J2Ski Forum Posts and Replies by ise

bandit wrote:This action by Ryanair will cause plenty of confusion for travellers. I'm not sure who will give out the refund?

It's not Ryanair's problem really, if you bought a ticket through Honest-Johns ticket emporium your contract is with them as supported by the Sales of Good and Services Act. The publicly available T&C's for Ryanair don't allow third parties to sell their tickets and Ryanair are within their rights to try and enforce that. They've been a bit heavy handed about it apparently but we've no way of knowing if they've issued any sort of cease and desist orders against these third parties.

It's surprising they've allowed these people a free ride for so long, Ryanair are operating a direct sale model and that ability to market direct to customers is an asset, I know Easyjet take your booking and then have a few attempts at selling you more stuff, when Ryanair can't do that it represents a direct financial loss in a really low margin business.

Having put the wind up the resellers and informed a large audience of the intention to enforce this you'd think it would be fair to honour existing bookings and not any made going forward.

Booking through third parties for operators like Easyjet in the future must look a bad idea though now.

bandit wrote:Ah yes, the ultimate cop out clause "reasonable precautions". I know that some insurers are now routinely asking about helmet wearing in claim situations.

Good example, I'd heard that as well. I'd like to see the "it's better than nothing" claim for cycle helmets given a try there :lol:

bandit wrote:
Source http://www.direct-travel.co.uk/faq/what-winter-sports-activities-do-you-cover.aspx

There is also a good Glossary Page

http://www.direct-travel.co.uk/faq/do-you-cover-hazardous-sports.aspx

That's interesting, if you read the small print you find the sort of clause I was referring to :

You must take and cause to be taken:
a) all reasonable precautions to avoid injury, illness or disease for example by using appropriate and
customary safety equipment on all occasions whilst participating in any sports or hazardous activities

which of course could mean about anything )

skidaddle wrote:

I know of someone who does a bit of "guiding." He is without a single qualification, nor does he have the correct type of cover. yet he blithely invites other skiers on his "tours."

I wonder where he stands in the event of a mishap??

depends on the circumstances, if the rep' from Chavski invites you on a lager fuelled tour of somewhere naff and sets off in his racing snow plough it's wrong but most people know well enough not to follow him, if it's just a chav on skis I can't see why you'd follow him but there's no harm in it.

bandit wrote:
So, how is the paying client supposed to ensure that leaders are insured...and with someone who their Insurer would consider "acceptable" in the event of a prang?
We put a lot of trust in the skill of Instructors/Guides. We take a lot on trust, I have never asked to see an Instructor's Insurance if they were taking me off piste.

That's a fair question, you should ask any leader/instructor what their qualification is and check it with the governing body if you're concerned. Members of various bodies will tend to challenge anyone they are aware of that's operating out of their remit but it's a touchy thing and what insiders know about various operations and the more common scams isn't shared widely with Joe Public.

bandit wrote:
Yes, agreed. The problem for some UK insurance sellers seems to be comprehension. As a policy holder you could find yourself in the ridiculous situation of hiring a fully qualified guide (and going uninsured), or taking a ski instructor with less skills and knowledge, satisfying the insurance seller and putting yourself at risk by doing so. Crazy.

In the event of a claim I really doubt that particularly in the event of legal action, there's a number of cases establishing this in fact. Those cases have established that insurers have to accept qualifications like IFMGA even if they used language like "instructor" and that insurers can decline claims regardless of any language if the leader isn't qualified.

The other point, mostly neglected, is that the leader themselves need to be insured and have liability cover. Their insurer will only cover claims if the leader is operating inside the remit of their qualification. This is the root of the problem in the client insurance, the client's insurer wants to claim on the liability cover of the leader's insurance and that's why this language is in client insurance. Ergo, an unqualified leader is an uninsured one as well and it's more common in the mountains than you'd think.

bandit wrote:
I too have seen "Must ski with a qualified instructor when off piste". Which means that if you are with a qualified UIAGM mountain guide (truly the only safe option) you are uninsured. Guides don't teach! Utter nonsense. Who writes this drivel!

Instructors can take you non glacial terrain in broad terms, there's some caveats, glaciers, crevasses and anything vertical would be off limits. Some ski schools, notably ESF, have some high alpine guides who hold teaching tickets as well and it's not uncommon here in Switzerland either. IFMGA pretty much the monopoly for more extreme environments though.

None of which seems to be known by whoever wrote that :D It's a reasonable general point they're making though, if your leader/instructor isn't qualified then your insurance is invalid.

some photo's from last week in Scotland :





a few too many midges this time of year though to be really pleasant.