The Independent " Complaints to airlines rocket after new EU rules"

[PAXboy]

The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article1188869.ece) By Barrie Clement, Transport Editor Published: 21 July 2006

The number of complaints from passengers about airlines has trebled, according to an official watchdog.

Complaints about cancellations increased sixfold, and those about delays five-fold, the Air Transport Users Council (AUC) said yesterday, adding that it had given the names of the 10 worst-offending airlines to the Civil Aviation Authority.

In total, there were almost three times as many written complaints in 2005-06 than the previous year. The AUC said the surge in the number of people contacting its staff followed the introduction on 17 February last year of new passengers' rights under European regulations.
SNIP

Cancellations 1,983 complaints, up 567% on last year
Delays 1,969, +352%
Mishandled bags 458, +42%
Overbooking 287, +202%
Ticketing issues 285, +46%
Reservations 211, +45%
Schedule changes 118, +12%
SNIPPED MANY MORE EXAMPLES
TOTAL: 6,094 ,+176%

Is it, I wonder, a case that - if you provide a shiny new way to complain, people will complain more, OR was it really so bad all along but no one knew where to complain? Perhaps the total looks big now, only because complaints have been put together in one place??

[10secondsurvey]

I think the increase is also a sign of the way in which airlines are currently behaving poorly, and failing to deliver on service levels. I cannot think of many other service industries where all the rules and terms and conditions are so heavily stacked in favour of the service provider.

From my opinion as SLF, these rules are a step forward and have made it clear to the industry that passengers are quite rightly entitled to compensation where delays/cancellations occurred. I have seen a lot of spin coming from airlines (especially budget ones) saying this will impact fares. It hasn't and it won't.

[bradfordboy]

For the numbers of passengers carried the total complaints are unbelievably low.
Any increase in folk actually complaining I suspect is due more to anticipated compo rather than anything else.
Your right that the new Regulations haven't impacted fares. No reason really because nobody is paying out or getting paid out:) :)

[knobbygb]

because nobody is paying out or getting paid out

I assume there must be more compensation being paid out than before? More interesting than the figures above would be stats on how much actual compensation payouts have increased. This would surely be a better indicator of 'legitimate' complaints rather than simply a pointer that lots of people will do anything these days to try for a bit of 'compo' as Bradfordboy rightly points out.

Are people actually being compensated? How much? How long does it take? What percentage of complaints are 'upheld'?

[Capt Pit Bull]

From my opinion as SLF, these rules are a step forward and have made it clear to the industry that passengers are quite rightly entitled to compensation where delays/cancellations occurred. I have seen a lot of spin coming from airlines (especially budget ones) saying this will impact fares. It hasn't and it won't.

Its more the otherway round. SLF have voted with their feet, resulting in staff cutting, turn around time cutting, spare capacity cutting. Surprise surprise, quality of service has suffered. This is not a case of it being easier to complain / financial reward for complaining (although these are certainly factors), the reality is that the industry has been driven down market and SLF genuinely are getting a worse product.

pb

[10secondsurvey]

Cap pit bull,

Crap hotels do not blame the guests for their inability to deliver good service, yet that is a very competitive industry where people do 'vote with their feet'. Airlines, however, continually pump out the spin (a polite name for bullsh*t) that poor service is all the fault of their paying customers.

I cannot think of any other competitive service industry aside from aviation where this is the case. The notion that shoddy service from an airline is all the fault of passengers is bizarre to say the least. It is also a very convenient excuse.

Airlines are in business to make money, and that's all. What airlines have to say on the new EU compensation laws is merely self serving tosh. These types of regulations are drawn up to protect the travelling public from unscrupulous operators, and also to act as a 'stick' to force airlines to raise their game (and we all want that don't we?).

As a frequent flyer, I have suffered from p*ss poor service on occasions from several airlines, and I heartily welcome anything that forces them to improve service delivery.

It is inevitable that some people will 'try it on', as they would with anything they do, but this should not mean legitimate claims under the new laws should not be paid. I do not think the bulk of the complaints highlighted are due to people 'trying it on'.

Maybe it's time for airlines to stop whining about how unfair it all is, and get on with improving their standards, then they wouldn't have to pay compensation to anyone, ever, regardless of the laws!

I'm speaking purely as SLF.

[Capt Pit Bull]

I never mentioned the word "blame".

The simple fact is that people are getting what the majority want - the cheapest possible ticket price, with nothing else being a factor.

That leaves a proportion of people that would like a good service that are unable to get it.

I disagree with your service industry assertion. I think this situation is all over the marketplace - e.g. the retail sector. Local businesses that provided a good quality service to people they knew individually forced out of business by the economics of trying to compete with the big chains. The results are certainly cheaper for the customer - but better? No way.

These types of regulations are drawn up to protect the travelling public from unscrupulous operators, and also to act as a 'stick' to force airlines to raise their game (and we all want that don't we?).


You want it. I want it. But the majority don't.

pb

[slim_slag]

The simple fact is that people are getting what the majority want - the cheapest possible ticket price, with nothing else being a factor.
That leaves a proportion of people that would like a good service that are unable to get it.Depends what you mean by 'good service'. Look at the actual complaint data (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?categoryid=306&pagetype=90&pageid=4037) and you will see over 50% of the complaints are about Cancellations and Delays so one might argue this is what matters to the punters. The loco airlines have far better cancellation/delay statistics than the legacy airlines. Not only are the no-frills giving people what they want cost wise, they are giving people what they want on reliability of service. 25 out of 1600 complaints are about in flight service, that's 1.5%, hardly worth bothering about. The new upstart airlines are giving the punters exactly what they want in more ways then just cost, and must be laughing themselves silly watching the legacy airlines overshoot on their stampede to the bottom.

It's also disgraceful that the AUC have only given the names of the biggest offenders to the CAA and not the travelling public, which suggest the biggest offender is UK regulated, as we all know who the CAA really works for :)

[10secondsurvey]

Standards of service are not just about 'inflight' service, they encompass all aspects of the paying customer experience whether it be delays or cancellations or the coffee being too cold, or the airline agent in Mumbai unable to understand what they say. The 1.5% you cite ,slim slag may be irrelevant, but the rest isn't. The problem is that too many people like to imply that airlines as a service industry are a special case, where people are only looking for cheap, and that is simply not true.

Invariably in a service industry, clients are looking for value for money, a completely different proposition to 'cheapest price'. The problem is that to some people value for money means the cheapest dirtiest ticket available, to others it means having pleasant staff who treat you with courtesy and respect, whereas to others it means lounge access, meals, comfy seats etc.. All of these different types of groups want their own 'needs' met, but at the cheapest possible price. They all want VALUE FOR MONEY. I do not regard paying 300 quid for a return ticket from Luton to Edinburgh with Easyjet to be value for money, but if it was ten quid, then I would think it was.

That is the problem, ask anyone about flights and they will say they want it cheap, but to each of those people, their service expectations differ. It does not mean they want sh*t service.

As regards budget airline punctuality part of that is due to these airlines flying to less busy airports for much of their network, and not allowing for passengers interlining (i.e point to point only with no baggage transfers). Comparing these figures with the likes of BA/AA is like comparing chalk to cheese.

[striparella]

I think it has a lot to do with these new rules being highly publicised so pax are more knowledgable and in a better position to complain.

But in addition to being more knowledgable, a vast number of pax i come across who think they are entitled to compensation in fact aren't because they haven't actually read the literature and listened to word of mouth or just assumed that they will be compensated for every eventuality.

I've had passengers ask how they will be compensated for 90min delays or flight cancellations due to hurricanes or other acts of God, which aren't covered.

Luckily i work for an airline that does try to help passengers out no matter what the delay for the delay/cancellation. But i must say our compensation package was better BEFORE the new rules came in!

In some catergories it's catch 22 - eg baggage. Because more and more pax have complained about mis handled bags, airlines have stopped interlining bags on seperate tickets to the buck stops with the first airline.

And for the cynic in me, there must be a couple of pax who think they'll try their luck and get a claim for compensation when they have no ground to!!

[Final 3 Greens]

We also need to recognize that there is an upside to this regulation, from the pax perspective and by implication for the airlines.

That is that some of the airlines have complied and improved their service levels.

Lets take 2 personal examples to make this point

1 - pre regs, easyJet have a flight that is delayed for over 5 hours in Spain and take the easy (for them) option of cancelling and walking away (literally)

2 - post regs I am on an easyJet flight that has to return due bad Wx and we received HOTAC, £6 vouvher for breakfast and a special flight the next day

easyJets carriers conditions now reflect 2 as being SOP. Frankly, I didn't realise that, but now I do, I will use them quite happily, whereas before it was as a carrier of last resort.

That also means that I will happily pay a premium to use easyJet, since there is now much more confidence (and trust) than there was before. Given the choice between EZY and FR to a city where they compete, who do you think I would choose now? And I'd choose them ahead of BA and AZ too, if travelling on a point to point basis.

So although the total number of complaints have gone up, I wonder how many more satisfied customers will feel confident to travel more and also to spread the word around (as I am doing) about the good guys?