compensate

Renfe is obliged to compensate for delays of more than 15 minutes starting January 1. The Government wants to prevent it

by

Renfe will have to compensate users whose trains are delayed more than 15 minutes. It has to do so by order of the Congress of Deputies that approved the amendment that included this detail within the Sustainable Mobility Law. Now the Government wants to torpedo it and is looking for solutions to avoid it. He claims to have reasons for this. The facts. A little over a month ago, The Congress of Deputies approved the Sustainable Mobility Law. in it were collected guidelines to guarantee support for aid for public transport or the first step for a new bus concessional system. But among the amendments that were made to the law, one was also carried out so that Renfe will compensate again to users whose trains were delayed by more than 15 minutes. It was a decision that reversed the decision which the company had taken a year earlier, when it expanded the criteria for returning part or all of the tickets. What had happened? In 2024, Renfe confirmed that it was rectifying its criteria for returning money for tickets. Until that year, the company was committed to returning part or all of the money spent under the following conditions: Delays of more than 15 minutes: payment of 50% of the ticket Delays of more than 30 minutes: 100% payment of the ticket With the changes applied in 2024, Renfe is operating as follows: Delays of more than 60 minutes: payment of 50% of the ticket Delays of more than 90 minutes: 100% payment of the ticket That is, in the first 59 minutes, the user currently does not receive a single euro of the price of their ticket. Previously, if delayed between 30 and 59 minutes, the customer received a full refund of the ticket. Now, by mandate of the Congress of Deputies, Renfe has to return to the previous compensations. That is, it will start returning money after 15 minutes. If nothing changes. And the Ministry of Transportation is looking for legal formulas to prevent this from happening, according to reports from Five Days. When the measure was announced, Óscar Puente, head of the Transportation portfolio, He already announced that they would look for solutions so that the current system does not go backwards. They point out from the media that Transportation lawyers are working against the clock to find judicial support that allows them to maintain the current situation. If not, as of January 1, 2026, passengers and consumer associations will have free rein to claim their money. What about Iryo and Ouigo? To understand why Renfe expanded its punctuality commitments, we must look at the return conditions of its competitors. Ouigo compensates in the following cases: Delay of more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes: 50% refund of the ticket in a non-refundable purchase voucher. Delay of more than 60 minutes and less than 90 minutes: 50% refund of the ticket in a refundable purchase voucher. Delay of more than 90 minutes: 100% refund of the ticket in a refundable purchase voucher. Iryo partially or totally refunds the money in the following situations: Delay of more than 30 minutes and less than 60 minutes: refund of 50% of the ticket in purchase voucher or cash. Delay of more than 90 minutes: 100% refund of the ticket in purchase voucher or cash. Inferiority. Since the amendment was approved, what the Ministry maintains is that with this new scheme the company competes under inferior conditions compared to Iryo and Ouigo. Renfe feels that it is being discriminated against in the market because it is the only company that is required to make these compensations while the Italian and French companies have room to play with them. The Government already pointed out this when the measure was approved, pointing out that the amendment (promoted by the Popular Party and approved with its support and that of Vox, Junts, ERC, Podemos and BNG) It was a political maneuver to focus on an alleged chaos in Renfe that, in his opinion, is not such. Furthermore, they point to another argument. The previous punctuality commitments were designed for a structure where only Renfe acted. Now, The trains on Spanish tracks have multiplied and the paradox may arise that a small delay caused by one of its competitors forces Renfe to return the money to its consumers and not to the company originating the problem. a hole. If the change ends up being effective, Renfe needs to make a piggy bank for possible refunds. And if we take into account the antecedents, the returns can amount to tens of millions of euros. In fact, four out of every 10 AVE trains In the summer they were delayed and up to two million travelers who previously obtained some type of refund were left without it. According to the calculations of The WorldIf the situation experienced this summer were to be repeated, the company will have to pay 79 million euros to its travelers. Money that was saved this summer in just three months. The problem has also been increasing because in Five Days They point out that the volume of these compensations remained at 42 million euros in 2023. However, since then Renfe services and traffic on the roads have increased, which increases the risk of delay. Photo | Xataka In Xataka | “There are no places for 10 days”: taking a train to go to work in Barcelona or Girona has become an impossible mission

An electric car is 54% cheaper to maintain than a combustion car. And it may not compensate because the data has a trick

by

The cost of a car is not what you pay for it, it is the sum of many other factors. It is what it costs you to fill the tank, what it costs you to repair it and, why not, what you get back once you have decided to get rid of it. Are there reasons to go electric? Yes, many. Also to stay in the combustion. It depends on what you value. The data. An electric car saves up to 54% in maintenance compared to an equivalent gasoline car. Those are the accounts of Autobild that are spreading in recent days among the media. His comparison pointed to a Volkswagen ID.3 with a Volkswagen Golf VII 1.6 TDI from 2016 and a Volkswagen e-Golf, also from 2016. Why does an electric car have less autonomy than advertised? The result is that maintaining the electric car was between 40 and 54% cheaper than versions with combustion engines. According to their calculations, the revisions for the diesel version ranged from 393 euros to 547 euros. The plug-in hybrid had a price in its reviews of between 161 euros and 275 euros. The electric maintenance book required maintenance of between 200 and 300 euros. Of course, the stops were less frequent and, according to their calculations, as the kilometers passed, the pure electric was between 40 and 54% cheaper than its combustion “brothers.” Because? They give several reasons. First of all, as we have seen, because the reviews They are less expensive and less common. Fewer components have to be replaced in them, so it is necessary to invest less money. Among his accounts are oil changes (almost non-existent among electric cars), the total absence of possible breakdowns of a combustion engine and also the replacement of wear elements: timing belts, spark plugs, particle filter… In addition, they pointed out that some elements suffer less wear over the years and kilometers. For example, they predict a longer useful life for disc brakes because, especially in the city, most of the braking is absorbed by regenerative braking. and the day to day. There is another invariable fact: on a day-to-day basis, an electric car is almost always cheaper than a gasoline car. In the city, the electric car consumes less than a gasoline or diesel car. This, in addition, is exposed to a greater number of breakdowns with switching on and off every few kilometers. But if you want to do the math. An electric car in the city can easily move at 10-15 kWh/100 kilometers. That means that, with a domestic charge at 10 cents/kWhwe are talking about between one euro and one and a half euros per 100 kilometers. In the city, compared to a hybrid that consumes 4 liters/100 km we are talking about more than five euros difference per day. If it is a gasoline that moves at around 7 l/100 km in the urban environment, the difference goes up to nine euros. It is in long-distance getaways where the circumstances are equal. If an electric car consumes 18-20 kWh/100 km and refuels at 0.50 euros/kWh, we are talking about between 9 and 10 euros to travel 100 kilometers, figures very similar to gasoline. Charged in an ultra-fast plug at about 0.80 euros, we are talking about gasoline or diesel winning by a lot. Yes, but. That is to say, electric car is cheaper. Almost always, but not always. First, because that first comparison that has gone viral has something of a trick: the data is from 2021. The electricity figures posted above, for example, are current and less favorable to the electric car. However, as we have seen, those who use the car in the urban environment are very likely to find it worth opting for this technology. Of course, the latest data that are collected from ADAC (the German RACE) are not so optimistic. In that case they talk about a saving of between 20 and 30% in favor of the electric car. That is, they continue winning but the margin is narrowing. And if…? Calculating what one saves with an electric car is not entirely simple. For example, right now you can calculate how much money you would save in regulated parking areas in those cities where there are discounts on parking. And you can do the math thinking that the MOVES III Plan but, in some autonomous communities, this is not entirely safe. But not only that, when calculating what a car costs we can keep in mind its selling price, whether there is a premium for the electric version, the expected savings with our type of use and the kilometers to be traveled… but, What happens if we want to sell the car? In that case, the electric car seems to lose out. At this time, it is a technology that devalues ​​quickly because batteries degrade over time (range is reduced) and innovations are making cars obsolete in a very short time while new models reduce their prices. That is to say, the second-hand market has everything to continue losing money with the electric car. So what do I do? The first thing we recommend in Xataka is that you have very clear what kind of use you are going to make the vehicle. Be as rational as possible or, at least, be very clear about what you value above all else. If you like a passionate car and money doesn’t matter to youget the vehicle that you like the most. Here, however, we are here to talk about money. If you want a adjusted car, calculate the daily kilometers you travel, the types of outings you do and make calculations of the battery size you need. Of course, if a small car with 50-60 kWh capacity is enough, keep in mind that you will have to make concessions when you travel. In that case, only you set the price for your time. With all this in mind, do the following math: Cost … Read more

Who will compensate Renfe for its investment in AVRIL trains that are breaking down?

by

AVRIL trains are at risk of cracking. At least that is what happened in one of those that provided service on the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed corridor, which has forced it to take all its trains out of circulation and cancel the AVLO service. But now, who pays the dishes Broken buggies? a fissure. It all began in July 2025. At least, the nightmare of what promised to be a peaceful, uninterrupted sleep began. At the end of the month and with the entire summer campaign ahead, Renfe suspended the sale of AVLO tickets between Madrid and Barcelona overnight. The reason soon became known: one of the trains had presented a fissure that forced him to stop full. Without being very clear about how to act, Renfe suspended the sale of these options low cost in the busiest corridor in Spain. Then he chose to make high speed… a slightly slower transportation, limiting maximum speed to avoid problems. Finally, ended up suspending the service completely. A setback. Preventively removing AVRIL trains from circulation in the Madrid-Barcelona corridor is a setback for Renfe since it will not compete with an option low cost in this space and leaves the way clear for Ouigo and Iryo. A space that, in fact, Ouigo had started to give way a few months ago. And although Renfe has room for maneuver because This line is the most expensive in Spain and the least sensitive to offers, the truth is that Renfe no longer competes on price in it. The setback comes, above all, because the results of Talgo’s S106 trains, known as AVRIL, are proving problematic. His arrival was already marked by the bad reviews and the turn of the year caused a widespread breakdown on the trains. Half a year later, when everything seemed forgotten, the trains break down (literally) on the Madrid-Barcelona route. Why are they important? When Renfe commissioned Talgo to produce 30 AVRIL trains, it did so thinking about its ability to lower prices. The trains allow access to a greater number of people and promised top speeds of 300 km/h, which they are not being able to take advantage of. But, above all, the batch of AVRIL trains is key because they are flexible. The trains can “jump” from the Iberian gauge to the international gauge. This allows Renfe to be the only one to be able to operate on the Galician high-speed corridor without having to transfer in Ourense. It is expected to be a differential advantage for competitors do not consider entry in said corridor when it opens to the rest of the competition. Who pays for this? Aware that poor performance of AVRIL trains is a setback for the company, Renfe has already started looking for trains in Germany. But, in addition, the relationship between Talgo and Renfe is not in the best moment. To begin with, because Renfe has already been claiming since last year more than 116 million euros compensation to Talgo for delays in the deliveries of its AVRIL trains. If it is confirmed that the problem with AVRIL trains is structural, new economic demands can be expected from Renfe. In Talgo, however, they defend themselves and assure that the real problem is in the infrastructure. In September they already pointed out Adif as the culprit of the cracks in its trains, alleging a “poor state of maintenance of the line (…) the horizontal leveling problems on that line and the vertical accelerations they cause on the rolling can, by repetition, cause the failure mode due to cracks in the bogie frame.” Adif has defended itself by ensuring that the line is correctly maintained and that it has all the necessary approvals so that the services are provided normally. Not happy with the answer, in The reason they explain that Talgo has already hired an external audit to determine what caused the crack in the four affected trains. Designated. What Talgo wants is obvious: to put the ball in Adif’s court. The company already had to reserve more than 100 million euros last year in their accounts to pay the compensation they owe to Renfe for delayed deliveries. Incurring more expenses because of a productive mistake can only damage your accounts further. On the other hand, Adif is the other big one. They explain in The reason that the main union of train drivers (Semaf) also points to the track management company as guilty due to insufficient maintenance. Criticisms that are not exclusive to this corridor since in Andalusia A lack of investment has also been pointed out worrying as the main cause of summer breakdowns. In that case, It was Ouigo who pointed out Adif as responsible for an incident that left more than 300 people completely stranded in the middle of the field for one night. Photo | Talgo In Xataka | Spain thought that Spain could manufacture the perfect trains for Spain. The reality: Spain is already looking for trains in Germany

Mercadona must compensate an employee for inadmissible dismissal

by

Mercadona applies a strict work discipline to its employees. Sometimes, breach some of these strict labor policies derive in disciplinary dismissals. A sanction that the courts have already described as “excessive and disproportionate” On other occasions. The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has declared inadmissible the dismissal of a Mercadona employee after being accused of consuming a beer in your rest time. Therefore, the supermarket must compensate the employee who, during her breakfast pause, ate a chicken sandwich accompanied by a beer. What happened? As reflected in The judgment issued For the TSJM, the farewell employee occupied the functions of manager to since 2001 in the section “Ready to eat”, with an annual salary of 28,006.21 euros and was fired on June 29, 2023 through a communication in which they claimed disciplinary causes. The key events date back to June 21, 2023, when the person responsible for her turn informed that the employee allegedly smelled of alcohol when she presented to work. However, the coordinator verified that there was no such smell, but that the worker used a colony and chewed gum, something that, everything is said, also prohibited the employees of Mercadona. This served him for the person responsible to point out this detail. On June 27 and during her break for breakfast, the employee bought “a cold beer and a chicken sandwich” and ate it inside her car inside the parking lot for the company’s employees. When he finished, he left his vehicle, he threw the containers to the paper and prepared to return to his position in the established deadlines. The coordinator witnessed the scene, picked up the paper packaging and required the presence of the employee in his office. There, the employee acknowledged having drunk An Mahou beer of 50 CL with alcohol during your breakfast pause, signing a document in which the event was recorded. That same day, she was sent home before finishing her workday. Disciplinary dismissal. In his allegation, Mercadona claimed that the behavior of the employee contravened the rules established in the Article 39.3 of your collective agreement On very serious offenses. In its epigraph specifies: “Go to work or work under obvious symptoms of alcohol or drug o Consumption in the workplace of narcotic substances, or when the behaviors acquire the status of usual and negatively affect the performance of their work, as well as, they constitute a serious risk to the integrity of the working person or other people of the company or alien to this. “ Among the sanctions provided for very serious offenses that are included in article 40 of that same collective agreement, it is established that employees incurring this type of faults face: suspension of employment and salary of sixteen days up to sixty days or The dismissal. Among all possible sanctions, they opted for the most expeditious: The disciplinary dismissal. The Judgment of the TSJM. In a first trial, Social Court No. 7 of Madrid determined that the worker’s behaviors did not justify the disciplinary dismissal. Judgment that Mercadona raised in a supplicatory to the TSJM that now ratifies it. As stated in the sentence, the supermarket did not present conclusive evidence that the employee had been under the influence of alcohol or that her behavior affects her work performance, which led to declare dismissal inadmissible. The Court based its sentence to which the measure adopted by Mercadona did not respect the principles of proportionality and good contractual faith. Disproportionate sanction. Mercadona argued that the worker had incurred a serious offense, adjusting to article 55 of the Workers Statutebut the judges concluded that the facts that were caused by dismissal were not serious enough as to justify a measure as extreme as dismissal. The Superior Court of Madrid recalled in his letter that the good faith must prevail both for the worker and for the employer, and that the analysis of any breach must consider not only the act in itself, but also the context and proportionality of the sanction. The Court stressed that the decision to say goodbye must be reasonable and proportional, considering the seriousness of the behavior, its context and the human factor. He also stressed that there were no signs of drunkenness in the worker or prove that her alcohol consumption in rest time affects the performance of her functions, even if she used potentially dangerous tools such as knives or machinery. Therefore, the resource filed by Mercadona was dismissed. Readmission or compensation. By declaring the inadmissibility of dismissal, Mercadona must now opt between two alternatives: readmit to the employee under the same working conditions prior to dismissal and pay the wages that he stopped receiving from the date of dismissal, or with the sum of 55,245.13 euros for compensation. Although Juan Roig’s supermarket chain has not spoken about the meaning of his decision, his decisions in previous sentences suggest that Mercadona will choose to pay compensation since he does not usually readmit to the dismissed employees. In Xataka | 40,000 euros for a croquette: Mercadona dismissed an employee for eating a croquette and must now compensate him Image | Unspash (Calitore), Wikimedia Commons (Daiima)

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.