[capetonianm]

I have flown Aer Lingus a lot in the last few years and have never had a problem nor a delay. They did cancel a flight because of an ATC strike in … I don’t need to say where …… but they gave me 24 hours notice and a choice of a flight on a date of my choice, or a full refund. As I had to get to Dublin, I bought a ticket on KLM, and choose the refund which was on my CC within 48 hours. I also find DUB T2 (the one EI uses) very user friendly and with minimal queuing time and helpful folk. One of my favourite airlines.

I agree with your last two sentences! (Oink oink!)

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=872033]SimonS1, you would be correct in stating that AF is the operating airline, but I consider AF/KL to be one organization. And in my experience KLM won’t let you down once you book through them and get stuck with AF. Especially under the circumstances that AF is in at the moment I would rely on KLM. If they won’t handle it they will inform you straight away and advise you of your rights and the best route to follow.

Whatever happens when you lodge a complaint with AF is anybody’s guess.[/quote]

Whatever KLM do is on a goodwill basis, because EC261 responsibility rests with the operating airline.

What you are suggesting is no different to being delayed on an Iberia flight and trying to claim from BA on the grounds that they are both subsidiaries of the same group.

[Edski777]

Simon, it seems to me that KLM is the more customer and service oriented side of the AF/KL organization. My experience with KLM handling situations at AF after booking through the KLM website is exceptional. Call it goodwill or just service, to me it is what you are looking for as a customer: your situation fixed and your complaint dealt with in a professional manner.

[quote quote=872207]What you are suggesting is no different to being delayed on an Iberia flight and trying to claim from BA on the grounds that they are both subsidiaries of the same group.[/quote]

No, it is not correct. In the case of the OP KLM is the company he has a contract with as they sold him the ticket (entered into a contract with the OP). So KLM do have a responsibility here. The fact that KLM and AF are part of the same organization, however legally less important, should make things easier for KLM to resolve that for the passenger. Also my remark that KLM seems to be more service and customer focused would be less relevant here. It is all about who the contract partners are. Please keep in mind that you can outsource the work, but never the responsibility.

[DanielRawson]

Just to let you know that Air France have offered £352 cash payment or £440 voucher. More chance of good customer service at CDG than us taking their vouchers so we have to fly with them again!!

Is it enough compensation? Probably not, but we will take the advice many of you kind posters have given which is to take their offer and move on and learn from it. Life’s too short to drive ourselves potty with it and the longer it goes on and the more we argue the more wound up I will become. It won’t do my Mrs any harm seeing what it’s like to sleep on a bench for a nigh, I got to sleep in our super king size bed by myself for another night and we are £352 better off, so it’s not all bad is it. Just hope she doesn’t discover this website and read this!!!!

Thanks for all your help. You’re a good caring bunch.

1 user thanked author for this post.

GivingupBA

[Edski777]

It looks to me like a generous offer. Take it!
In your case it is probably more than you paid for the initial ticket, so there might be a slight profit in it for you.

And, NO, you don’t have to fly AF metal on this voucher. Through the website you can book al lot of flights with Skyteam partners, so you may select a KLM or Delta flight and never see the looks of CDG on that trip. And, if you are signed up to one of the frequent flyer programs you get your miles awarded as well.

Good for you!

[SimonS1]

[quote quote=872289]Simon, it seems to me that KLM is the more customer and service oriented side of the AF/KL organization. My experience with KLM handling situations at AF after booking through the KLM website is exceptional. Call it goodwill or just service, to me it is what you are looking for as a customer: your situation fixed and your complaint dealt with in a professional manner.

SimonS1 wrote:

What you are suggesting is no different to being delayed on an Iberia flight and trying to claim from BA on the grounds that they are both subsidiaries of the same group.

No, it is not correct. In the case of the OP KLM is the company he has a contract with as they sold him the ticket (entered into a contract with the OP). So KLM do have a responsibility here. The fact that KLM and AF are part of the same organization, however legally less important, should make things easier for KLM to resolve that for the passenger. Also my remark that KLM seems to be more service and customer focused would be less relevant here. It is all about who the contract partners are. Please keep in mind that you can outsource the work, but never the responsibility.[/quote]

No with the greatest of respect that is absolute nonsense.

EC261 makes very clear that it is 100% the responsibility of the operating air carrier. In this case the operating air carrier, both booked and actual, was Air France so there is no outsourcing.

Whether another part of the group shows some goodwill or is better at customer service has no bearing on the legal position. Under EC261 KLM has no legal responsibility at all as the flight was never their issues.

No disrespect intended but maybe you should acquaint yourself with the actual provisions of the law here as the advice you are giving another traveller is completely incorrect and that is why AF has paid out.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:en:HTML

[canucklad]

Some valid points above, however confusion reigns , simply because of the collusion cartel nature of the airline industry …….

Last week when I was researching options for our HK7’s trip next year (cost is the primary factor) I had a myriad of clear choices …….

EDI – FRA flying Austrian
FRA- MCH – flying Swiss
MCH – HKG – flying Air Canada

Or

EDI –HEL – flying Cathay
HEL –HKG – flying BA

The options through CDG / AMS and both were on both AF and KLM

If something goes wrong on any of those sectors, who should I contact ?
The airline on my ticket or the airline that has its logo on the tail ?
I know and most here know that these airlines simply don’t fly those sectors, yet those same airlines are the issuing carriers !!
And I’ve been told in the past, it doesn’t matter what aircraft you’re on, if your ticket has an AC code then it’s an AC flight regardless of the tailfin !!

So if I’m confused how on earth are non-frequent travellers supposed to make sense of it all ?

[capetonianm]

So if I’m confused how on earth are non-frequent travellers supposed to make sense of it all ?

Willie Walsh allegedly said at a trade seminar :

“If the public can understand airline pricing, then we’ve got it wrong”

I think that sums it up.

As far as EU261 is concerned, in respect of delays, denied boarding, and cancellations, it is clear :

In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis

And I’ve been told in the past, it doesn’t matter what aircraft you’re on, if your ticket has an AC code then it’s an AC flight regardless of the tailfin!!

Then you have been told wrong … but …… it’s not quite that simple. It becomes even cloudier when there are franchise operators, for example BA domestic and regional flights within and to/from South Africa operate with a BA flight number, a BA liveried aircraft, so the tailfin will say British Airways, but the operator is Comair whose head office is in JNB.
If the problem relates to a NOREC (the airline has no record of your booking in their system) or the seat/class was booked wrongly, then you complain to the airline who made the booking. If your luggage is lost, the operating carrier that was meant to deliver it.

The cynic in me says that this creates a million oportunities to pass the buck. You’ve opened Pandora’s box and I am sure there will be responses disagreeing with mine.

[SimonS1]

If you are talking about EC261 the answer is clear – it is the operating carrier.

So if you have bought for example a code share ticket it should say “operated by” on the booking. Who you booked it through, or what the flight number is, is of no relevance under EC261.

[jsn55]

Glad that she arrived home safe and sound. These days, airlines are in a contest to see which can do the best job of making passengers miserable. It’s an adaptation mentality that works for me, always strive to book non-stop flights, don’t book international connections less than 3 hours. Have some cash or a credit card so you don’t end up sleeping in the airport or going hungry. Take action after the fact, as you are doing.

I don’t see it ever getting any better … the airlines have no reason to improve anything; they concentrate their efforts on coming up with new ideas for extra fees. Non-crew airline people who want to take care of their customers are quickly pounded down into robots with bad attitudes. They treat full-fare biz/first flyers pretty well … the rest of the passengers? Eh, who cares?

[Ahmad]

Daniel Rawson, your wife must have gone through a harrowing experience, my sympathies. Glad she arrived home none the worse for wear (at least it appears she did).

For the record, Regulation EC 261/2004 is in addition to and not in derogation of one’s rights under both contract and tort. Thus, while it is correct that one can get compensation under 261/2004 only from the operating carrier, contract law allows one to bring a claim against the ticketing carrier. Claims in tort for personal injury may brought against both the ticketing and the operating carrier. All tort or contract claims will of course be subject to the limits imposed by the Montreal Convention, 1999 which I understand are less generous than EC Regulation 261/2004. There is no bar on bringing a contract or tort claim after having received compensation under 261/2004. In fact, this double dip has been expressly accepted by the European Court of Justice since 2006 and is now entrenched in law.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Edski777, capetonianm

[IanFromHKG]

I would like to second SimonS1’a comment. The airlines are NOT permitted to cap compensation by reference to a specific limit. If airlines deny boarding (and aren’t able to escape from liability due to one of the limited exceptions to EU261) and have to re-route, they are obliged to provide “appropriate care while waiting for the re-routingm such as food, access to a telephone, hotel accommodation of one or more nights if necessary and transport between the airport and the hotel”. Obviously this is not carte blanche to find the most expensive possible room, but if rooms are not available for EUR120 (or whatever the airline tries to specify) then the airline MUST pay a higher amount.

It is depressing that airlines continue to try to play this game. A year or so ago Monarch failed to deliver Junior Offspring’s luggage at the start of a residential course in the UK. They asserted that they were only liable to pay 90 pounds per day for a maximum of three days. They messed with the wrong Memsahib (who had made the claim). A couple of fairly blistering emails later (with a little input from yours truly, quoting the Montreal Convention, EU261 and other sources) they caved in spectacular fashion. It is sad that airlines are so appallingly unscrupulous as to try to hoodwink customers into thinking that there are limits to their entitlement under law when no such limits exist. I dearly wish that (although I am generally not in favour of punitive damages) airlines that try to deny passengers their due should be required to pay triple the amount on every occasion when they are caught out being dishonest in this way. As the law stands, however, they have every incentive to deny compensation, obfuscate, mislead and deceive passengers.

I have just posted this on another thread but I will add it here as well. There is a free app which I keep on my ‘phone and which details passengers’ rights in surprisingly clear English, and is easily navigable. Any attempt by airline staff to contradict its content should be fairly easy to counter, since it is produced by the EU!! The iOS version can be downloaded here. I recommend it!

2 users thanked author for this post.

GivingupBA, Ahmad

[openfly]

@IanfromHKG…. Thanks.

[Ahmad]

Thank you for the link to the app @IanFromHKG. I am no expert on aviation law, but always understood liability of a carrier for delay to be limited under Article 19 of the Montreal Convention 1999 (subject of course the to exceptions specified in clause 5 of the Article). I would be grateful if you could correct me if I am wrong.

[FDOS_UK]

I dearly wish that (although I am generally not in favour of punitive damages) airlines that try to deny passengers their due should be required to pay triple the amount on every occasion when they are caught out being dishonest in this way.

I couldn’t agree more. Furthermore, I’d like to see airlines made to pay a passengers legal costs, if they initially deny payment, then cave after a lawyer becomes involved.

[Author]

Posts