Ryanair threatens to sue the Government

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Cutsy, Aug 18, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary said: "The best way to defeat terrorists and extremists is for ordinary people to continue to live their lives as normal. Because of the additional security restrictions imposed by the Government last Thursday, the shambles at the London airports has been anything but normal.

    Nice thought Michael, but it doesn't save lives in the real world does it!?

    Now I am getting mightily p1ssed off with the attitude of Ryanair over the security issue at UK airports. This selfish, greedy attitude against national security interests is appaling. The major airlines seem to understand the situation and have appeared to 'grit their teeth and get on with it'. Now you have this bunch of little upstarts from Ireland wanting to dictate UK security matters.

    I hope they're told where to get off, and firmly!!

  2. I suggest you read the news in full. Virgin & British Airways seem to be going along the same lines as Ryanair now!
  3. Actually they're almost a week behind BA in complaining about the security regime and it is only a matter of time I think before there's a good few others on the bandwagon.

    The problem is not so much with security checks per se, but in the ridiculous and arbitary methods that are being used, the pointlessness of which is actually highlighted by the concessions made (baby milk, 'script drugs, laptops).
  4. The news suggests that Ryanair would sue the government for compensation if the measures were not relaxed. With regards the bigger airlines, it appears that discussions are in place to secure compensation from BAA, not HMG and this arrangement seems constructive but not threatening.

    Let's just make the aviation environment safe and maybe everyone can sit down later on and discuss what can be done to improve efficiency without threats of litigation everywhere!

  5. Legal action, Ryanair v The Government.

    I hope they both lose!
  6. Custy, Please read the following. What Ryanair are threatening to do is covered under section 93 of the Transport Act 2000. Any Airline can do the same:

    A person (other than the CAA) who suffers direct injury or loss arising from compliance with a direction under subsection (1)(a) is entitled to receive compensation from the Secretary of State.

    Subsection (1)(a) is :

    The Secretary of State may give directions to any listed person in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.

    And as O'leary owns an airline that is not a United Kingdom air transport undertaking but a person who owns or operates a relevant asset,

    Then he is fully entitled to make this claim. No doubt so will other airlines.
  7. Not to mention the...ahh... shall we say tiny loophole that someone wishing to detonate a lemonade bottle full of TATP over London just needs to pop on Eurostar, get on a London bound flight at CDG and enjoy an overpriced halal wrap before pressing the button.....
  8. I fully agree but if Government Acts are open for compensation then whats stopping the airlines taking the Government to court, nothing!.
  9. I'm not entirely opposed to them doing so...
    Especially if it makes those in charge of security think about an effective policy of preventing terrorists from boarding commercial aircraft.
  10. I went through the fun and games myself on Tuesday and the thing that struck me most was the level of confusion. It seemed that even 5 days later, no two workers at Heathrow had the same idea about what the rules were and what was going on.

    E.g. When I was told by one of Beardy's employees that I wouldn't be allowed to take an iPod into the cabin with me, I didn't make a fuss, just put it in my checked baggage. She got quite arsey when I mentioned that someone might want to let the BBC know what the rules were because they were handing out duff gen and it could save everyone a lot of hassle and repacking on the terminal floor. (BTW, at the gate, I saw at least half a dozen pax wearing white headphones.) The little bitch then tried to charge me for excess baggage because the 6kg of stuff I would have had in my carry-on put me over the 23kg limit on one of my checked bags.

    Flight finally got wheels up 5 hrs late (4 hours because of the local palaver and then another hour because some silly bint had a panic attack while we were taxying- cue a taxi back for bint to be unloaded, bags unloaded, 5 rows of seats and the bogs searched and the a/c refueled.) :evil:

    Still, better to be a few hours late in this world than 50 years early for the next.
  11. I was caught up in the security, oh what fun it was spending more time at the airport than the lenght of the flight after an domestic flight to Glasgow, next time I'm driving up. Hopefully O'leary and gang of Irish horse racing mafia get kicked out of the UK by the government.
  12. Oh I can fun and games with this one!

    I have not actually studied the Act and any available case law but at first blush from the information you have given, subsection 1(a) looks interesting since we are actually under a legal state of emergency which was declared on 13 December 2001. Even though it is bogus state of emergency used as a legal fiction to derogate from the Human Rights Act to justify locking up innocent people indefinitely without due process, the state of emergency continues as a legal state of affairs and some smart lawyer would seek to argue that the government are estopped, ie, prevented from denying it's existence for the purpose of seeking to deny that section 1(a) applies.

    I can also see problems with the interpretation of section 93 and what is meant by the term: 'Direct injury or loss'. If it is construed conjunctively, ie as 'direct injury or direct loss, then we get into nice little tortious arguments of whether pure economic loss which he is claiming is direct loss or indirect loss. If it is the latter, then he falls outside of the Act! If it construed subjunctively, ie, loss, then we get into similar arguments whether pure economic loss is actually payable under normal tortious principles and case law, such as the Spartan Steel case holds that it is not!

    In any event, we do not know whether a minister has used his powers under the new Civil Contingencies Act 2004 to suspend the operation of any statute or provision providing Parliament ratifies it within 30 days! You can bet your salary some bright spark would have thought of that one!

    Courts in high profile cases such as this make their judgements not only on a strict interpretation of the law, they also make their judgements on a large dose of public policy, and the question will inevitably arise as to whether it is in the public interest that public funds should be paid in compensation in this way, and you can bet that that question if answered in the negative will cloud very much the way in which the Act to which you refer will be interpreted.

    Nothing is as straightforward as it seems in these cases and I think this gentleman may have his work cut out and somehow I do not see a situation in which the higher judiciary would allow a situation to arise where there would be a free-for-all, with every private operator claiming millions of pounds at the taxpayers expense.

    As I have said, I have not actually looked at this in any depth as yet and I may well be wrong but you get some idea of the kind or arguments that will take place. Mr O'Leary may well end up enriching is lawyers who will advise him and end up insolvent for his pains.

    In any event, I am rather sceptical as to the existence of any real threat and given the propensity of this Government to stage manage events at airports to alarm the public and keep them maleable and afraid. Reminds the Proles just how much they need their useless leaders to protect them and engenders public support for another round of draconian laws on the Governments legislative programme - they still want their 90 days detention in Police custody without charge when Parliament returns from the Summer recess don't they? Most MPs got away on their Summer hols just before this incident occurred did'nt they, and it was only the great unwashed who were inconvenienced by it! Call me Mr cynical but I think the timing of this whole thing was just a bit too damed convenient and the whole thing stinks!

    Regards as always
  13. Ryanair can kiss my hairy beanbag. They are corporate sluts.
  14. Its about time.

    Something needs to focus the minds of Government.
    Ole Brown having to raid his horde will mightly upset him :eek:

    To be honest I am not convinced theirs any risk, and anyway
    why is everyone being whipped into a frenzied state its not like we havent seen this shit before.
  15. A blatant attempt to avoid passing the new costs associated with secure air travel onto the taxpayer. The money-grabbing gits already get off very lightly compared with other modes of travel....no fuel duty etc.