Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 20:54
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/19/ryanair.boarding.fee.judge/

    A judge in Barcelona, Spain, ruled that the carrier's 40 euro (about $54) boarding card reissue fee is illegal. Passengers must pay it if they arrive for their flight without a pre-printed boarding pass.

    "I declare abusive and, therefore, null, the clause in the contract by which Ryanair obliges the passenger to take a boarding pass to the airport," Judge Barbara Cordoba said, according to The Guardian.


    So, under the guise of "protecting" the consumer, this moronic judge is trying to force an airline essentially to raise rates or cut other services (the money doesn't grow on trees, folks; Ryanair has to make their money somehow) because it doesn't like what essentially amounts to a stupid/lazy tax.

    The rule, fully disclosed by private company as a condition of their service, rewards people for having the sense and foresight to simply print their boarding passes at home. If you're too technologically inept to print your boarding pass or too lazy or forgetful (or have enough money so that you don't care), you pay a tax so that everyone can have lower fares in general.

    What is "abusive" about that?

    The activist judges and public advocates and the like want to have their cake and eat it too. They want the low fares, but they don't want companies to have the freedom to do what's necessary to keep those fares low. It's pathetic.

    If the decision is not reversed, Ryanair vowed to get rid of the charge altogether, warning that passengers who arrived at the airport without their pre-printed boarding passes would simply not be able to go through security or board their plane.


    I sincerely hope they do this; just to show that judge how moronic it is to start dictating price rules to competitive private sector companies in a vacuum.
  2. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Jan '11 21:03 / 1 edit
    I remember a thread about an allegedly stupid ruling that you replied saying that it meant nothing and it wouldn't pass the appeal. What's different here?
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 21:17
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I remember a thread about an allegedly stupid ruling that you replied saying that it meant nothing and it wouldn't pass the appeal. What's different here?
    I don't know anything about the appeals system in the Spanish courts.

    If this one won't stand up on appeal, then fine. Does anyone here know enough about the Spanish court system to make that determination?
  4. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Jan '11 21:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't know anything about the appeals system in the Spanish courts.

    If this one won't stand up on appeal, then fine. Does anyone here know enough about the Spanish court system to make that determination?
    I don't, but the article says Ryanair are appealing.
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 21:33
    Originally posted by Palynka
    I don't, but the article says Ryanair are appealing.
    Virtually everyone appeals adverse rulings... doesn't mean they'll win.
  6. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Jan '11 21:36
    Originally posted by sh76
    Virtually everyone appeals adverse rulings... doesn't mean they'll win.
    But the other appeal would work for sure. Ok...
  7. 19 Jan '11 21:40
    Originally posted by sh76
    The rule, fully disclosed by private company as a condition of their service, rewards people for having the sense and foresight to simply print their boarding passes at home. If you're too technologically inept to print your boarding pass or too lazy or forgetful (or have enough money so that you don't care), you pay a tax so that everyone can have lower fares in general.
    Yeah, people who don't own printers are technologically inept, stupid or forgetful.

    I have never printed a boarding pass before I go to the airport and have never been charged for doing so.

    I'm not saying that this ruling is right, but it's just a bit ridiculous to think that the only reason you wouldn't have a boarding pass printed beforehand is due to the options you presented.

    $50 is a lot to pay for the simple printing of a piece of paper and what amounts to less than a minute of time on the airline's part.
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 21:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Yeah, people who don't own printers are technologically inept, stupid or forgetful.

    I have never printed a boarding pass before I go to the airport and have never been charged for doing so.

    I'm not saying that this ruling is right, but it's just a bit ridiculous to think that the only reason you wouldn't have a boarding pass printed beforehand is ...[text shortened]... g of a piece of paper and what amounts to less than a minute of time on the airline's part.
    Don't own printers?

    Come on man. It's 2011. Not owning a printer is like not owning a telephone. You can get one that works just fine for, like, 50 bucks.

    So, take the $50 that you would have spent on the re-print fee and invest it in a printer to save yourself the re-print fees next time.

    I have never printed a boarding pass before I go to the airport and have never been charged for doing so.


    You haven't been charged for doing so because you've never flown an airline that charges for it. What does whether you've been charged for it have to do with whether the airline should be allowed to charge it?
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 21:51 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    But the other appeal would work for sure. Ok...
    What does one thing have to do with the other? That was an American case. I was asserting that the ruling wouldn't stand up on appeal based on my knowledge of American law. I don't even remember the issue; but on what possible basis would I conclude that this decision will not stand up on appeal? I don't know anything about Spanish law (except that they have at least one bad judge).
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    19 Jan '11 21:54
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't know anything about Spanish law (except that they have at least one bad judge).
    Interesting statement.
  11. 19 Jan '11 22:00
    Originally posted by sh76
    Don't own printers?

    Come on man. It's 2011. Not owning a printer is like not owning a telephone. You can get one that works just fine for, like, 50 bucks.

    So, take the $50 that you would have spent on the re-print fee and invest it in a printer to save yourself the re-print fees next time.

    [quote]I have never printed a boarding pass before I go to the ...[text shortened]... 've been charged for it have to do with whether the airline should be allowed to charge it?
    Come on man. It's 2011. Not owning a printer is like not owning a telephone. You can get one that works just fine for, like, 50 bucks.

    So, take the $50 that you would have spent on the re-print fee and invest it in a printer to save yourself the re-print fees next time.


    Buy a printer so it can collect dust??

    I know they are cheap, but that doesn't mean you need one or that everyone has a regular use for one. It's certainly not stupid or lazy to not own a piece of equipment you only would print a boarding pass with.

    You haven't been charged for doing so because you've never flown an airline that charges for it. What does whether you've been charged for it have to do with whether the airline should be allowed to charge it?

    It means or suggests that it isn't a standard practice. It's also gauging for a service that doesn't come close to costing as much as they are charging for it.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 22:08 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Come on man. It's 2011. Not owning a printer is like not owning a telephone. You can get one that works just fine for, like, 50 bucks.

    So, take the $50 that you would have spent on the re-print fee and invest it in a printer to save yourself the re-print fees next time.


    Buy a printer so it can collect dust??

    I know they are cheap, but tha g for a service that doesn't come close to costing as much as they are charging for it.
    No individual service costs what they're charging for it. The marginal cost of you being on the plane costs them almost nothing, once the plane is going with or without you. They have to make their money somehow and charging people who make their employees do something they could just as easily do at home is as reasonable a way to charge as any. If someone doesn't like their fees, they're free to use another airline.
  13. 19 Jan '11 22:09
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    It means or suggests that it isn't a standard practice. It's also gauging for a service that doesn't come close to costing as much as they are charging for it.[/b]
    When each airline has a unique set of special fees, it can make it very difficult for the consumer to effectively compare prices and decide who is offering the best deal.

    This doesn't mean that these fees should be illegal - but it does mean that it makes the marketplace less efficient - something that likely allows the airline companies to make more profit than they otherwise would, at the consumer's expense.
  14. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    19 Jan '11 22:11
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    When each airline has a unique set of special fees, it can make it very difficult for the consumer to effectively compare prices and decide who is offering the best deal.

    This doesn't mean that these fees should be illegal - but it does mean that it makes the marketplace less efficient - something that likely allows the airline companies to make more profit than they otherwise would, at the consumer's expense.
    All companies aim to make as high a profit as possible at consumer expense. It's called running a business. I don't see anything wrong with that.
  15. 19 Jan '11 22:18
    Originally posted by sh76
    All companies aim to make as high a profit as possible at consumer expense. It's called running a business. I don't see anything wrong with that.
    Transparency is important for the efficient functioning of the market. Companies will often want to deceive their customers to make more money and this is where government ought to step in and ensure the market's efficiency.