Diversion of 5 flights from CRL to LGG last Saturday

Post by **sn26567** » 27 Aug 2007, 10:37

Because of heavy fog, 5 flights due to land at Charleroi Airport were diverted to Liège Bierset on Saturday morning, 25 August.

Similarly, 5 flights due to take off from BSCA actually took off from Liège Airport. Approximately 500 passengers were involved. Situation at Charleroi came back to normal at the end of the morning.

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 27 Aug 2007, 11:27

Time to adapt the airport.
Autumn will see many diversions, due to the lack of appropriated infrastructure

stefanel · Post by **stefanel** » 27 Aug 2007, 11:43

Airbus330lover wrote:Time to adapt the airport.
Autumn will see many diversions, due to the lack of appropriated infrastructure

When is the cat 3 due ?

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 27 Aug 2007, 12:17

End 2008 (needs confirmation!)

Acid-drop · Post by **Acid-drop** » 27 Aug 2007, 13:22

Just explain me why ryanair had to cancel other flight instead of driving all pax to liege by bus (less than 1h away) ?

OO-SBZ · Post by **OO-SBZ** » 27 Aug 2007, 13:35

Acid-drop wrote:Just explain me why ryanair had to cancel other flight instead of driving all pax to liege by bus (less than 1h away) ?

€ € € € €

Acid-drop · Post by **Acid-drop** » 27 Aug 2007, 20:04

angry pax and bad advertising cost more than a bus, dont you think?

TUB001 · Post by **TUB001** » 27 Aug 2007, 20:43

Acid-drop wrote:angry pax and bad advertising cost more than a bus, dont you think?

I don't think you realize the costs diversions involve... but luckily Ryanair does.

Acid-drop · Post by **Acid-drop** » 28 Aug 2007, 13:06

why not explain us ...
It would be interesting for everybody

Airbus330lover · Post by **Airbus330lover** » 28 Aug 2007, 17:25

Very simple.
Hire a bus on last minute price when you don't have to do this (fog is out the liability of FR.)
It cost a lot of money, and second point, if they can find a bus for 100 €, it's 100 € it's always aditional cost.
And FR advertise with other methods

nry50 · Post by **nry50** » 31 Aug 2007, 02:20

Ryanair have a philosophy of "you get what you pay for", which is usually not a lot. If your flight is cancelled through no fault on their behalf, they will offer you a refund or transportation on the next available flight with seats available (could be in 3 days time.) Whilst it seems unfair, you can't really expect to be put up in hotels or given meal vouchers etc if you have only paid about 20 euros for a flight.

Regards,

Neil 8)

Buzz · Post by **Buzz** » 31 Aug 2007, 02:47

The biggest reason is certainly not the price of a bus, but the impact on their schedules: planes divert last minute, so before they are loaded and ready in LGG, it could be easily 2-3 houres past the time it should have taken of from CRL. This riples throughout the schedule all day...
There are 1000's of people affected by this delay, iso. the 500 in CRL.

It's ch*tty when you are one of the 500, but the other 1000's of people thank FR for keeping their plans uninterupted.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 31 Aug 2007, 09:00

nry50 wrote:Ryanair have a philosophy of "you get what you pay for", which is usually not a lot. If your flight is cancelled through no fault on their behalf, they will offer you a refund or transportation on the next available flight with seats available (could be in 3 days time.) Whilst it seems unfair, you can't really expect to be put up in hotels or given meal vouchers etc if you have only paid about 20 euros for a flight.
Neil

"You get what you pay for" is indeed Ryanair's policy, and they keep on sending this through the media. But it's overruled by legislation. I know it's hard for British people to accept legislation coming from the Continent, and I know critic on Ryanair isn't much appreciated here. But though: European Legislation 261/2004 applies also for Ryanair, also for mr O'Leary. Any airline must take care of stranded pax. EU 261/2004: "This Regulation shall not apply to passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public. However, it shall apply to passengers having tickets issued under a frequent flyer programme or other commercial programme by an air carrier or tour operator."

Refusing to offer hotel accommodation because it's more expensive then the ticket price is like saying that an insurance company will not pay more indemnity then what you've paid to them as insurance fee. Selling tickets gives obligations to an airline. If an airline cannot afford the consequences, they have to sell the tickets a bit more expensive.

- - -

"Cancelled through no fault on their behalf" is not a wildcard. Once again, 261/2004 says what the conditions must be. When a flight is cancelled because of weather conditions, Ryanair misleads the pax by stating only Article 14 from 261/2004, while Article 15 is even more important:

(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.

- - -

Going back to the particular case from this topic: I don't know how long CRL was closed that Saturday morning. Article 14 applies, but I don't know if 15 also applies (... causing the cancellation of one or more flights...). Please don't forget the last part from 15: if the delay at CRL would have been predicted by ATC as short, a divertion to LGG can be seen as a reasonable measure, making Art. 14 and Art. 15 not applicable here.

- - -

Acid-drop · Post by **Acid-drop** » 31 Aug 2007, 10:57

Actually, 5 planes landed in LGG, so it would have been logical to send pax to LGG to take off from there. At least those. It's maybe not clever to re-organise the whole thing, but at least use the situation as well as they could.