Polisman wrote: I think if you went to Small Claims with it they would probably settle before a court date. It would probably cost them more to hire a solicitor for the day than to settle with you. Just make sure you have receipts and paperwork for EVERYTHING
I'm uncertain because sometimes it can be important to an organisation/company that they send a message to everybody else who might consider taking them to court. So they look on their own "bigger picture".
A couple of years ago I was making a claim against my council highways because their surface dressing ruined a air of my shoes (whist out for a ride and they hadn't closed the road ...). Council blamed their sub-contractors (Kier) who said they'd followed all the Council procedures and requirements. By this tine I was arguing with the Council Legal Department (no longer Highways) so I said I'd be taking them to Small Claims Court (where they could not normally recover costs whatever the outcome). But they said fine and that they would be defending the claim and undoubtedly would be sending legal people on the day ... all despite the fact that cost of replacing my shoes was far cheaper than the unrecoverable costs they'd spend defending the claim. But they need so send a message to everybody else who might think of taking them to court that they wont just give-up when you say "I'll take you to court" so many others get that message and give-up so long term they expect it saves them money (fairness and justice seems not the issue).
Ian
How could you possibly prove a pair of shoes fell apart because of 1 stretch of road,and rule out every other possibility.No wonder you lost,it is a nonsence claim.
They didn't fall apart, they had tar coated all over the bottom. And I didn't lose, I won and I got paid £100. You are filling in details I didn't provide to meet your preconceptions! It was a reasonable claim (the Council never contested that), it was entirely due to the surface dressing (Council didn't contest that), evidence I submitted proved that (Council did not contest that).
Polisman wrote:Marketing at this level is all about what looks best for the company, and minimising any damaging critique.
hahahahaha! This is Ryanair we're talking about, they thrive on bad publicity, just when you think it's bad enough and whatever offence is quietening down, out comes the CEO and stirs it up again.
Is it not relevant that other airlines explicitly state that a poly bag is fine,
Quote BA. "Your bike is packed in a protective bicycle cover/box that is no larger than 190 x 95 x 65cm (75 x 37.5 x 25.5in) to reduce the risk of damage. This can be a heavy-duty polythene bike bag, padded case or hard shell. If in a non-rigid bag, please make sure the handlebars are fixed sideways, and the pedals are removed or fixed inwards, so they don't stick out. It is also sensible to reduce tyre pressures."
It's reasonable to assume there is no reason why a bicycle in a poly bag can't be taken through and airport and loaded onto a plane. The rest is a figment of Ryanairs imagination.
Supporter of the A10 corridor cycling campaign serving Royston to Cambridge http://a10corridorcycle.com. Never knew gardening secateurs were an essential part of the on bike tool kit until I took up campaigning.....
I agree about Ryanair not giving a toss about bad publicity (and had said so previously in this thread). To say that you can shame them is very funny. Also the general public are not particularly bike friendly and many non cycling passengers may not want a bike (dirty greasy thing) put next to their designer suitcase with only a thin layer of polythene between them.
There are rules about what airlines can do and what their liabilities are, mainly laid down by the EU (remember them). I'm surprised no one has suggested that the OP tries to find out what the airline could be liable for. Maybe an approach to someone like Simon Calder, travel correspondent of Guardian and contributor to BBC. He may or may not give advice.
I also concurred much earlier in this thread that the OP makes a naive approach to Ryanair to see if they accept poly bags. A confirmatory email from Ryanair would be gold dust in any claim.
caribike wrote:Thank you for all the information and experiences given in your replies.
The strange thing is that we did exactly the same thing on the same return route in 2016 and 2017 with the same ctc bags. In this case the check-in girl called over a supervisor who in turn phoned someone (who?) at RyanAir and thus the rejection of the bikes.
I had it in mind that the protective bag was to prevent grease and dirt getting on other hold luggage. About 20 years ago, twice I took my bicycle from Gatwick to Toulouse and return. Later, I took a tandem on the same route. No protection, no hastle - although the tandem did pick up a few flecks of yellow paint from somewhere.
Overnight, I didn't sleep well and then I thought we should be able to recover some of this holiday. I phoned my friend was not very keen at first but he did come round. We are now booked on a FlyBe flight to Palma tomorrow (Thursday) from Southampton which we can get to easily from Cowes. We can get to Sineu by airport bus then train. On Friday, we are going to take the train to Inca and bus to Puerto de Pollensa to pick up our bikes that I booked and then cycle the 22 miles back to Sineu. Our holiday is reduced from 14 to 9 days because FlyBe only have a few flight so we have to return home on a Sunday rather than the following Tuesday.
I'm sorry you've lost so much of your holiday but 9 days is still a great amount of time to get some amazing cycling in, have a really great time!
iandriver wrote:Is it not relevant that other airlines explicitly state that a poly bag is fine,
Quote BA. "Your bike is packed in a protective bicycle cover/box that is no larger than 190 x 95 x 65cm (75 x 37.5 x 25.5in) to reduce the risk of damage. This can be a heavy-duty polythene bike bag, padded case or hard shell. If in a non-rigid bag, please make sure the handlebars are fixed sideways, and the pedals are removed or fixed inwards, so they don't stick out. It is also sensible to reduce tyre pressures."
It's reasonable to assume there is no reason why a bicycle in a poly bag can't be taken through and airport and loaded onto a plane. The rest is a figment of Ryanairs imagination.
No, not really.
It's reasonable to assume that were RA to have intended to admit bikes in bags they would have said so, as BA does.
Of course anything can be taken and loaded onto a plane, but it's down to the carrier and their Ground Handlers as to exactly what is.
Polisman wrote:Marketing at this level is all about what looks best for the company, and minimising any damaging critique.
hahahahaha! This is Ryanair we're talking about, they thrive on bad publicity, just when you think it's bad enough and whatever offence is quietening down, out comes the CEO and stirs it up again.
That former approach has changed, tbf. Tony O'Leary is being much more conscious of that aspect than ever before.
iandriver wrote:Is it not relevant that other airlines explicitly state that a poly bag is fine,
Quote BA. "Your bike is packed in a protective bicycle cover/box that is no larger than 190 x 95 x 65cm (75 x 37.5 x 25.5in) to reduce the risk of damage. This can be a heavy-duty polythene bike bag, padded case or hard shell. If in a non-rigid bag, please make sure the handlebars are fixed sideways, and the pedals are removed or fixed inwards, so they don't stick out. It is also sensible to reduce tyre pressures."
It's reasonable to assume there is no reason why a bicycle in a poly bag can't be taken through and airport and loaded onto a plane. The rest is a figment of Ryanairs imagination.
I wonder if the fact that other airlines accept such bags might help in a court case demonstrating that, with such an ambiguous ill defined T&C the claimant was making a reasonable assumption maybe highlighting the inadequacy of RA’s T&Cs and helping the claim. E.g. do exactly the same except wrap the bike in toilet paper and the court might think the claimant was being unreasonable, but buy a special bag that is accepted by other airlines make RA look more unreasonable.
Bonefishblues wrote:Tony O'Leary is being much more conscious of that aspect than ever before.
I don't know who Tony O'leary is, any relation to the Micheal O'Leary who a few months ago called his staff a bunch of layabouts? Yes i was aware that he'd taken a well publicised step back from the day to day running, but I don't think the fundamentals have changed. Why would they? They've proved time and again that peoples priority is price, it manages to be both a great success story and depressing.
Bonefishblues wrote:Tony O'Leary is being much more conscious of that aspect than ever before.
I don't know who Tony O'leary is, any relation to the Micheal O'Leary who a few months ago called his staff a bunch of layabouts? Yes i was aware that he'd taken a well publicised step back from the day to day running, but I don't think the fundamentals have changed. Why would they? They've proved time and again that peoples priority is price, it manages to be both a great success story and depressing.
He's a friend of mine, actually
Rather obviously I meant Michael...
Well, because they have changed, because such bad publicity became to be seen for what it was.
This is the 4th review on the Wiggle page selling the CTC bag:
" For the product itself - reasonably strong plastic, & very clear so the handlers can see what they are dealing with. Flexible enough that you can tape to the bike. Use of the bag - one of our group flew out with Easyjet from Gatwick no problems. But trying to return with Easyjet from Vienna we were told that we couldn't use them, and had to buy bike boxes to transport them back. So check carefully whether you will actually be able to use the bag ! If you can then it works fine (although I was a bit relieved to have used the bike box when we saw how the handlers 'look after' the bikes). "
nirakaro wrote:I don't think it matters whose issue it is. It's Ryanair's job not to undertake to do things that their subcontractors will refuse to do for them.
It's surely Ryanair's job to instruct their suppliers to do their bidding, providing their instructions are within the IATA Regulations.
...but there's the problem of interpretation. To illustrate:
If a 'polythene bag' is stipulated as being suitable for bike carriage, then you would inevitably get someone coming along who has their bike in a bag that their armchair came in, as opposed to an 'approved' bag. So must one stipulate the gauge of plastic...and so on.
They probably do need to be more specific - "protective" is certainly not a useful adjective to apply to a bag/case in this context. Are we protecting against contaminants, clumsy baggage handlers, abusive baggage handlers, or being run over by the baggage truck?
Even the best hard cases won't effectively protect against some extremes.
