PPS: Having been in the USA last week, I can tell you that the view from some parts of their media is that the ash groundings fits very nicely with the anti-aviation climate-change thing that is seen as an over-hyped EU/green hobby horse. I must admit I have some sympathy with that view. If we assume (reasonably IMHO) that the met office is run by climatologists – who believe that the world’s end if nigh if we don’t immediately take action to cut down on carbon emmisions, for which aviation is supposedly a major sinner – then they have no incentive to encourage flying, do they? And if their dicky computer model that’s not really been adequately backed up by scientific measurements suggests flying isn’t safe, all well and good in their world, isn’t it? Sadly it is these very people who we are depending on to determine whether flying should take place or not. Maybe they are not trying to justify why flying safe, but rather for reasons why it might not be?

Spirit, Ryanair (both the lowest common denominators as far as airlines are concerned in their respective regions of operations) – low-cos going for no recline, primarily because the seats are simpler and cheaper, not because of passenger convenience or lack thereof.

As for other carriers – if a passengers pay for a seat that reclines, seems entirely reasonable to me that any customer who wants to should use it.

Andy

Terms and conditions.
When book you confirm you agree to them.
That is legally binding and pretty rock solid.
You can fight it, but it will cost you far more in legal bills than you would ever gain.

Nope, not rock solid at all… As explained above, contract terms and conditions do not over-ride national or European law.

Well well looks like Ryanair have had a change of mind and now will reimburse for hotel and food and other cost within reason. MMMM Maybe he thought he could lose a good few passengers and saw an chance to earn soe browny points

Or maybe someone from the EU (or its lawyers) had a bit of a word in MOL’s shell-like, and explained who was likely to be on the losing side! 😀

Andy

There is absolutely no indication that the government did anything except pressure NATS to open the airspace.
Core blimey, take those blinkers off, will ya!

Believe that if you wish. But if indeed the government did push NATS into opening UK airspace, with over 50% of all European flights operating today and the European model showing no risk of ash over the UK at lunchtime, it can only have been on the basis of the UK position being increasingly isolated and untennable. The evidence is as I highlighted above – the goalposts have been moved (aircraft tollerance to ash) whilst at the same time the met office says that it doesn’t know how much ash is in the air. IMHO its the right decision and I’m glad its happened, but how can that be anything other than a political fudge?

Andy

There is 6 BA flights doing rounds over West Ireland , Lands End,Wales and France all waiting for LHR to open

Yup, even more rediculousness… If, as we are to believe, they’ve re-evaluated aircraft’s tollerance to ash, why is it not safe to land before 2200 and yet it is safe to land after 2200?

Andy

NATS get their data from the Met Office. On the basis of that information, and the position of the engine manufacturers that say don’t fly into ash, the NATS position seems logical (albeit arguably not so reasonable vis a vis whether NATS or the regulator and the airlines should be making the decisions). I presume the airlines would like to take the Eurocontrol view, and in some regions of Europe where the Eurocontrol view prevails ops are resuming.

The fundamental issue now may be – who is right, the Met Office or whatever source Eurocontrol get their data from?

Andy