Ms Cathy Mannion:

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to provide clarity on the events of the last two weeks. The Commission for Aviation Regulation was established in 2001 under the Aviation Regulation Act 2001. It is an independent public body under the auspices of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and has a staff of 18. With me is Mr. David Hodnett, deputy commissioner. He is also the in-house legal expert and responsible for the licensing of ground handlers and airlines, as well as looking after customer rights. Also present is Ms Patricia Barton who is the manager in that area. She has many years of experience of dealing with flight cancellations in terms of what should be done, as well as the treatment of the regulation about we have been talking - Regulation (EC) 261 of 2004. In the 13 years the regulation has been in place the commission has dealt with some significant events for passengers, including the volcanic ash crisis and the disruption caused for passengers by the 2008 radar failure at Dublin Airport. We are, therefore, accustomed to responding to big events. This event is significant for passengers, but it is on a lesser scale than those two events. Assisting passengers to depart from Irish airports is our only responsibility. Assisting Irish passengers at other airports in other member states to return to Ireland does not fall within our remit. Such persons have to go to the enforcement body in the country concerned. To assist departing passengers the commission has comprehensive information on rights which is available on its organisation website www.aviationreg.ieand its dedicated passenger rights website www.flightrights.ie. Passengers can fill in complaint forms on both websites.

The European regulation establishes rights for passengers affected by flight cancellations, delays or instances of denied boarding. The commission is the enforcement body for flights scheduled to depart from Ireland. In the context of flight cancellations, passengers are entitled to choose between re-routing and refunding and may also be entitled to compensation and care and assistance such as the provision of meals and overnight hotel accommodation. That is the nub of what has been happening for the last two weeks. When Ryanair started to cancel flights, the sole focus of the commission, in line with our strategic plan, was the passenger. There are two aspects to the air carrier obligations. The airline must inform passengers of their rights to allow them to make an informed decision about what they want to do. It must also practically implement and apply the regulation in favour of passengers. I will concentrate on providing information for passengers because that is what is key. I wanted to ensure passengers knew their rights and that the rules set out in the regulation in relation to cancellations would be applied.

On Friday, 15 September, Ryanair announced that it was cancelling 40 to 50 flights daily for the following six weeks, to the end of October. The commission became aware of the cancellations through observing social media and media reports but found no clear statement on passengers’ rights to rerouting, refunding, care and assistance or compensation. There was some reference to them, but it was not in our view substantial or prominent enough for customers to know what their rights were.Ryanair's press statements of 15 September made limited reference to passenger rights. On that evening and over the course of that weekend my senior managers and I monitored the position continuously. On the Saturday morning, because of our concern, we issued a public statement which was also available on our website clearly setting out the passengers' rights. For the rest of the weekend we addressed various media queries.

On the Saturday Ryanair admitted that it had “messed up". By the Sunday evening the commission in its actions had made it publicly clear that compensation would apply. This was given a high profile in the media, which is what we had wanted to happened because we wanted to get access to the passengers in Ireland who did not know what to do. In my view, it would have been difficult for passengers to be fully informed of their entitlements based on the information they had available at the time. They needed the following questions to be answered as a matter of urgency: which flights are cancelled? Am I affected? What should I do next? Should I seek a refund or a re-route without incurring significant cost which might not be recoverable from Ryanair? What if I incur additional costs waiting for my re-routed flight? Who will pay for the hotel bill if I am stuck?Do I have any right to compensation? One of the key points we got across that weekend was that customers had the right to compensation. Ryanair stated it had messed up. Ours is the only organisation that told passengers that they had rights. We are glad that we did it and it was clear to everybody what his or her entitlements were.

On the same evening I considered what would be the best course of action to take to provide as much information as possible for affected passengers as soon as was possible. My focus was not on going after Ryanair. That was for another day. The focus was on getting the information on rights to passengers in order that they could make a decision.

Every member state has its own sanctions and enforcement regime which is predicated on that country’s legal framework. Our powers of enforcement are set out in section 45A of the Aviation Regulation Act 2001. The process can take some time and that was my concern. Given the very real and immediate needs of affected passengers, I considered this to be the incorrect approach to take at the time. The power to direct an airline to take certain action is available to the commission, as it is to most regulators, but it does not need to be used if the airline instead agrees to act in that manner without the need for a direction. That stands to reason. Issuing a direction before giving an airline a chance to respond is premature. Once a direction issues in these matters in Ireland, it becomes a separate legal process which may lead to litigation which in itself is not a problem. Timing is the issue. It may needlessly change the situation from one of collaboration to deliver a particular practical outcome in ease of the passenger which is quicker to one of conflict which is slower. I felt and still feel our priority had to be assisting passengers in airports at home or abroad who were desperately seeking a solution and concluded that the best course of action was to engage with Ryanair directly for it to provide the necessary information for all passengers affected. If it proved to be unco-operative, legal powers of enforcement were and still remain available to me.

On Monday, 18 September, three days after the initial publication, the senior management team met and we agreed on our next steps. Ryanair had to immediately publish a list of all affected flights for the six week period, but it also had to specify which passengers would or would not be entitled to compensation. We wanted clarity on that issue.Ryanair had to immediately contact all passengers affected and set out their rights. Passengers should not have to worry unduly if they were not on the cancelled flights. The commission had to further publicise the rights of passengers. In particular, we wanted to communicate that passengers should keep all receipts because when one is claiming from Ryanair it is always best to have a receipt, as it is in the case of any other airline. Passengers should be made aware of the claims process.

They should first contact Ryanair and if they did not get satisfaction, they should contact the Commission for Aviation Regulation. The third step, which is important, was to emphasise the importance of allowing Ryanair to re-route flights rather than opting for a refund and booking with another airline. While I do not propose to speak in detail about Regulation (EC) 261/2004, if passengers book themselves on other flights, for example, on the following day, they may not be able to recover the cost of the flight or accommodation. We are bound by the regulation and our only function is to apply it. What I wanted to do was minimise the risk to passengers that they would incur additional costs.

On the same morning the commission engaged with Ryanair and emphasised the importance of getting this information out immediately. By the close of business on the Monday, we had taken part in a number of media events to highlight the rights of passenger and Ryanair had published a list of affected flights and emailed affected passengers of their rights. We then updated our website to provide this information for passengers.

I now turn to the text of the first wave email. We reviewed the email Ryanair had sent to passengers, noting that the company had not sent it to the commission in advance. It would have been our preference to have received it in advance as we could then have agreed with Ryanair appropriate wording to provide clarity for customers. We acknowledged that Ryanair had provided information on certain aspects of the regulation, except on re-routing, which presented a problem. In its email Ryanair stated:

You can transfer online (free of charge) to the next alternative Ryanair flight to the same destination airport (subject to seat availability). If you require other rerouting options to/from different departure or destination airports or via another airport served by Ryanair...

Ryanair was, therefore, stating passengers had Ryanair options in all circumstances. The company seemed to be suggesting the only re-routing options were with Ryanair, which is not our understanding of the application of Regulation (EC) 261/2004. There has to be some leeway in that regard.

We can return to this issue when members are asking questions. Separately, however, because we always review how airlines operate, we knew that Ryanair had a scheme in place with partnership airlines which it used to re-route passengers. Ms Barton can discuss it in greater detail. For the life of me, I could not understand why Ryanair would issue an email stating passengers could only use Ryanair flights when we knew that, in the background, the company was more flexible than this.

We spent most of the week in question progressing these issues. On 21 September Ryanair provided the commission with clarification on who would be entitled to compensation. This was very important clarification which we published on our website. We asked Ryanair for a list of flights from Ireland for which passengers were entitled to compensation. This was done to provide further clarification. At first, Ryanair stated passengers would receive compensation for flights between certain dates. However, we wanted a list of specific flights in order that we could provide clarity for passengers on the flights for which they would receive compensation. During that week the commission internally reviewed Ryanair's re-routing policy as it was not clear at what point it would book a passenger on another airline. With regard to "re-routing under comparable transport conditions", the European Commission has indicated that the phrase "comparable transport conditions" includes the possibility of re-routing with other air carriers. The provision does not require an air carrier to provide multiple choices in the re-routing options offered. While the airline has some room to manoeuvre in what it can do, it must include the option of using another airline.

That brings us to the second week. On Monday, 25 September, Ryanair provided the commission with more detail on its partnership arrangement. As I stated, we knew two years beforehand what the company was trialling and what it intended to do. However, I wanted it to spell out what it was doing in this scenario because I could use this information once I had it in writing. Ryanair informed the commission of its arrangement for using other airlines to re-route passengers. It involves seven partners, namely, Aer Lingus, Vueling, CityJet, Eurowings, Jet 2, Easyjet and Norwegian. I do not know why the company did not provide this information for passengers the previous week, but it did not do so.

Ryanair explained that if a passenger was unable to re-book online on its website, he or she could contact it and the company would check if a flight was available either with Ryanair or one of its seven partner airlines. The company examines these issues on a case by case basis as circumstances may be different. This approach is much more in line with the requirements of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 than the text of the first email provided by the company. At that point, the commission considered that Ryanair's proposal was in line with the regulation. We then considered how best to get this information to passengers because it should not be forgotten that at that point a high percentage of passengers had already been re-routed or refunded and we did not want to add to the confusion. I tried to work out a way of focusing the information on those intending passengers who were still making choices.

Unfortunately, on Wednesday, 27 September, Ryanair sent another email announcing another wave of flight cancellations and a first email to the passengers affected. The commission was not given a copy of this email in advance. As soon as we became aware of this development, we asked for a copy of the email which was provided on the same day. We also immediately requested from Ryanair a list of Irish flights affected because my concern is what is happening in Ireland rather than in the rest of Europe. The company provided us with this list. The problem with the email to passengers was that it was not accurate. I noted that it made no reference to the recovery of incurred care and assistance costs. I decided that all outstanding concerns had to be resolved to our full satisfaction not later than at a meeting with Ryanair on the morning of Friday, 29 September. I know that this date has come up in correspondence from the Civil Aviation Authority, but that is a coincidence. A meeting had been scheduled some time earlier, with different items on the agenda, but I decided to use the opportunity to clear out these items and have a meeting on one item only, namely, a resolution of this issue to our full satisfaction; otherwise we would take further action.

On the day before the meeting the commission spent considerable time to and fro with Ryanair on the wording of the email and the text of the information provided for passengers on the Ryanair website. We met representatives of Ryanair at the pre-arranged meeting on Friday, 29 September. At the conclusion of the meeting Ryanair’s final re-routing proposal and the information to be provided for passengers met the requirements of Regulation (EC) 261/2004. I reiterate, however, that, for the most part, this information was available, but for whatever reason it was not presented in a sufficiently clear manner to passengers before that date.

At our meeting on the morning of Friday, 29 September, Ryanair dealt with our concerns about the level of information passengers required to make an informed decision. However, it is clear that not all passengers affected had the appropriate level of information when making decisions on what they would do when their flights were cancelled. We had the first wave of passengers who had already made decisions followed by a further email sent to a second wave of passengers. I strongly advise these passengers to submit their receipts as part of their claim to Ryanair because there is a good argument that if they were unaware of the options open to them and followed an option which they would not otherwise have taken, their case is worth considering. I, therefore, ask these passengers to gather their receipts and submit them to Ryanair.

Ryanair has indicated that it will deal with claims within 28 business days and that those who want to cancel tickets will receive refunds within seven days. If a passenger is dissatisfied with the outcome or does not receive a response within the 28-day period, he or she can make a submission, at no personal expense, to the Commission for Aviation Regulation on flightrights.ie. Again, this only applies in the case of flights out of Ireland. The commission is working with Ryanair on the provision of statistics to allow us to monitor the claims process.

I reiterate that the focus of the Commission for Aviation Regulation is on protecting the passenger. We will continue to ensure passengers are provided with correct information on their rights by engaging with Ryanair and using our website, helpline and media engagements. We have taken out newspaper advertisements informing passengers of their rights and, depending on whether the level of claims rises or reduces, we may do this again in the coming weeks. Where a passenger is not satisfied with Ryanair's response to a claim, the commission will investigate and, if necessary, issue directions to ensure full compliance with Regulation (EC) 261/2004. We will ensure our office is sufficiently resourced should we receive an increased volume of referrals. In that regard, we are in the process of hiring additional resources.

On the issue of not commencing enforcement action, the approach I took was a matter of judgment. I remain of the view that the best course of action over the two weeks in question was to engage directly with Ryanair with an open door. The company needed help and every time we asked it to provide information, it gave it to us. If its handling of this matter in terms of the claims process is not deemed to be satisfactory in the coming weeks and months, enforcement action will be taken.

I will make one further point because I have thought about it a great deal in the past two weeks. If I had a choice, I would do exactly the same thing again. Based on our previous experience of Ryanair, we knew what the company should have been able to do. We had had a meeting with the company on disaster recovery and what it had told customers in the previous year. All of this was in place. We knew the rough bones of its re-routing options and that it had the information to inform passengers. In short, the information was available and it is possible that Ryanair was too focused on solving its internal problem and looking inwards as opposed to looking outwards and at what it should have been telling passengers, regulators and other stakeholders.

I thank the joint committee.