[Anonymous]

[Tete_de_cuvee]

Currently EU regs requires passengers to be compensated when a flight is cancelled. They are now pushing to compensate passengers who are delayed for 3 hours or longer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2145100/Airlines-compensate-passengers-delayed-flights-480-EU-judge-claims.html

Will this lead to more reliable services or merely a rise in price to offset claims?

Personnally I know penalties for poor service do work. Electricity suppliers (DNOs) are fined £250 every day x every household when there is a break in supply – regardless of cause. Being so expensive for the DNOs ensures it is all hands to the deck to get the problem fixed.

[FormerlyDoS]

TdC

Like you, I have some involvement with the industry and I believe that it is very important that this compensation scheme prevails.

Although some costs may be passed on by the industry, it should drive a culture change in the longer term and this is important, because one sometimes forms the opinion that airlines want to have their cake and eat it – if they are late, so what, if the customer is late, they are denied boarding and often have to buy a new ticket.

I am sad to reflect that it was UK airlines who pushed back against the ruling a couple of years ago and caused the Advocate to have to issue an opinion.

Now the ECJ will take it on from here.

[craigwatson]

I agree with both posts above except when it comes to aircraft going tech, the last thing anyone wants is haphazard repairs to avoid a huge fine, and they would be huge as the longer delays are usually down to unservicable aircraft, as well this is hardly the airlines fault.

[Ruben1309]

I don´t live in EU, but what you are describing is a global issue: higher demand makes that airlines increase frequencies and add planes to the fleet. This happens at a constant and critical “airport-budget”. Logical and next step to this situation is a large list of irregularities, not only delays. Why must only airlines pay for this situation? I live in Argentina under similar air traffic conditions in Latin America than in EU.

[watersz]

It seems far too easy for them to make up a reason not to pay out
my last flight with jet 2 to hungray was 9 hours late they said it was beyonfd thier control as there was a fight in the terminal??

[SimonS1]

I am all in favour of this scheme. I can’t think of any other sector of the transport industry where companies can get away with treating customers so shoddily.

If aircraft “go tech” then, like any other company, that’s the airline’s problem. The airline has a choice over whether to have some spare capacity (higher unit costs) or work assets to the bone (lower unit costs). Also giving this get out just gives airlines the opportunity to blame the equipment any time there is a delay with no means of proof either way.

As far as the infrastructure is concerned, my contract is with the airline. If their suppliers let them down then that once again is the airline’s issue and they need contracts with suppliers that mean they in turn can be reimbursed.

Unfortunately for many years airlines have got away with providing poor service and unless someone takes a stand we will just go on with the same pathetic excuses year in year out.

[Binman62]

As I have both benefitted from the EU regs and been delayed and inconvenienced man times by airlines i think that the EU are spot on with this legislation.

[capetonianm]

Interesting comment because I am sitting near Gatwick waiting to meet a flight that was meant to arrive at 2130 and was ‘indef’ and now estimated 0030, which means I have to hang around for 3 hours or pay for a taxi from the airport to Bucks – probably about £60. Not a major problem but irritating nonetheless since it also screws up tomorrow’s arrangments which entailed an early start.

[LuganoPirate]

I’m not too sure about this one. I would say all airlines want to be on time in order to gain maximum fleet usage and not run the risk of crew being out of hours etc. There are so many reasons for a delay, bad weather, snow on runways, technical faults and so on, and I think to make airlines pay for that is wrong.

I could also imagine that with this added pressure a small technical fault which normally would be fixed before departure, could be delayed till the end of the days flying. Trouble is small faults can lead to be big ones and you don’t want that at 35,000′.

Then again there is the question of who pays? For sure the airlines would pass the costs on to us making our tickets even more expensive.

I agree airlines should look after passenges with refreshments etc but if we go down this route where next? Buses, trains, and what about immigration queues?

[VintageKrug]

Who pays is the key here.

You may think you benefit with a handout in the short term, but in the long term EVERYONE pays through higher air fares.

I am all for a modest, sensible fixed rate for compensation to cover the very basic essentials (sustenance, basic accommodation and/or an alternative *reasonable* routing – which might include a coach – to your destination within 12 hours).

But the unlimited, catch all way the legislation is framed now whereby you can potentially demand repayment for a week in a luxury hotel, hundreds of miles of taxis to your destination etc has to be bad for business and ultimately bad for the consumer.

I’d rather see compulsory travel insurance being used for anything above very basic provision.

No other industry is expected to nanny its customers like this.

[VoyageVoyage]

VK, you read my mind! What about compulsory travel insurance?

[VoyageVoyage]

Actually, why not start charging people who arrive late in the aircraft? Anyway, the question is where do we draw the line?

[Binman62]

As with all things there is a need for balance. Sure airlines want to utilise aircraft but there is not doubt that some airlines cancelled flights when it was not economic to run them.

Passengers are penalised for arriving late whether it be late through the conformance cheek in T5 and then having to buy a new tikcket, or being late as the result of a late inbound flight on a separate ticket and also having to buy a new one. The deck is loaded in favour of the airline be it lost bags, late departures, ticket restrictions and then the fees….the latter being an insidious development by all of them.

Consequently the EU regs giving consumers some rights was not only welcome but long overdue.

I also think travel insurance should be compulsory.

Finally and where I have sympathy for airlines is events such as the Volcanoes and the closure of huge areas of airspace. These events are for governments to deal with and in such cataclysmic events it is for them to look after and protect their citizens. Being stuck for 5 or 6 days in the US may not have been a major issue for me but for many it was devastating financially.

In my opinion the airlines are best placed to look after and provide immediate needs to their customers at point of departure but I would argue that they should then be compensated by government for carrying out the responsibilities of government.

Given their current role as immigration officers and the fines they incurr when getting it wrong, the latter may be a long time coming.

[LuganoPirate]

I’m not really in agreement with compulsory travel insurance and you can be sure if this was the case, prices would rise and they’d probably impose a £200 excess for flight delays.

My main objection though is making me pay for something I hardly ever need – thankfully – touch wood etc! I have a good health insurance that covers me worldwide.

I mainly travel with hand baggage and when I do have baggage the compensation paid would barely cover one of my suits. I’ve rarely had a delay and when I have the airline has always looked after me, be it Swiss, BA and once with KLM, but this was always on an F or C ticket.

Most recently Lugano being fogbound and me needing to get to JNB, Swiss paid for a taxi from Lugano to Zurich, about 220 kms distance, for me and another passenger who was also traveling in First. It was wonderful, the taxi had permission to drive through a special gate where we were met, change of car, through security and immigration at a part of the airport I’ve never been to before and then driven straight to the plane.

For me insurance has always been for the things I could not afford if things went badly wrong, such as health, car, house etc. A delay I can cope with as I can with lost baggage (again touch wood, it has never happened that I’ve lost it permanently) and cancellations.

Besides, the time needed to fill in the forms, find receipts, chase it up, take of the deductible etc hardly makes it worthwhile!

[Author]

Posts