Son bumped off overbooked flight.

[Dogwatch]

My son was due to fly from Manchester to Toronto this morning with Thomas Cook, he arrived at checkin two and a half hours before the flight to be told it was overbooked and it was unlikely he would fly today. This has proved to be the case, and he is re-booked for tomorrow. There were approximately 30 passengers over booked on this flight and a similar number for a Thomas Cook flight to Calgary. :=

Are Thomas Cook any worse than other airlines for this, my son had paid in full for his tickes more than a month before departure.... and does anybody have email details for the most senior person at TCX in order that a blunt letter of complaint be sent. :ugh:

[renfrew]

When my sister flew Glasgow/Toronto last month on Thos Cook the flight was overbooked and they were looking for volunteers to offload.
My niece who travelled the next day reported that her flight was also overbooked.
It seems odd to overbook flights like these as there are unlikely to be many no-shows.
I hope the passenger received adequate compensation.

[SoulManBand]

It is true that there may not be many no-shows, but maybe they are counting on, or afraid of, people being bumped off due to no-fly lists.

[ExXB]

Dogwatch,
Under Regulation EC 261/2004 passengers who are denied boarding are entitled to two things:

Care - meals/drinks/hotel accommodation in relation to the delay. If he has kept his receipts for any/all of the above he should claim for this. Even if he doesn't have receipts he should claim - for reasonable amounts. Some airlines try and avoid paying at place of departure, arguing that the passenger could simply go home - but this is not considered in the Regulation - your son should not be out of pocket for the airline's failing.

Compensation - For a 'long-haul' journey this would be euro600. There is no 'extra-ordinary circumstance' exception for over sales. They are required to pay, no ifs, no ands, no buts.

The airline should have first sought volunteers, i.e. people who were prepared to give up their seat. What the deal is between the passenger and the airline is not fixed - it's whatever they can agree between the two parties. If TCX did not seek volunteers (and it sounds like they didn't) they are in breach of the Regulation. In the UK the NEB (National Enforcement Body) is the Airport Users Council (http://www.auc.org.uk/). This is to whom a complaint should be submitted. While your son won't get anything out of this, the AUC (part of the CAA) does have the power to fine the airline for breaching the regulation. However, faced with a threat, it is more likely they will apply the Regulation in the future.

Good luck, and keep us posted on what happens.

[MarkBHX]

Canadian Affair overbook, not Thomas Cook, the aircraft are fully chartered by C/A who do all the selling and the overbooking. Same with the Air Transat flights that are regularly overbooked so any compensation / care would be provided by C/A, not the airlines!

[Lotpax]

MarkBHX

You do not seem to understand the regulation.

It is the airline who is liable.

[Capetonian]

The airline's inventory system reports 'x' seats saleable to the distribution system or agent. 'x' will invariably include a percentage to allow for no-shows, misconnections, etc, although as someone else said the percentage should be pretty low on that type of flight.

The distribution system will book 'x' bums on 'x' seats. If 'x' was incorrect and resulted in bumping then it is the airline that is responsible.

The airline has systems or people to make the decisions regarding overbooking and mostly they get it right. Sometimes they get it wrong, and sometimes the number of seats changes due to circumstances unforeseen or beyond the control of the carrier, for example MTOW restrictions, a configuration change, having to accommodate passenger who misconnected from an earlier flight, and so on.

[oldlag53]

Anyone know if the budgets such as Ryanair and Easyjet overbook? Presumably their no-shows are considerably less than the industry average...

[Avman]

Oldlag53, I would imagine that since the fares are non-refundable they have no need to overbook. The seat is paid for whether the passenger turns up or not.

[WHBM]

Knowing Thomas Cook's business I would expect them to get maybe one or two no shows per flight, and quite often zero. To have 30 sounds like an aircraft type (or configuration) substitution.

I think some of the comments above are from those who are writing about mainstream scheduled services, where you can get a lot of no-shows (eg booked 75 over on a 747, still finally went out with a few empty seats). This is not that type of operation.

[MarkBHX]

TCX are a charter airline and so do not sell the seats or overbook, this is done by the tour operator, in this instance Canadian Affair. If you are talking about the TCX5K this was meant to be operated by a 757-200 with 187 seats, and if an aircraft change was done it would have been to a 757-200 with 235 seats, which have subbed in a number of times for the 187 seaters and so would have more than enough seats to carry everybody. If the aircraft had of been downgraded then of course TCX would have required volunteers for offload but that is not the case, Canadian Affair needed to offload as they had oversold. I have know C/A overbook the 187 seaters by 9 before so maybe 30 on a larger aircraft isn't so unbelievable! And as I said before, C/A would provide the compensation/welfare and rebooking, not TCX.

Mark

[Lotpax]

MarkBHX, for your information

From EU Reg 261/2004, applicable to passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of a Member State to which the EC Treaty applies.

Denied boarding
When an air carrier reasonably expects to deny boarding on a flight, it first calls for volunteers to surrender their reservations in exchange for certain benefits. If an insufficient number of volunteers come forward to allow the remaining passengers to board the flight, the air carrier may then deny boarding to passengers against their will, in which case it must compensate them.
Air carriers give priority to persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them.
In the event of flight cancellation or denied boarding, the passengers concerned have the right to:
reimbursement of the cost of the ticket within seven days or a return flight to the first point of departure or re-routing to their final destination;
care (refreshments, meals, hotel accommodation, transport between the airport and place of accommodation, two free telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails);
compensation totalling:- EUR 250 for all flights of 1500 kilometres or less;
- EUR 400 for all intra-Community flights of more than 1500 kilometres, and for all other flights between 1500 and 3500 kilometres;
- EUR 600 for all other flights.


As you can see, the regulation is not concerned with why the denied boarding happened, only with the process and compensation.

[Sygyzy]

Without wishing to labour this too much. Its the airline which eventually provides the seat. Ít's the airline to whom you complain at the ticket desk if they (illegitimately) deny you boarding. It's the airline to which the regulation applies. If, subsequently they find themselves out of pocket because their charterer overbooked the flight and they had to compensate passengers, then they will have to go after the charterer for recompense.

After all if the a/c went tech and the airline was forced to substitute a smaller a/c and couldn't carry the load that they had contracted to carry-it's the airline who will compensate you.:ok:

S

[Pohutu]

And for the pedants among us, the relevant definitions in the regulation are


For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) ‘air carrier’ means an air transport undertaking with a valid
operating licence;
(b) ‘operating air carrier’ means an air carrier that performs or
intends to perform a flight under a contract with a
passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural,having a contract with that passenger;


Thus confirming that it is the air carrier, not the tour operator / charter company which is liable.

[Sygyzy]

Now why didn't I find that :O

[ExXB]

Article II paragraphs 5 & 6: Where an operating air carrier which has no contract with the passenger performs obligations under this Regulation, it shall be regarded as doing so on behalf of the person having a contract with that passenger.
6. This Regulation shall not affect the rights of passengers under Directive 90/314/EEC. This Regulation shall not apply in cases where a package tour is cancelled for reasons other than cancellation of the flight.

and of course ... Article XII In cases where an operating air carrier pays compensation or meets the other obligations incumbent on it under this Regulation, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting its right to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable. In particular, this Regulation shall in no way restrict the operating air carrier's right to seek reimbursement from a tour operator or another person with whom the operating air carrier has a contract. Similarly, no provision of this Regulation may be interpreted as restricting the right of a tour operator or a third party, other than a passenger, with whom an operating air carrier has a contract, to seek reimbursement or compensation from the operating air carrier in accordance with applicable relevant laws.

Which basically says the airline applies the Regulation, but has the right to 'seek reimbursement' from the tour operator.

[Dogwatch]

Thank you to all above who have provided links to rules and regs etc, an update so far;

Canadian Affairs have now offered my son a complimentary return flight from Man to Toronto, but have specified a window when he can use it next year.
This is not acceptable, he is in the military and will be in a hot and sandy place that neither TCX or CA fly to.

My son is in touch with a fellow passenger who was also bumped off the flight, she has already received her cheque from CA for 600 Euros.

A rejection email and a copty of the above regs will be returned to CA.

[angels]

Onya Dogwatch.

Best of luck to your son. :ok:

[Capot]

Don't forget that if there is any shilly-shallying about paying the full amount due under the regulations the next stop is the Small Claims procedure, without wasting time on angry letters/emails etc.

The carrier must discharge its responsibilities within the shortest reasonable time which, when the reason for the payment is undisputable by the carrier as this case is, is a matter of days rather than weeks.

[Lotpax]

Dogwatch

As ExxB said in an ealier post, the legislation gives no extraordinary reason why compensation is not due.

Therefore you son should write to TCX, who should have paid 600€ within 7 days and tell them to pay by return or it is the County Court (small claims.)

Then he can negotiate with Canadian Affair on their 'goodwill gesture' of free flights and seek a window that works for him.

The tour operator offering a 'ex gratia' accomodation does not release the carrier from paying the statutory compensation.

Good luck to your son and much respect to him for being in the 'thin red line.'

[fincastle84]

It's so good to see Pprune being used in such an efficient & friendly way to give assistance to someone who has been stuffed by an airline (well nearly!)
Hope that Dogwatch's son soon receives his due compensation.:ok:

[Dont Hang Up]

AVMAN
I would imagine that since the fares are non-refundable they have no need to overbook. The seat is paid for whether the passenger turns up or not.


In theory yes. But with low cost tickets booked way ahead, there will usually be a fair percentage of no shows. Business travelers in particular often find it cheaper to book multiple low-cost non-refundable tickets than buy a flexible ticket with a major carrier.

And the temptation of low-cost carriers to get that bit of extra income on those empty-but-paid-for seats is just too much to resist.:rolleyes:

[BEagle]

Business travelers in particular often find it cheaper to book multiple low-cost non-refundable tickets than buy a flexible ticket with a major carrier.

Used to happen quite a lot on buzz - the acceptable face of LoCo flying - between STN and FRA. That's the real Frankfurt, not some ex-USAF base hours away in the Moselle.

A great little airline, before the wooden-headed, wooden-footed people at KLM sold it to the odious O'Leary.

[Dogwatch]

My son received an email from Canadian Affairs as follows:



Dear Mr .........


You are indeed entitled to EC 261/2004 but only now that you have made reference to them and requested it. They do state that it is only when referred to that you should be entitled. As you have made reference to and directly requested compensation in line with said regulations I have cancelled your free flight offer.

As full and final compensation you have been awarded €600 which equates to £480; this has been refunded to you via your original method of payment which will take no longer than 10 days to process.


Regards

____________________________________________________________ _____

It is interesting that they state you have to mention the relevent legisalation in order to receive financial compensation.

[ExXB]

Dogwatch,

That is not the case. The Regulation requires the airline to provide all affected passengers with a copy of their rights at the time the situation occurs. The regulation sets out a number of things the airline must do when a situation occurs and, in the case of denied boarding, that doesn't mean waiting until the customer formally complains and mentions the magic phrase.

Can I suggest that you forward the exchange of e-mails to the AUC (I provided the link in a previous post). This airline has breached the regulation in a number of ways and they should, at least, have their knuckles wrapped by the UK NEB!

Nothing in it for you to do so, but it may help the next passenger who finds themselves in a similar situation, and doesn't know the magic phrase.

[VS-LHRCSA]

I've been reading this thread with interest but I am a bit confused.

If the airline, Thomas Cook, is the entity that is required to pay the compensation, how come it (the compensation) and other service recovery attempts came from the tour operator, Canadian Affair? Or is Canadian Affair an airline, similar to how Travel City Direct was an airline?

This business about having to specifically ask for EU compensation also sounds quite odd. I used to work in customer relations at BA and never heard of such a thing however, I'm no expert on the subject.

[PAXboy]

BEagleA great little airline, before the wooden-headed, wooden-footed people at KLM sold it to the odious O'Leary.
Indeed, as well as being very nice when it was Air UK, before it was sold to the wooden tops ....! :rolleyes:

I recall using Air UK once to AMS (I think) and reading the in-flight rag. The MD was boasting about how much money they were making and how brilliant they were. I recall thinking, "He's looking to get bought up." and indeed he was!

[bizdev]

Hmmm I can't let that one go by. I used to work at Stansted and used Air UK to fly on business - in the end I had to stop using them, I would rather drive to one of the other London Airports rather than risk being late for a meeting or not turning up at all. They were just too un-reliable.

You can say what you like about the current Lo Cost carriers, but I use them a lot for both business and pleasure and they put the old Air UK to shame. Good riddence I say.

[L4key]

Well done Dogwatch! Question for the panel...

I am due to fly MAN - YYZ with Canadian Affair/Transat/Thomas Cook in a months time, we booked through Transat...

Does that mean we may be more likely to be bumped off than if we'd booked through say TC? I know it's too late now but my wife reckons we should get to check in 3 hrs in advance not the usual 2 - will that even make any difference?

Will anything we do make any difference or is it luck of the gods?

I know it's unlikely but it does seem to be a regular occurrence with this service :uhoh:

[ExXB]

L4key;
From Dogwatch's original post: My son was due to fly from Manchester to Toronto this morning with Thomas Cook, he arrived at checkin two and a half hours before the flight to be told it was overbooked and it was unlikely he would fly today.If you have a similar situation obviously 3 hours will be better than two, but ...

If you are worried, get yourself a copy of 261 and carry it with you.

Good luck!

[Lotpax]

Dogwatch

1 - 600€ is £495 - see Currency Converter | OANDA (http://www.oanda.com/currency/converter/) very naughty to try to stiff you on the FX rate

2 - Cash the cheque, write a letter thanking the tour operator for their kind service recovery gesture, which you accept without prejudice to your EU rights and then go after TCX for the 600€ - an ex gratia payment from the tour operator does not cancel your son's rights :}:}:}:}:}

[pappabagge]

"For the purposes of this Regulation:
(a) ‘air carrier’ means an air transport undertaking with a valid
operating licence;
(b) ‘operating air carrier’ means an air carrier that performs or
intends to perform a flight under a contract with a
passenger or on behalf of another person, legal or natural,having a contract with that passenger"
For the record the "legal" entity in the last sentence refers in this case to the commercially and contractually responsible legal entity whose capacity has been / is oversold. The onus is on the "selling" entity, air carrier or otherwise, to maintain and manage the reservation capacity supply against demand (called, unsurprisingly, Revenue Management).

For as long as the actual Air Carrier fulfills their contractual obligation towards their principal there is no problem. Seldom does a (Charter) Air Carrier have the possibility to adjust physical capacity in an upwards direction, which is all well and good; however aircraft substitutions of an equal or lower physical capacity do on occasion occur, and in the latter case are covered by the terms of the Charter Contract with the Principal (read: Legal Entity).

Although it is the Air Carrier that might have to take the first blow from, as in this case, customers who have been denied boarding, they will in turn refer the matter to their Principal, who is responsible for managing all and any claims against the Contract of Transportation against which the travel arrangements have been sold.

It is not uncommon for customers to have take out, or automatically have insurance against this kind of unfortunate event.

It's never fun to be subjected to Denied Boarding and no amount of compensation in the world will at that moment be considered as "fair and reasonable" when watching the aircraft pushing back from the Gate.

All the best,

PB

(former 10-year veteran Customer Relations Manager, for a major Flag Carrier with a large cross on the aircraft tailfins that went bust in 2001)

[Lotpax]

pappabagge

I don't know if I am misreading your post, but the pax should not need to speak with the tour operator in this instance.

If the tour operator (A), who is the principal, oversells the flight, then the operating air carrier (B) must apply the denied boarding rules and pay the compensation to the passenger within 7 days.

B then has a claim on A to recover their outlay, but the passenger is out of the loop.

Post 15 explains.