[VintageKrug]

The easiest thing to do would be to cap and collar compensation at a multiple of the fare paid, say four times (excluding taxes) with a lower limit of €200.

And also to work with the airlines to reduce the punitive costs of administering claims, with a central register of delayed/cancelled flights, the reason and whether or not the flight was valid for compensation, so there’s no doubt whether a claim was justified.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

We are talking about Delays here. Cancellations have already been catered for within the EU regs.

I don’t know when a delay becomes a cancellation – I assume when the Ash Clouds occurred flights were cancelled and rescheduled and compensation paid, not “delayed” for days.

The regulator suggests compensation becomes due when the delay is over 3 hours. Some airlines, even from the same base, have far better timeliness records than others, so it would appear that things can improve but where is the incentive? Penalties do work.

Is it acceptable for airlines to sweet their asset so much that there is no tolerance? How often do we hear that the delay was caused by a problem way before and being knocked on to its subsequent flights?

The issue of gaffer tape as opposed to proper fixes to avoid delay and compensation is valid. However if “tech” was allowed as a valid excuse, the frequency of its aircraft apparently going tech should be well documented with the CAA (or its equivalent) stepping in to ground any aircraft who have an unacceptable level.

As passengers we are seeking improved reliabilty. The Swiss and Germans appear to be far more efficient in these terms. What lessons canbe learned?

[VintageKrug]

It is not any government’s responsibility to look after citizens when caught up in an “Act of God”, volcano, or any similar situation.

I don’t want my taxes being spent on people who haven’t made their own private provision; why should I pay for insurance when others refuse to pay and expect me to pick up their bill?

Too often people forget that asking “government” to fork out isn’t a cost-free option. It’s our taxes which are at risk, and the sort of profligacy which accommodates those stranded in luxury resorts is not acceptable.

[SimonS1]

Just to be clear (VK) I am not looking for a handout, just a reliable service where airlines take responsibility for what they are doing. It is possible to do this, I have been on 16 flights with Emirates this year so far and never left more than 5 mins late.

The trouble with giving get outs on tech grounds is that airlines cannot generally be trusted with their reasons. For example anyone who has travelled FlyBe to places like Aberdeen, Manchester etc will know there seems to be an extraordinary corellation between low loads and planes going tech conveniently requiring flights to be consolidated.

[FormerlyDoS]

“It is not any government’s responsibility to look after citizens when caught up in an “Act of God”, volcano, or any similar situation.”

So, was Willie Walsh wrong when he said that the closure of airspspace was ‘a scandal’, as reported in the link below?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43641739/why-the-volcano-airspace-shutdown-was-actually-an-overreaction/

And if it was an over reaction based on unrealistic modelling, why shouldn’t governments be held accountable for their poor judgment?

The volcano erupting may be termed an act of god, but shutting the airspace was not.

More polemic presented as reasoned opinion.

“he easiest thing to do would be to cap and collar compensation at a multiple of the fare paid, say four times (excluding taxes) with a lower limit of €200.”

This is unrealistic, with the plethora of fare buckets on a single flight, a formula for chaos and confusion.

The EC has set lump sum payments based on distance, clean and quick.

Remember, the motivation of the EC is to change the behaviour of the airlines, not to make life easier for them.

[Binman62]

Of course its governmenys responsibility. Are you trying to suggest that the Japanese, Indonesians, Thais and others gnore the tsunami, earthquake etc. Youu cannot insure for such catastrophic events and no one has the resources.
The volcanic incident was a global issues and affected not just individuals but whole continents. As such it was for governments to resolve and to ensure the safety and wellbeing of its citizens. The airlines part was that they were best placed to provide immedite needs.
This is what I pay my taxes for.
10/10 to the EU for these regs and one can only hope thay win and carriers forced to pay retrospectively for all claims refused since this was challenged.

[IanFromHKG]

I don’t agree with compulsory travel insurance at the individual level to cover this eventuality either – as others have mentioned, it would be overly expensive, complex to administer, and since individuals have so little bargaining power it would be a huge cost. A much better system would be to have a similar system operated by the people who have the real clout – the airlines, with massive volumes, who would no doubt pass on the (much lower per capita cost) as part of the airfare, and who would also have every incentive to tailor their operations in such a way as to minimise claims so they can keep their fares competitive. Administration would be much cheaper and easier than having hundreds of individuals making separate claims in respect of a single flight. To further simplify administration, make the compensation amounts standardised, acknowledging that longer flights are likely to require higher compensation levels. Anyone with me so far? I just described the EU compensation system…

[TerryMcManus24]

Only ever really delayed once about 20 years ago when missed my China Airways connection in Amsterdam to Thailand.
British Midland put me up in the Schipol Airport Golden Tulip Hotel,including meals/couple of beers (and a night in the Dam)and next day I was upgraded on the C.I Flight.
Thanks BM……

[LuganoPirate]

I remember the days when Swissair ex AMS would suggest I fly down the night before my long haul flights ex Geneva and would pay the transfer by taxi, hotel and breakfast. Not so much because of potential flight delays but more because I didn’t like early morning starts in those days!

[Trust747]

I have no overwhelming desire to see a compensation scheme withdrawn because it does focus airlines on delivering it’s services more efficiently but I am surprised that the industry has not resisted it on the grounds of competition distortion. Airlines are unfairly penalised for delays that trains, ferries and buses are not subject to.

A cancelled train or bus taking you to the airport is liklely to have the same consqeuence as a cancelled flight when you get there so why are the train operating companies not subject to such compensation reuirements. EU Regulation 261/2004 was conceived when air fares were higher and the effect of low-cost airlines had not materialised. Consequently it was felt that the high fare warranted a structured and punitive compensation scheme. Since then air fares have fallen whilst other transport modes have risen.

£ per mile/km air fares are lower than all other public transport modes yet it is the only mode subject to such Draconian compensation measures. Rail fares in the UK are typically 7 times higher (£ per mile) than equivalent air fares.

If I were an airline executive I would be challenging the EU under it’s own competition rules. It may argue that competition is not an issue because all airlines are subject to the regulation but competition is much broader. Doesn’t Eurostar compete with BA, AF and EZY on London – Paris v.v. How many ways are there for travellling from BCN to Mallorca?

In its present form, the compensation scheme stifles innovation and new services and renders the airlines less competitive than other – usually state owned or funded and inefficient – transport businesses. Therefore, the scheme should be applied across all forms of transport and I look forward to claiming £220 when my bus into town doesn’t turn up. Now, let’s see how quick the fares rise…..

Aviation is a soft target for politicians and the cause is not helped by lily-livered airline executives without the will for a proper fight (Mr O’Leary excepted)

[Tete_de_cuvee]

The comparison with Rail Trust747 is an apple v orange debate.

Rail services in the UK are controlled by the Railways Act 1993 and subsequent Transport Act 2000. The franchise system is now administered by the strategic rail authority.

Each franchise comes up for renewal around 10 years. The DfT specifies the level of service required and judges bids on several criteria – meeting time requirements is just one.

Rail Service are indeed monitored and franchises can be and are withdrawn or handed back – at huge cost. Franchise rail companies cannot just decide to set up a route as airlines do. IMO Rail is more regulated than Air.

[LuganoPirate]

It’s a good point you raise Trust747, and while I appreciate Tete’s point the withdrawing of a franchise after 10 years is scant compensation if your late or cancelled train caused you to miss a plane.

Maybe a compensation scheme for all modes of transport should be considered?

As a by the way. I went to Lausanne from Lugano today. Fresh croissant and hot tea on the 5am train. Two changes each way, everything bang on time, 800 kms total travelled and all for £75 return in First!

[Trust747]

Tete_du_ cuvee, I’m not sure your argument applies to Eurostar which can choose to operate outside its established route network. Nor does it apply to many rail operations outside the UK.

Non-franchised commercial rail operations are possible (in the UK particularly) if the operator is willing to take the same commercial risk as airlines instead of relying on public funding to subsidise their operating efficiency / inefficiencies. Look to operators like Grand Central Railways .

Your argument doesn’t translate to ferry operators who can choose where to operate…on a commercial basis.

It doesn’t translate to coach operators (domestic and international) can choose where to operate…on a commercial basis. Poland-UK is operated by many coach operators on a commercial basis competing with the like of Ryanair, easyJet and WizzAir.

Its undeniable that airlines are more greatly regulated in terms of passenger compensation, which is the subject of your initial post, than any other other form of ‘competing’ transport and the effect of a service failure is just as great in other modes as it is in aviation.

LuganoPirate had a positive experience on his Swiss train journey but do you know what EU defined compensation he would have got if his journey was the last service of the day and it had been cancelled resulting in him missing an important appointment? It certainly wouldn’t have been EUR 250+ (Incidentally, I appreciate that Swiss domestic rail is not regulated by EU but it is nevertheless a good example)

I maintain that airlines, especially in Europe, are excessively and unfairly regulated versus other transport modes and the balance must be redressed before any further restraint is placed on aviation. Otherwise, it will only lead to higher fares, greater consolidation and diminishing choice.

[capetonianm]

I have just assisted a friend with a claim for a one week (yes, one week!) delay. Their BA flight was cancelled for technical reasons and the national carrier was unable to provide an alternative, this was from the Caribbean, for a week. They had to fight every inch of the way for hotel and meal expenses, on top of the standard EU compensation of a miserable €600 and they tried to claim additionally for consequential expenses including loss of earnings. In my explanation to them as to why the airline would not entertain consequential expenses, I explained :

To use an analogy, if someone had their car serviced at a dealer and it broke down later due to proven poor workmanship, the workshop might refund the cost of getting the driver and passenger to his place of work/residence, and even hotel expenses if a night stop were involved , but if he claimed, for example, that he had missed an appointment with a client as result of the breakdown and thus lost a contract worth £50,000, they wouldn’t pay the £50,000. This is the difficulty with consequential and unquantifiable expenses ………. however ……………if you make enough noise they will almost certainly offer you something more as a gesture of ‘goodwill’, probably an upgrade on a future flight or vouchers.

They did offer more …….. but not enough. And I think they should in a case where the delay is within their control. Also, the compensation should be incremental based on the length of the delay, rather than capped.

[AMcWhirter]

Hello capetonian

The point to make here is that at least some compensation was paid in line with EU passenger rights.

If a long delay had happened elsewhere in the world and/or had involved a non-EU or non-North American carrier then I wonder how well your friend would have fared ?

[Author]

Posts