What would the alternative course of action be? Seize the plane immediately, kick off all the passengers, and screw over a whole new set of people? The sticker may seem toothless, but it’s the court going through the (predefined) process. As long as they continue that process, there’s no reason to be upset at the court, yet. (If they don’t follow through, then perhaps it’s pitchfork time.)
The logic you’re applying here would have all accounts frozen at a bank when a single customer disputes a charge, all parcels held when a carrier misdelivers a single item, grocery stores unable to sell food when one customer should have been refunded.
No one is siding with Ryanair here. But laws can be enforced and justice can be carried out, without disrupting the lives of everyone else. There were likely on the order 200 people on that flight who would have been caught in the crossfire of a dispute they have no part in.
Sherifs have seized bank office property to enforce judgements. It’s extremely effective at getting business to pay court judgements they have dodged for years.
If we do this more often companies would take court judgements seriously. Only takes one disrupted flight to fix an unjust legal system.
Seizing “office property” isn’t going to disrupt customers in the same way as seizing a plane, and again, no one is saying don’t seize a plane, or don’t punish Ryanair - just don’t seize a plane with passengers already on it (at least without going through a process that includes a threat and a deadline, so the customers can, theoretically, be spared).
It would be to seize assets equal in value to the adjudicated amount. It’s pretty easy to just seize a jet that is being repaired or something else. But they don’t do that.
Maybe because the case gets more media attention when you put seizure stickers on a plane in front of 200 passengers compared to actually seizing an actual plane in the hangar far from public eyes.
This is not about actually seizing a plane (it wouldn’t be proportional to the sun Ryanair has to pay), this is about showing Ryanair that the court doesn’t give a shit and proceeds by the protocol as intended…
Seriously: Refusing to pay a sum as low as $ 890 after being ordered by court is such a petty move that I think it’s hilarious that the court reacts like “You don’t want to pay? Well in that case we seize some random plane if you continue to refuse… Your choice Ryanair…”
It’s about sending a message like putting a horse head on someone’s doorstep.
Sure, that’s cool and all, but the message is not “we will seize this” it’s “we will temporarily disrupt service for one plane of people who had nothing to do with the suit, costing the company a bit of money for inconvenience and nothing else.”
What would the alternative course of action be? Seize the plane immediately, kick off all the passengers, and screw over a whole new set of people? The sticker may seem toothless, but it’s the court going through the (predefined) process. As long as they continue that process, there’s no reason to be upset at the court, yet. (If they don’t follow through, then perhaps it’s pitchfork time.)
Ryanair screwed those people.
Suggesting otherwise is siding with the abuser.
The logic you’re applying here would have all accounts frozen at a bank when a single customer disputes a charge, all parcels held when a carrier misdelivers a single item, grocery stores unable to sell food when one customer should have been refunded.
No one is siding with Ryanair here. But laws can be enforced and justice can be carried out, without disrupting the lives of everyone else. There were likely on the order 200 people on that flight who would have been caught in the crossfire of a dispute they have no part in.
Sherifs have seized bank office property to enforce judgements. It’s extremely effective at getting business to pay court judgements they have dodged for years.
If we do this more often companies would take court judgements seriously. Only takes one disrupted flight to fix an unjust legal system.
Seizing “office property” isn’t going to disrupt customers in the same way as seizing a plane, and again, no one is saying don’t seize a plane, or don’t punish Ryanair - just don’t seize a plane with passengers already on it (at least without going through a process that includes a threat and a deadline, so the customers can, theoretically, be spared).
If only the same logic applied to the wife and kids when law enforcement comes knocking down the door.
It would be to seize assets equal in value to the adjudicated amount. It’s pretty easy to just seize a jet that is being repaired or something else. But they don’t do that.
Maybe because the case gets more media attention when you put seizure stickers on a plane in front of 200 passengers compared to actually seizing an actual plane in the hangar far from public eyes.
This is not about actually seizing a plane (it wouldn’t be proportional to the sun Ryanair has to pay), this is about showing Ryanair that the court doesn’t give a shit and proceeds by the protocol as intended…
Seriously: Refusing to pay a sum as low as $ 890 after being ordered by court is such a petty move that I think it’s hilarious that the court reacts like “You don’t want to pay? Well in that case we seize some random plane if you continue to refuse… Your choice Ryanair…”
It’s about sending a message like putting a horse head on someone’s doorstep.
Sure, that’s cool and all, but the message is not “we will seize this” it’s “we will temporarily disrupt service for one plane of people who had nothing to do with the suit, costing the company a bit of money for inconvenience and nothing else.”