is
-refund
-rerouting (Ryanair would only do it on their own flights, maybe unlike other carriers)
-transfer to next flights
I understand this has been done, so why all this fuss ? Who said they had to wait until Monday?

Once again: this case is settled by European Legislation 261/2004 which is a Consumer Protection Law. This means that in case of doubt, the advantage has to go to the passenger. The Law starts with these remarks: "...Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general. Denied boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights cause serious trouble and inconvenience to passengers..."

- - -

You're mentionning force majeure, but it's even less strict for airlines: even at extraordinary circumstances, the responsability can be reduced of excluded. Ryanair (and many others here) say that (14) applies, but you all forget there's also a (15) and we are talking about a Consumer Protection Law, not a internal Ryanair-rule.

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15): Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

- - -

Now, back to the Friday incident: Pisa was temporary closed due to bad weather, and Ryanair has cancelled the CRL-flight. The temporary closure of Pisa is no extraordinary circumstance (like fog): some time later, Pisa was open for business again, and Ryanair was able to operate the flight. Thus: the "extraordinary circumstances" do not apply.

First obligation from an airline always is to assist pax. Article 8. This was not done: there have been enough unhappy pax on radio and TV in Belgium. One said: "They've just told us the flight is cancelled, and we had to come back on Monday".[/quote]

Gering's interview was pitiful of course. He doesn't know his job.

Gering knows exactly what he's doing: he want to convince people that, because of the cheap ticket price, 261/2004 doens't apply to his airline. It'sd not because he tells this 100 times, that this is true.

What I hate also is that the media always pick on Ryanair and LCC, even when it's about a charter flight (like the stuck passengers in Antalya this WE). There is no relations btn LCC and charter flight at all. The price is not everything! Compare LCC with regular carriers, not with charters!

That's because the LCC's don't respect the EU Legislation. All carriers must apply 261/2004, and in some cases, they will indeed loose on a flight. So be it: scheduled airlines accept it, LCC's don't. When Sabena had a 330 stuck in Africa about one week ago, pax didn't had to ask for something: they were spontanously offered a hotel and 700 euro financial compensation by SN (some called this threwing money away, but it was exactly what 261/2004 obliges airlines to do). Same applies for the most overbooked flight = BRU-LHR. BD and BA and SN have a standard form for this: "your flight is overbooked were looking for volunteers: we offer you..."

- - -

The biggest complain from the Corendon-pax was about ongoing and wrong information on the new departure time, while the Ryanair-pax were furious because they were dropped in Pisa.

But even then: the Corendon-story at Antalya may only be compared to the Ryanair-story in Pisa for those few pax who had bought a ticket (and nothing else) direct from Corendon-Airlines. And only they can apply 261/2004. Most Corendon-pax on Antalya have bought a package through a travel agent or direct with Corendon-the-touroperator. 261/2004 says that they are excluded from this Legislation. However, for these pax the Belgian Travel Law applies = pax can easily go to the Geschillencommissie Reizen - Commission Litiges de Voyage, an out of court (but official) settlement between tourists / travel agents / touroperators.

[stefanel]

thanks for your time.
Since I'm no lawyer, could you make it clear what Ryanair should have done for instance in that case (offer meals + hotels + flights with another carrier etc?).

I would really like to know what they *had* to do to fully respect the legislation.

Where should the passengers complain, which organization is liable for the breaks to this law ?

Thanks,